4 ms·

You make it sound like no one is responsible for setting the budget and determining that a decently paid IT staff is not worth it. It is malicious intent the w

You make it sound like no one is responsible for setting the budget and determining that a decently paid IT staff is not worth it. It is malicious intent the whole way down.

jedberg 5y ago
Is it worth it though? If a few teachers have their identity stolen, will that in any way hurt the school? I mean, it should hurt them, but it's unlikely that it will. The only people who might feel bad are the moral IT folk who created the problem.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I mean, is there really any risk of that anymore? Equifax had already seen to it that basically every adult in America's personal information is out there.
josephg 5y ago
I don’t think it’s malicious intent. Hanlon’s razor: never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. It’s simply that nobody at any level takes actual responsibility for outcomes. People at the bottom of the system (teachers, parents) can see problems but are usually disempowered and voiceless, and can’t fix them on their own. And people at the top are either ignorant of the real problems or lack real leadership and incentives to fix them. (Or they feel overburdened and overwhelmed). An old friend of mine teaches the first year CS curriculum at a local university. By all reports he’s phenomenally good at his job. He truly cares and his students adore him. But he’s making a fraction of the salary he could be making in industry. At some point he’s probably going to quit to do a job he’s not as good at, and doesn’t enjoy as much. Why is he paid many times less than he’s worth? Because the university wants to pay CS lecturers who teach 2000 students the same as they pay people who teach poetry to a class of 5. So my friend can’t get a competitive salary without entire departments revolting. Who’s fault is that? I don’t believe it’s malicious intent. It’s just a boring, systematic failure high up in the org chart leading to bland mediocrity. The only people who can do something about it don’t care about outcomes enough to fix the problem.
- Iefthandrule 5y ago
  > The only people who can do something about it don’t care about outcomes enough to fix the problem. In other words, malicious intent the whole way down. Though I'm sure it feels good to blame the faceless "bureaucracy" and leave it at that...that way no one has to take responsibility.
  - josephg 5y ago
    No, it doesn't feel good to blame a faceless bureaucracy. It makes me feel kind of powerless and awful. But I still think that description is more accurate. Its possible we're using different definitions though. Malicious intent sounds to me like "I am glad you are underpaid because I enjoy your misery". Or "You might be suffering but I don't care." I can count on one hand the number of people I've heard about in the workplace who are like that. On the other hand, go talk to people near the top of any medium-to-large org chart. You'll find a mountain of people who feel like they're overwhelmed by the minutia of the company's day to day concerns, and they don't have time to do strategic leadership. That they aren't meeting the demands their role is placing on them. Or they're failing the people below them in the org chart due to their own vague mediocrity. I don't think hating people in this position helps. Your scorn isn't going to magically make them better at their jobs. I see it as a symptom of our crappy organisation structures failing at larger sizes. We habitually centralize power into the hands of a few people. And then the people at the top of the org chart are overwhelmed by choice and indecision. And the people at the bottom are knowledgable but powerless, and are structurally forbidden from solving their own problems. (Or, sadly, people develop a learned helplessness about solving problems in the organisation at all.)
- passerby1 5y ago
  > Because the university wants to pay CS lecturers who teach 2000 students the same as they pay people who teach poetry to a class of 5. Maybe I'm wrong, but does University gain more profit from a class of 2000 students? If so, could it be the case that your friend does not sell himself at a market price for the teaching position? Probably there's another place which pays more for similar teaching. There's no blame at all, sometimes people like to sell their time mostly not for money, but for emotions, that's completely understandable.
gameswithgo 5y ago
americans don’t want to pay taxes, then americans complain about the quality of their infrastructure
- Iefthandrule 5y ago
  It's more about Americans not wanting to hold their elected officials accountable.

You make it sound like no one is responsible for setting the budget and determining that a decently paid IT staff is not worth it. It is malicious intent the whole way down.

jedberg 5y ago

Is it worth it though? If a few teachers have their identity stolen, will that in any way hurt the school? I mean, it should hurt them, but it's unlikely that it will. The only people who might feel bad are the moral IT folk who created the problem.

jjeaff 5y ago
I mean, is there really any risk of that anymore? Equifax had already seen to it that basically every adult in America's personal information is out there.

josephg 5y ago

I don’t think it’s malicious intent. Hanlon’s razor: never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. It’s simply that nobody at any level takes actual responsibility for outcomes. People at the bottom of the system (teachers, parents) can see problems but are usually disempowered and voiceless, and can’t fix them on their own. And people at the top are either ignorant of the real problems or lack real leadership and incentives to fix them. (Or they feel overburdened and overwhelmed). An old friend of mine teaches the first year CS curriculum at a local university. By all reports he’s phenomenally good at his job. He truly cares and his students adore him. But he’s making a fraction of the salary he could be making in industry. At some point he’s probably going to quit to do a job he’s not as good at, and doesn’t enjoy as much. Why is he paid many times less than he’s worth? Because the university wants to pay CS lecturers who teach 2000 students the same as they pay people who teach poetry to a class of 5. So my friend can’t get a competitive salary without entire departments revolting. Who’s fault is that? I don’t believe it’s malicious intent. It’s just a boring, systematic failure high up in the org chart leading to bland mediocrity. The only people who can do something about it don’t care about outcomes enough to fix the problem.

Iefthandrule 5y ago
> The only people who can do something about it don’t care about outcomes enough to fix the problem. In other words, malicious intent the whole way down. Though I'm sure it feels good to blame the faceless "bureaucracy" and leave it at that...that way no one has to take responsibility.
- josephg 5y ago
  No, it doesn't feel good to blame a faceless bureaucracy. It makes me feel kind of powerless and awful. But I still think that description is more accurate. Its possible we're using different definitions though. Malicious intent sounds to me like "I am glad you are underpaid because I enjoy your misery". Or "You might be suffering but I don't care." I can count on one hand the number of people I've heard about in the workplace who are like that. On the other hand, go talk to people near the top of any medium-to-large org chart. You'll find a mountain of people who feel like they're overwhelmed by the minutia of the company's day to day concerns, and they don't have time to do strategic leadership. That they aren't meeting the demands their role is placing on them. Or they're failing the people below them in the org chart due to their own vague mediocrity. I don't think hating people in this position helps. Your scorn isn't going to magically make them better at their jobs. I see it as a symptom of our crappy organisation structures failing at larger sizes. We habitually centralize power into the hands of a few people. And then the people at the top of the org chart are overwhelmed by choice and indecision. And the people at the bottom are knowledgable but powerless, and are structurally forbidden from solving their own problems. (Or, sadly, people develop a learned helplessness about solving problems in the organisation at all.)
passerby1 5y ago
> Because the university wants to pay CS lecturers who teach 2000 students the same as they pay people who teach poetry to a class of 5. Maybe I'm wrong, but does University gain more profit from a class of 2000 students? If so, could it be the case that your friend does not sell himself at a market price for the teaching position? Probably there's another place which pays more for similar teaching. There's no blame at all, sometimes people like to sell their time mostly not for money, but for emotions, that's completely understandable.

gameswithgo 5y ago

americans don’t want to pay taxes, then americans complain about the quality of their infrastructure

Iefthandrule 5y ago
It's more about Americans not wanting to hold their elected officials accountable.