4 ms·
A baker, landscaper, or small business owner doesn't need to do 10 years of additional education at specialize schools, not that they're less beneficial. The ch
by ctvo 4y ago
A baker, landscaper, or small business owner doesn't need to do 10 years of additional education at specialize schools, not that they're less beneficial. The charitable reading of the OP's comments would be that it's an inefficient use of society's resources to invest in the education of these folks only to have them leave their respective fields after a short amount of time.
The broader question is how do we change that? Is it worth squeezing an extra 1-2 hours a day of productivity from people to have them burn out in 5 years vs. a more steady 25 year career?
- ghaff 4y agoA ton of people, including many in technical or technical-adjacent roles, don't really directly use a lot of what they learned in school. Yes, learn how to learn, critical thinking, etc. But directly use what they learned in XYZ class? A lot less.
- sokoloff 4y agoMost of society's direct expenses in their education is in the K-12 phase, not in the undergrad or graduate schooling. A baker, landscaper, and a computer programmer all had very similar levels of direct educational investment. I don’t think the computer programmer has any different obligation back to society than any of the others.
- ctvo 4y ago> Most of society's direct expenses in their education is in the K-12 phase True that K-12 costs more, but public assistance in higher education is substantial [1]. From grants, subsidized loans to directed money into public universities, it's a sizable investment at the state and federal level. It'd be more efficient to take that money and invest it directly in vocational schools if we knew people would utilize it and then swap careers due to burn out. 1 - https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/10/two-decades-of-change-in-federal-and-state-higher-education-funding https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri... Edit: Updated reference to 2019 version.
- BlargMcLarg 4y agoSo there are a few problems. For one, that extra education? It often isn't seen as part of one's career. But for any course worth its salt, those years are still draining. It's a minor point, but also an overlooked one. Second, there's the mismatch problem. Outside STEM, loads of people aren't getting jobs in their fields. Inside STEM (mostly tech, really), most people are getting tech jobs completely different from what they learned in school. Often uninteresting and/or boggled with politics and bureaucracy (read: majority of them are CRUD webdev jobs trying to appease corporate's whims). Third, the job market is ravenous. Absolutely ravenous. Anyone not solidly mid career is discriminated against to some degree. Too old? Have fun being seen as a liability despite your experience. Too young? Here's a set of requirements you wouldn't learn in most corporations, schools won't teach you and somehow you're magically supposed to get this experienced in a corporate setting, noted as "requirements". Oh, and you better cite the company's values by heart and claim it's your dream job, even if their product is yet another luxury / minimal improvement driven to make profits, as there are 20 others lined up. The whole burnout thing already starts before you enter your first job.
- justinhj 4y agoI love the use of the word boggled here. As an idiot when it comes to office politics I can relate
- linuxftw 4y agoPeople save money doing a job they hate to one day start a business they don't hate all the time. The key part of this story is 'raising capital.' Most people joining the tech industry today aren't doing it because they're particularly good at it, or they want to. It's the best way to raise capital to do something else.