2 ms·

Interesting to compare with how the UK army approaches training. Simplifying somewhat, it has dedicated schools that do trade-training for specific categories o

Interesting to compare with how the UK army approaches training. Simplifying somewhat, it has dedicated schools that do trade-training for specific categories of soldiers (e.g. infantry, armour, artillery, etc). Soldiers go to these after basic training (how to be a generic soldier) when they have chosen their military specialisation. They then return as they go through career progression to do trade-specific professional development (e.g. going from tank driver, to gunner, to commander, etc). Crucially, as soldiers (non-commissioned) go up through their rank structure (corporal, sergeant, etc) they can take instructor courses back at the schools that qualify them to do on-the-job training back in their parent units (and which increase their pay). The best of these instructors may be invited to undergo additional training that qualifies them to become an instructor at one of the schools. So some responsibility for training is fundamentally baked in to career development.

marcosdumay 3y ago
As a rule, on the modern world we study too much on the beginning of our lives and too little after it. I don't think that model specifically can be adapted, but yes, it is a real problem and people should be thinking about ways to solve it.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I think a lot of it is that, in a modern world where we don't have kids out in the fields or milking the cows, we want something for them to do before sending them off to college (for which they need prep but probably not 12-13 years of it). And, on the other side, companies aren't really incentivized to do a lot of training of employees who will probably be gone in 3 years anyway. And the employees are often not really rewarded for doing training rather than their day job. The military example is probably instructive because that's a case where a long-term career in a given military is relatively common.
  - KineticLensman 3y ago
    > The military example is probably instructive because that's a case where a long-term career in a given military is relatively common. Figures from the last decade [0] show that half of all British Army recruits will have left after four-to-five years service, and only 23% make it to ten years. One reason (not the only one) for the military emphasis on training is they can't fully utilise their skills in peacetime, unlike most other professions. [0] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295004/PUBLIC_1395326448_answer_table.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Fair enough though I'm guessing those are still fairly high numbers compared to industry in general. People with over ten years are probably something of an outlier at most companies these days so 23% still seems like quite a few. >One reason (not the only one) for the military emphasis on training is they can't fully utilise their skills in peacetime, unlike most other professions. That makes sense. I attend conferences and the like which is training to some degree. But training in the sense of actual courses of some sort wouldn't be a lot of use to me at this point in general.

marcosdumay 3y ago

As a rule, on the modern world we study too much on the beginning of our lives and too little after it. I don't think that model specifically can be adapted, but yes, it is a real problem and people should be thinking about ways to solve it.

ghaff 3y ago
I think a lot of it is that, in a modern world where we don't have kids out in the fields or milking the cows, we want something for them to do before sending them off to college (for which they need prep but probably not 12-13 years of it). And, on the other side, companies aren't really incentivized to do a lot of training of employees who will probably be gone in 3 years anyway. And the employees are often not really rewarded for doing training rather than their day job. The military example is probably instructive because that's a case where a long-term career in a given military is relatively common.
- KineticLensman 3y ago
  > The military example is probably instructive because that's a case where a long-term career in a given military is relatively common. Figures from the last decade [0] show that half of all British Army recruits will have left after four-to-five years service, and only 23% make it to ten years. One reason (not the only one) for the military emphasis on training is they can't fully utilise their skills in peacetime, unlike most other professions. [0] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295004/PUBLIC_1395326448_answer_table.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Fair enough though I'm guessing those are still fairly high numbers compared to industry in general. People with over ten years are probably something of an outlier at most companies these days so 23% still seems like quite a few. >One reason (not the only one) for the military emphasis on training is they can't fully utilise their skills in peacetime, unlike most other professions. That makes sense. I attend conferences and the like which is training to some degree. But training in the sense of actual courses of some sort wouldn't be a lot of use to me at this point in general.