4 ms·
I teach university biochemistry. After eight or ten years, I began to feel that I was no longer a novice. “Move fast and break things” is a monument to an aber
by kickaha 3y ago
I teach university biochemistry. After eight or ten years, I began to feel that I was no longer a novice.
“Move fast and break things” is a monument to an aberrant culture of arrogance and dismissive impatience. Based on hypercompetitive greed. (That for a generation was funded by cheap money chasing itself around I search of a drain.)
It’s no coincidence that importing this culture to education produces experiences that are superficial and brittle. It’s difficult to think of a counterexample.
- cyclotron3k 3y ago"chasing itself around in search of a drain" - beautiful metaphor!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Zetice 3y agoGlass houses, my friend. Academia demands people spend their entire lives slowly crawling up a ladder while simultaneously threatening to kick them off that ladder for a large portion of that climb. Spend your life working towards tenure only to get denied and wash out after 15-20 years seems insane. a decade of your life to get past "novice" level for teaching something like CS to high school students is not something we should be pushing to replicate in other fields. Education is begging to be disrupted. Maybe this guy doesn't have all the answers, but pretending like what we have is good is a joke. He's on a better track than sitting in a classroom trying to get past "novice" during the most productive time of his life.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kickaha 3y ago>> “Move fast and break things” is a monument to an aberrant culture of arrogance and dismissive impatience. > Education is begging to be disrupted. I rest my case. Substantively, believe me, I agree with you. Culturally, though, you're proving my point.
- Zetice 3y agoI think you know better than to claim that anyone who disagrees with you "culturally" proves your point. My whole point is that the culture of academia is not something worth replicating, and indeed needs to be fundamentally... disrupted.
- afavour 3y agoYou're talking about different things. You are talking about the restrictive, punitive world of academia where you constantly have to please the powers that be in order to step up. OP was talking about their own feelings about their own abilities in their job. The parallel to software engineering feels correct to me, particularly if we're talking about working at a giant company like Google. No matter how good of a developer you are you still need to battle yearly reviews, stack ranking, peer review etc. etc in order to advance. But you can strip all that away and still recognize that after two years in the industry you're not that advanced as a developer. The crucial difference is that in the software engineering world you can take your misplaced confidence, strike out and try something. Worst case it'll fail and you move on. As a teacher with misplaced confidence you can strike our, try something and mess up the educations of children and parents who put their trust in you.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lifeonlars 3y agoStatistically, what are the odds that you're someone who actually understands enough about teaching and learning to be able to identify why education is 'broken' and successfully 'disrupt' it, as opposed to someone who just thinks they understand it but actually is suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome? If a guy in a dirty denim jacket comes to you outside the bus station and tells you he's Jesus, he absolutely might be Jesus. However assuming that he's not is a perfectly good heuristic.
- sdwr 3y agoA large part of that is that tools + procedures expand to fill the available space - if there are people willing to spend 20 years doing the same work, the work expands to fill 20 years of your life. It's more about the social landscape than the practical requirements.