By breaking down the old system. When an innovative competitor enters the field and grabs a large amount of "market share" by meeting the demands of the users (students, parents, etc..) then the education system will crumble.
Problem is - the education system is no longer about learning. It's about institutional recognition. Any innovation for learning will be dismissed unless it caters to institutional recognition.
> I'm flabbergasted at the argument that a business should pay a potential employee whatever they demand, because that person "needs work". It flies in the face of all logic.
He doesn't have to pay Google wage rates. He also doesn't have to wait it out for a bigger candidate pool so he can 'negotiate' lower baselines.
Business owner is using a turtle strategy. Opportunistic yes but also seeing people as numbers on a spreadsheet.
OP stated that he feels fear. Fear is a reasonable reaction when a Business Owner closes doors for conversation to wait out catching google 'talent' at a bargain.
Some people are in a situation where they need work now or very soon.
"launched in 2006 by New Zealander Michael Pratt and operated by Ruben Garcia and Matthew Wolfe. Filmed in homes, hotels and trailer parks"
"During the course of the civil trial, Pratt, Garcia and Wolfe were criminally indicted for sex trafficking, among other charges. Garcia and Wolfe are currently in federal custody. Pratt is a fugitive."
Disgusting criminal, manipulative behavior that harmed a lot of people.
What makes this different from the other solutions out there?
I'm very concerned about the "test." Coding tests are unprofessional IMO. They demand one sided value and reduce the candidate pool diversity to only those who are willing to tolerate unfair exchanges/relationships.
What I am gathering from this is that hiring as it should be involves removing the majority of human contact, test for skills, and blast into public digital channels.
There are so many other competitors out there that are actually innovating with DISCOVERY tools not TEST tools.
No, I learned how to manage my work load (potential and actual) from clients for my physical/mental health.
The motivation is what determines the actions.
I know a guy who founded a software company and started contracting work overseas. He became too confident and over-committed to clients without managing expectations. For a couple of months he looked terrible. Thankfully, he found an escape path and closed the company. He's now employed full time in a dev role.
> So, to 'grow mutually', we need to use ideas that never work or will take the project down a path of failure? This does not foster growth or success.
Not sure where you are getting that from... Sounds like you have a negative bias towards inexperience. A collaborative culture sees situations as opportunities to grow.
> I want the best ideas to win, if it's mine or from an inexperienced colleague.
That describes a competitive/market culture in the organizational theory of Robert Quinn and Kim Cameron.
> Teaching you the proper way is focusing on mutual growth, so you will be successful in future projects that might involve the same problem.
I disagree. Teacher -> student relationship is one way. What I want is peer <-> peer focused on exchanging knowledge.
Personally, I've experienced what you are suggesting. It didn't work for me and my sound perspective was often dismissed.
> So you don't want to be told what to do and you have no problem with a company ushering out more experienced developers and replacing them with ones that are cheaper and younger.
Wooahhh, what a strawman argument. 1: I want autonomy in an organization. 2. Never said any of that.
> While people are responsible for their behaviors and attitudes, I can't imagine if you were in the same situation you wouldn't be resentful. This is because you are young. In 15-20 years, I think your attitude and outlook on life will be much different.
Don't project yourself onto me. You don't know me well enough to make that assertion.
Overall, based on your comments I think you have a lot of negative biases from past experiences that you are projecting on an internet stranger. It's ok to have our differences. There is no 'silver bullet' culture. I've participated in a culture similar to what you are suggesting. I grew a lot and enjoyed learning from others. I've grown older and want a different environment that I think is best for my growth and QOL.
> What may sound like oppression many times is a desire to not go down a path to failure that I can see from a mile away, but someone with less experience may not even understand.
There's a cultural difference here. In a culture of collaboration that experience is simulated for the group to grow mutually. In the hierarchical culture it's the objective reasoning that is the focal point. The difference is motivation of growth vs money.
> I feel like if you don't run into someone who fits this motive, you won't even listen to what they have to say because you feel like you are being oppressed.
I never said I won't listen. I value people who focus on collaboration because I can trust they have a stake in our mutual growth. This is not a feeling rather a thought.
> You can thank companies that fire the people with experience and hire the youthful and cheap for this.
No, I credit the people who create the bias around them in everyday interactions. Bottom line is that present day moments are not made up of stereotypes. People are responsible for their behaviors and attitudes.
This hasn't been my experience at all as a young person. Really the old/young paradigm is a shallow mask of personality traits and their relative development.
As a young person I've encountered older individuals with the motive to
- Shape me into their image (duplicating the ego)
- Threatened by my existence (ego in survival mode)
- Oppress my voice and project what they think I should be (super-ego acting like a child)
- Attempt to take advantage of my 'youthful ignorance' (ego with neutral/evil alignment)
- Interact with me like an individual and genuinely place interest in the mutual growth (self)
I highly value people I run across who fit that last motive.
In a way, the applicant is still hired because of a degree rather than skill if that's what's used for initial filtering. Everything after that is derivative reasoning.
Problem is - the education system is no longer about learning. It's about institutional recognition. Any innovation for learning will be dismissed unless it caters to institutional recognition.