Look into upper management. Plenty of zeros there
"Do you sell executive herring, ma-am?"
"What's executive herring?"
"It is headless fatty fish..."
That reminds me of a story one of the fellows at work told me about some years ago.
John (which was his name) was majoring in History, so he also took some related Social Science classes. I believe it was in a Social Anthropology class that he had a Professor that had developed some theories that he liked to present to the Students in order to amaze and impress them with his keen insight into the human psyche.
One morning he was relating that prehistoric hunter-gathering societies had assumed that by eating certain parts of an animal that they would, as a result, obtain certain powers from the animal. He maintained that the liver was such an organ, that must have been considered by the superstitious cave dwellers as being extremely powerful and able to conferred strength, health and a variety of other desirable attributes when eaten. The liver was evidently the first organ of the slain animal that was consumed, probably with great reverence and perhaps accompanied with some sort of primitive ceremony.
At that time, he asked if there were any students in the class that hunted. My friend raised his hand and the Professor asked him what part of an animal, say...a deer, that he or his family ate first.
My friend told him, that they always ate the liver first, at which time the Professor's face assumed a rather smug look as he explained to the class that these superstitions and atavistic beliefs are often carried into the modern era in a subliminal sense, usually without any question as to why one does things in a certain way.
Turning to my friend, he asked in a rather patronizing and sarcastic manner; "Do you have any idea why you, or your family, always eats the liver first? Have you ever questioned it at all?"
My friend John replied that he had never questioned it, as everyone knows that the liver is the first organ to spoil on a deer if left for any length of time, and besides, no hunter in their right mind would think of letting good meat go to waste!
John mentioned that the expression on the Professor's face upon hearing that seemed to change, as did his coloration.
I inferred that perhaps the good Doctor had been neglecting his diet, they say liver is good for the blood.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Let me disagree. It can be taught, it was taught, and it happens when students learn to solve problems concentrating on learning to find own, non-standard solutions to problems. But when they are taught to select right answers from presented multiple choices they don't learn to think and to create.
I think we're saying the same thing here. If you're learning to be a chef, you always start out with the basics of knowing how eggs, milk, sugar, flour, etc work independently and with each other. Indeed we can 'teach' certain recipes for success and 'teach' the processes by which failures of those recipes can be deduced and corrected.
But beyond that, striking out to craft new recipes and to evaluate the outcomes is something that simply cannot happen in the classroom. It's an evolutionary process by which one hopefully has opportunities to try new things and exploit the successes. This happens long after you've left the classroom. Further, it takes a mind set on the part of the practitioner that gives them the curiosity, interest and drive to exploit opportunities.
I used to work in a sea of fellow engineers with degrees . . . the majority of which were deprived of interest, drive, curiosity, opportunity or some combination thereof. They all produced value that justified their salary. But while they were advancing their skills based on new stuff handed down from above, I and a few dozen others were exploring and discovering those new technologies.
My job was exciting, their jobs scared me @#$#less.
My first piece of advice to a new-hire while giving them a tour of the square-mile campus was, "If you don't have a five year goal, set it. If at three years you're not obviously on track to that goal, come talk to me or Dr. Johnson. We'll find out why that's not happening and do what we can to help. Let's have lunch every few months and talk about where you're at. Further, there's a 50/50 probability that what you want to do cannot be achieved here. If that's the case, we'll do what we can to help you move on should that be your choice. But success is a process of identifying and seizing upon opportunities not yet revealed. If you DO NOT start your career with that kind of game plan, your prospects are no better (but certainly no worse) than most of the folks you see sitting at all those desks."
It's a sure bet that if any of those young bucks I took on the tour are still there in 20 years, they're going to be sitting at one of those desks doing a narrow range of activities very well.
That's what I mean with my assertion that the track to creative careers cannot be taught; cannot be assured by any academic activity. The recipe for success takes a carefully tailored ratio of many ingredients not the least of which are personal to the individual. I can demonstrate. I can recount the histories of Kelly Johnson, Bill Lear, Duane Wallace, etc. But unlike delivering and testing for a good understanding of current flow, reactance, ground loops, etc, you cannot teach success . . . only open doors.
I think we're saying the same thing here. If you're learning to be a chef, you always start out with the basics of knowing how eggs, milk, sugar, flour, etc work independently and with each other. Indeed we can 'teach' certain recipes for success and 'teach' the processes by which failures of those recipes can be deduced and corrected.
But beyond that, striking out to craft new recipes and to evaluate the outcomes is something that simply cannot happen in the classroom. It's an evolutionary process by which one hopefully has opportunities to try new things and exploit the successes. This happens long after you've left the classroom. Further, it takes a mind set on the part of the practitioner that gives them the curiosity, interest and drive to exploit opportunities.
I used to work in a sea of fellow engineers with degrees . . . the majority of which were deprived of interest, drive, curiosity, opportunity or some combination thereof. They all produced value that justified their salary. But while they were advancing their skills based on new stuff handed down from above, I and a few dozen others were exploring and discovering those new technologies.
My job was exciting, their jobs scared me @#$#less.
My first piece of advice to a new-hire while giving them a tour of the square-mile campus was, "If you don't have a five year goal, set it. If at three years you're not obviously on track to that goal, come talk to me or Dr. Johnson. We'll find out why that's not happening and do what we can to help. Let's have lunch every few months and talk about where you're at. Further, there's a 50/50 probability that what you want to do cannot be achieved here. If that's the case, we'll do what we can to help you move on should that be your choice. But success is a process of identifying and seizing upon opportunities not yet revealed. If you DO NOT start your career with that kind of game plan, your prospects are no better (but certainly no worse) than most of the folks you see sitting at all those desks."
It's a sure bet that if any of those young bucks I took on the tour are still there in 20 years, they're going to be sitting at one of those desks doing a narrow range of activities very well.
That's what I mean with my assertion that the track to creative careers cannot be taught; cannot be assured by any academic activity. The recipe for success takes a carefully tailored ratio of many ingredients not the least of which are personal to the individual. I can demonstrate. I can recount the histories of Kelly Johnson, Bill Lear, Duane Wallace, etc. But unlike delivering and testing for a good understanding of current flow, reactance, ground loops, etc, you cannot teach success . . . only open doors.
Wavebourn - Those who think for themselves are the smart ones, the ones who just know how to follow instructions are....the rest. I have a non democratic way of thinking - I don't believe everyone has the same chances. Just make an average person choose: he/she would choose to follow the given path - less hassle, no headaches, if something goes wrong there's always somebody else to blame. Nothing to do with the educational system, just tell me a school where they teach you to be what you're not. Sure, textbooks are mainly written by idiots but what can you expect? It is a very boring job to do and they don't pay much for doing it. Maybe what drives them is a genuine love for humanity and don't care about the money; I say, better leave humanity alone rather than bore them to death. I haven't read a good textbook in all my life. They make all things look uninteresting. People who have interesting things to say don't write textbooks.
Nothing to do with the educational system, just tell me a school where they teach you to be what you're not. Sure, textbooks are mainly written by idiots but what can you expect? It is a very boring job to do and they don't pay much for doing it. Maybe what drives them is a genuine love for humanity and don't care about the money; I say, better leave humanity alone rather than bore them to death. I haven't read a good textbook in all my life. They make all things look uninteresting. People who have interesting things to say don't write textbooks.
By Richard Feynman, Robert Leighton, and Matthew Sands. That's three, one talked and the others wrote it? I know nothing about that book so forgive my ignorance. Anyway, that's not what I would call a textbook. My guess is that Feynman was the interesting guy and the other two were the ones who did the boring job. Just a guess.
I had a High School history teacher that emphasized that recognition of a similar mantra was one of the chief benefits of a good history education, so that you yourself might benefit by being able to recognize a similar situation as it evolved around you.
The beauty of history, of course, is there are so many examples, some subtle, some not so much (Spanish Inquisition, anyone?). The more subtle examples you could recognize from studying history, the better you would be at seeing them as you lived through them; he also liked to show that they start small so you must look around you.
Last edited:
Exception proves the rule.
It would be fare to say, that if you do not get the very substance of the subject to be learned pretty fast - no entertainer delivering the lectures could change one's "I am bored" state of mind. Or people would attend the course the way the good standing show - kinda of good sport...
In my experience about 3% of the students make their living using the profession by diploma...
Last edited:
I had the same math professor for 5 calculus and differential equation classes. He was a software engineer by day and taught math at night. He always wanted real engineering problems to demonstrate math with. We modelled the motion of a car on the dragstrip as the clutch was dumped at 5000 RPM. Cool stuff, but........never ask a calculus geek if a jet airplane sucks or blows its way across the sky, unless you want to see 3 blackboards full of pressure differential equations!
When Oliver Heaviside was bored by his work of telegraphist he developed theory of Long Lines. And when he read Maxwell's book and he was bored by 20 equations with 20 variables he simplified them to 4 equations with 2 variables. Also, he developed his own method of solving of differential equations. Again, because he was bored to do all "By Instructions"
"I haven't read a good textbook in all my life."
I took a whack at it. Self published it too. You're welcome to get your own copy at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC12A_PDF.zip
Constructive criticism welcome.
I took a whack at it. Self published it too. You're welcome to get your own copy at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC12A_PDF.zip
Constructive criticism welcome.
Calculus -- in the first quarter that I took it I got a D, but raised it to B by the end of the semester (reason for belief in God). 2nd semester got an A.
Universities should be abolished. The president of Rutgers recently announced his retirement. He got $350k/annum for 10 years. His deal with the University is to go back and teach history -- only pube in the ointment is that his contract specifies is that he's gonna be paid the highest of any other faculty member (ex the football coach) so will net $320k/annum for teaching a symposium.
Oh, Ohio State should fire the AD and all the football players. Who in this goddang'd country would pay some guy with 200 SAT's a couple hundred bucks for some stinky trow?
Universities should be abolished. The president of Rutgers recently announced his retirement. He got $350k/annum for 10 years. His deal with the University is to go back and teach history -- only pube in the ointment is that his contract specifies is that he's gonna be paid the highest of any other faculty member (ex the football coach) so will net $320k/annum for teaching a symposium.
Oh, Ohio State should fire the AD and all the football players. Who in this goddang'd country would pay some guy with 200 SAT's a couple hundred bucks for some stinky trow?
Debating the Value of College in America : The New Yorker
You screwdriver jockeys take note: "students majoring in liberal-arts fields—sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities—do better on the C.L.A. (a test known as the Collegiate Learning Assessment), and show greater improvement, than students majoring in non-liberal-arts fields such as business, education and social work, communications, engineering and computer science, and health"
You screwdriver jockeys take note: "students majoring in liberal-arts fields—sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities—do better on the C.L.A. (a test known as the Collegiate Learning Assessment), and show greater improvement, than students majoring in non-liberal-arts fields such as business, education and social work, communications, engineering and computer science, and health"
Computer-related education suffered the most. Computer boom created demand of narrow-trained specialists to support what investors were making money from. It is one of main reasons why software development went abroad. But this virus hit as well foreign countries, so say Indian programmers are more and more trained in usage of existing Java libraries to build software by cut-n-paste method in CASE systems.
I do see it different way - it's plain cheaper to hire three copypasters vs. using "old school" professional. The result would still "work" somehow and somewhat...
I do see it different way - it's plain cheaper to hire three copypasters vs. using "old school" professional. The result would still "work" somehow and somewhat...
But is this not simply good business? As technical acumen 'filters down' the pyramid from theory, to development, to market debut and commodity status? Yes, folks doing jobs that could only be accomplished by the most educated a decade ago now have tools and talents to produce merchantable work-product. Only a tiny percentage of these individuals are likely to get sparks of inspiration and become creator and developers of their own new hypothesis. In the mean time, tasks that were once 'black magic' to most citizens can be off-loaded thus freeing up the most creative to broaden their own horizons. The effective teacher has to run to stay ahead of the students . . . or pass along knowledge at a pace that does not challenge the teacher.
It is fundamental component of recipes for success. Figure out ways to increase market share (more product) by offering to sell at a more competitive price (lower production costs). It's analogous to a 'teacher' being rewarded by seeing a 'student' run off leaving the teacher in the dust. I.e., a successful launching of another prosperous career.
But this does place demands upon those capable of more. They cannot relax for one moment. Upon completion of a new product launch, I've oft asked my customer, "Okay, how are you planning to obsolete this product?" After perhaps investment of years and $thousands$ I get this deer-in-the-headlights-look. No doubt most wonder if I'm trying to flog my cash-cow to new productivity. But the statement is easily explained, "If you don't obsolete your product, your competition will do if for you. Are you the one running out ahead . . . or playing catch-up?"
If I were to characterize much of what plagues formal education is that they're not even playing catch-up. The quality of their work product isn't even stable. It is in decline.
But is this not simply good business? As technical acumen 'filters down' the pyramid from theory, to development, to market debut and commodity status? Yes, folks doing jobs that could only be accomplished by the most educated a decade ago now have tools and talents to produce merchantable work-product. Only a tiny percentage of these individuals are likely to get sparks of inspiration and become creator and developers of their own new hypothesis. In the mean time, tasks that were once 'black magic' to most citizens can be off-loaded thus freeing up the most creative to broaden their own horizons. The effective teacher has to run to stay ahead of the students . . . or pass along knowledge at a pace that does not challenge the teacher.
It is fundamental component of recipes for success. Figure out ways to increase market share (more product) by offering to sell at a more competitive price (lower production costs). It's analogous to a 'teacher' being rewarded by seeing a 'student' run off leaving the teacher in the dust. I.e., a successful launching of another prosperous career.
But this does place demands upon those capable of more. They cannot relax for one moment. Upon completion of a new product launch, I've oft asked my customer, "Okay, how are you planning to obsolete this product?" After perhaps investment of years and $thousands$ I get this deer-in-the-headlights-look. No doubt most wonder if I'm trying to flog my cash-cow to new productivity. But the statement is easily explained, "If you don't obsolete your product, your competition will do if for you. Are you the one running out ahead . . . or playing catch-up?"
If I were to characterize much of what plagues formal education is that they're not even playing catch-up. The quality of their work product isn't even stable. It is in decline.
You mean you don't just take your punch cards down to the Computer Center so you can get your regression analysis the next morning?
Universities should be abolished. The president of Rutgers recently announced his retirement. He got $350k/annum for 10 years. His deal with the University is to go back and teach history -- only pube in the ointment is that his contract specifies is that he's gonna be paid the highest of any other faculty member (ex the football coach) so will net $320k/annum for teaching a symposium.
Don't know about 'abolished' but certainly a different business model. The most successful endeavors grow in a competitive, free-market exchange of value where there is a warranty. There are certain 'services' offered to us on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Universities, lawyers, doctors, and government come to mind at one end of the spectrum. Palm readers and credit repair services at the other.
A really great way to build stature is to pledge, "If the value you have received from me does not meet certain expectations, you get your money back." This is no different than walking into WallyWorld and buying a lawnmower. One thrives in this business environment by offering a high volume product with a profit margin that satisfies the stock holders. It must also deliver so well that warranty claims are a very small percentage of the gross.
When sellers of value build a warranty wall between themselves and the consumer, there is no way to judge the value of that product based on comparative studies by the consumer. Its a form of 'price fixing' that leaves the consumer no recourse short of lawsuit . . . and then it's exceedingly difficult and still more expense to present a case based on logical rules of evidence.
Walking onto a campus of nice old buildings staffed with thousands of individuals from greybeards down to student work-study assistance give one pause to wonder. As you sit down in a class after having forked over $1000 just to be there for the next semester, you have no way to predict that you're going to get your money's worth. The individual at the head of the class receives but a tiny fraction of the revenues generated by yourself and classmates. Where does the rest go . . . and how much is in direct support of the value you came there to purchase?
Now, suppose that professor received ALL the tuition but had to rent the classroom. He/she had to hang out a shingle and produce marketing materials that go to convincing you that their product was of good value. Upon seeing that the professor across town, offering the same course was charging less, he/she is free to decide to compete or stand-pat. Just a thought.
But I will assert that anything purchased outside the incentives of a free-market exchange of value is likely to be overpriced even to the point of being a gross rip-off . . . and warranty walls keep you from doing a darned thing about it.
Don't know about 'abolished' but certainly a different business model. The most successful endeavors grow in a competitive, free-market exchange of value where there is a warranty. There are certain 'services' offered to us on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Universities, lawyers, doctors, and government come to mind at one end of the spectrum. Palm readers and credit repair services at the other.
A really great way to build stature is to pledge, "If the value you have received from me does not meet certain expectations, you get your money back." This is no different than walking into WallyWorld and buying a lawnmower. One thrives in this business environment by offering a high volume product with a profit margin that satisfies the stock holders. It must also deliver so well that warranty claims are a very small percentage of the gross.
When sellers of value build a warranty wall between themselves and the consumer, there is no way to judge the value of that product based on comparative studies by the consumer. Its a form of 'price fixing' that leaves the consumer no recourse short of lawsuit . . . and then it's exceedingly difficult and still more expense to present a case based on logical rules of evidence.
Walking onto a campus of nice old buildings staffed with thousands of individuals from greybeards down to student work-study assistance give one pause to wonder. As you sit down in a class after having forked over $1000 just to be there for the next semester, you have no way to predict that you're going to get your money's worth. The individual at the head of the class receives but a tiny fraction of the revenues generated by yourself and classmates. Where does the rest go . . . and how much is in direct support of the value you came there to purchase?
Now, suppose that professor received ALL the tuition but had to rent the classroom. He/she had to hang out a shingle and produce marketing materials that go to convincing you that their product was of good value. Upon seeing that the professor across town, offering the same course was charging less, he/she is free to decide to compete or stand-pat. Just a thought.
But I will assert that anything purchased outside the incentives of a free-market exchange of value is likely to be overpriced even to the point of being a gross rip-off . . . and warranty walls keep you from doing a darned thing about it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.