| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSWhy? The decline of apprenticeships signals the erosion of an important form of knowledge transfer -- both technical and cultural. It also signals a loss of grassroots enablement and inventiveness. That in turn fuels an imbalance of power, favoring mass manufacturers versus the people. Instead of a society of enterprising individuals who invent solutions to their own problems, this power imbalance fosters an ignorance of the tools we have to innovate. The result is a mindset that knows only how to purchase prefabricated solutions off the shelf, such as from Ikea. If there is no off-the-shelf solution, we're more likely to accept it and move on. It's a more passive, complacent and frustrating way of life.
This conversation with Peter reminded me of a recent video interview I did with Garrett Brown, inventor of the Steadicam. He suggested that invention should be part of every job description. So I asked Garrett how we might make inventiveness ubiquitous. He replied: "[W]e teach kids to do all sorts of things, but we don't teach them to think about things in the inventive way -- and why don't we? It's something you should be alert for from earliest childhood. You should be conscious that when you do devise something, when you fill a gap, you have invented."
He added, "I'd love to see kids thinking in that way, and growing up to be adults that think in that way... that solve their own problems, and [make] stuff for themselves that they want... The process of doing it is absurdly easy... it's ridiculously easy to get a machine shop to build you a gizmo. You sketch it, they'll help you make it, you try it, and if it doesn't work, you make another. You can't imagine how much fun that is."
As a dad of a two toddlers in an imperfect world, I'm realizing that inventiveness must be nurtured as a core value throughout their upbringing. Traditional apprenticeships may not be part of it, but other forms of disciplined, committed mentoring must.Maybe we should bring back true apprenticeships.
21 people recommend this article.
RSS FEEDS
Downside is that companies can misuse the intern process, profiting from young enthusiastic help while avoiding to hire permanent or more experienced workers. I met a stagiaire working at a famous ad agency who had significant responsibilities on a web site project, direct client contact, her own phone and biz card, etc. She said that at the end of the project, the agency would find another young person to replace her, never actually hiring someone.
CDDs (limited work contracts of usually 3 months) are another way out for companies to avoid permanent hires. After 2 CDDs they are supposed to stop the contract or hire the person, but they can get around this by changing the job description to make it seem like a 'new' CDD. This helps them to avoid France's complex labor laws. I know people who are 'serial CDD'ers' but it's tough to plan for the future with this kind of job arrangement or qualify for apartments, loans, etc.
How can young people work that way, considering the cost of living in Paris, or to gain a sense of stability and dedication to their career? Sorry for the long posting but I hope these thoughts are welcome in the discussion.
Patricia
I'm not sure apprenticeships help solve this particular problem -- except perhaps in the sense that the Master/Apprentice relationship offers a possible structure for incentivizing invention and calculating and proffering rewards: i.e., inventive Apprentices help further the Master's career, so the Master is incented to cultivate that behavior by insuring that worthy Apprentices are taken care of. It's not the only way to manage this, however - and in today's crazed job market, with people plugging in and out of jobs in an atmosphere of upheaval and a general sense of 'Okay, who's my boss _today?_,' I wonder if this model is even attainable any more at the level of institutional culture. Certainly, very high-value individuals will always have the option of moving through business culture with an entourage of prospectively-very-high-value hands -- you see this all the time in executive ranks, on programming teams and elsewhere -- but that's not exactly the same thing.
To me, apprenticeship is more a solution for loss of institutional knowledge -- but again, in an atmosphere of constant upheaval, I'm not sure how these relationships can be maintained routinely.
I do disagree with the folks waving the flag of capitalism in the support of manufactured culture. The trouble with that vision -- at least as pertains to online media today -- is that you often can't buy or download what you need to stay in business and operate efficiently. That worked super-great in the climax ecosystem of print publishing, 15 years or so ago, where any yutz with a pile of yellow foolscap could go to Quad Graphics, pay a lot of money, and watch their scribbles turned into a glossy magazine. But it doesn't work at all in online, today, when every client shows up and says: show me something I've never seen before. Sadly, the usual response is some variation on the theme of: "Okay ... how about a microsite or a webinar?" Which is why ... y'know ... we need the innovation.
I don't know where Mr. Semmelhack was looking . . . but it looks like you both, somehow, "missed it" on this one.