|
I seems that it does not pay to be successful!
See here[^]
I like the quote:
To determine the fair value of a startup company, multiply the number of engineers by $250,000, add $250,000 for each engineer from IIT, and then subtract $500,000 for each MBA
|
|
|
|
|
On a coffee break so I haven't had time to read it properly, but saw one quote that made me shake my head "think outside the box", the box is there for a very good reason, what's in the box tends to work/cost less money. You only venture out of the box when whats in the box doesn't work!  in my view anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree completely.
Companies that innovate get ahead.
Companies that keep doing the same thing stagnate.
I have worked for a number of companies that have been at the top of their field. Because they are at the top there is nothing to challenge what they are doing so they keep doing what they are doing.
Meanwhile competitors change what they are doing and catch up or overtake.
As soon as you limit your thinking you are limiting what you can achieve.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
|
|
|
|
|
Well good point, in hardware design you tend to get the "clever" people who just change things for the sake and two years down the line when you get handed the smoking remains of the project, you look through it and go why on earth didn't they use a standard SPI bus but no, they "thought outside the box" and came up with a method that was so special.... bitter no! 
|
|
|
|
|
The thinking is always good, the doing not necessarily.
Recognising when it is best to stop after the thinking is the hard part.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
|
|
|
|
|
For every person innovating, there are a dozen people supporting them in a box. Having a box does not mean the end of innovation for the company. It just allows companies to track things better. The companies who refuse to redefine the box are the ones that have a hard time catching up, but everyone is in a box more or less. Some are just spacier than others.
|
|
|
|
|
I've just been reading an article by an English football coach who went into coaching in his teens and is now working abroad.
As you may or may not know, it doesn't really matter, English football is in a right state at the moment, the national team hasn't won anything for well over 50 years, and haven't come close for a great many years, the Under 21a and other junior teams have all failed miserably recently. It is a national disgrace that the papers are all over and the FA (those in charge of the game) keep doing reviews to work out what is going wrong. Everyone says the problem is too many foreigners in the English game. They are wrong.
This English coach got it spot on, in England lots of the coaches and managers get were given top jobs as soon as the finished playing, they did not study to become coaches, consequentially when they retire from playing in their 30s and start coaching they instantly start coaching using ideas and techniques that they themselves were taught 20 odd years ago. There is an obsession with the name and with the playing career so those young English coaches who have been studying all their careers have to leave England to find work.
English football is at least 20 years behind the rest of Europe at the moment because the coaching has stood still whilst everyone else has moved on.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with that assessment. Maradonna was a great player in his time who didn't know how to coach his team well in the last World Cup. Beware of the Germans!
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: Companies that innovate get ahead.
Companies that keep doing the
same thing stagnate.
Nope. Companies that sell get ahead. Companies that don't fold, regardless of how much "innovation" they throw at it.
|
|
|
|
|
As an aficionado of Doctor Who I would say that it pays to think INSIDE the box.
But then, it is a VERY BIG BOX.
(On the inside anyway).
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
|
|
|
|
|
Off topic, but I got the very first Doctor Who on DVD two questions to a whovian as yourself what happened to his daughter/nice and when did he move from the scrap yard!
|
|
|
|
|
It makes a point which I think gets to what is wrong with education in the UK and what is wrong with what recent governments have tried to do, are looking to do, to improve it.
In the UK education is focused on passing exams, on getting qualified, on learning and regurgitating in small chunks / short time spans.
Most of which is bugger all use after school, the only real benefit is that it is easy to quantify.
Schools do not have time or freedom to teach children useful things like teamwork, problem solving, lateral thinking, confidence, relationships, networking, leadership. And worst of all teachers no longer have the freedom to attempt to inspire children, to engage children.
Stick to the curriculum, get it learnt, get the qualifications, move on.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
|
|
|
|
|
Too true a friend of mine is an ICT teacher, they have to learn Word, Excel, Powerpoint(?),a little bit of Access, if I had to that I would not sitting where I am, he was asked to do two weeks of fun stuff before the holidays from what he said "<<face palm="">>out came the Raspberry PI's and I found what the kids had learned <>"
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: Schools do not have time or freedom to teach children useful things like
teamwork, problem solving, lateral thinking, confidence, relationships,
networking, leadership. And worst of all teachers no longer have the freedom to
attempt to inspire children, to engage children.
Lots of feel good words in there...so exactly, in terms of laid out lesson plans, does a teacher teach the average student to do all of those things?
Note that I am not asking for examples of individual teachers that seem to have done that but rather how an average teacher does it.
|
|
|
|
|
In principal an average teacher does it by being trained correctly and being supported by the school in general and the senior staff in particular to allow them to do two things;
0: Teach teamwork- how to work in a team effectively , when to think laterally, etc. etc.
1: Include those things taught in future lessons.
This needs to be a 'whole school; thing - and that is where it so often fails. A new, enthusiastic and ;good'; teacher joins a school and wants to teach (say) team forming. The sensible thing to do would be for the school to adopt some method and to teach.use it across subjects - so the students are familiar with the terms of reference and so, when doing a team project, have learned and practised how to set up and manage teams.
IN reality, some long-in-the-tooth teachers refuse to change their methods (which don't include teamwork at all - what? Have the students talk to each other in class? Not on my watch) or have their own proprietary methods (put all the thick kids in one team and let them play with the paint pots).
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't answer the question.
How, exactly, does one teach those things? Where are the day to day lesson plans that insure, when those plans are followed, that at the end of the school year that a majority of the students will have in fact learned those skills.
In addition that is only one of the skills (plural) that you previously mentioned.
The same thing applies to the other skills - how does one teach those skills. What are the lesson plans that the average teacher can follow to insure that the majority of the students learn those skills (again plural from your first response.)
|
|
|
|
|
You seriously want me to post lesson plans?
If this was in Q&A I'd respond with a lmgtfy!
I picked on one skill that was previously mentioned as an example - there are many lesson plans available online for teachers and many schools also have lesson plans made up for these things.
As I said, the important thing is that the whole school supports this, and not just an individual teacher - a bit like the physics teacher relies on the students having learned some Maths in order to the able to handle the physics.
For team building types of skill, I have found that a basic framework and lots of practice is better than theory; an introductory lesson discussing why you have teams, what roles there might be in teams, where one finds teams.
Then lessons where the students create teams to perform simple tasks. Usually something theoretical (you are on a sinking ship, you have to decide which of the following items to take with you..)
Given time, I try to put different students in different roles - but this assumes I know them well so can tell which students suit which roles; it is an interesting lesson when the mouse of the class is given authority over the group!
Once the basics have been learned, I the constantly use teams with those students - and this is where a whole school approach is essential so that the students use the same methods in other classes
Oh, and I always get everyone to document the experience - what workd well, what didn't etc. and then discuss the feedback. It can be great when someone says they felt they weren't a good team leader to hear others support them and offer advice.
Of course, I am not an 'average' teacher 
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: - there are many lesson plans available online for teachers and many schools
also have lesson plans made up for these things.
I suspect that there are some, not many, posted on line that claim to teach one, not all, of the skills that you mentioned.
I suspect strongly that the 'claim' will far exceed the reality.
_Maxxx_ wrote: As I said, the important thing is that the whole school supports...Of course, I am not an 'average' teacher
I doubt that the average teacher, in the average school can teach the skills that you presented to the average student.
|
|
|
|
|
You are wrong - there are many.
Yes, most propose teaching a subset of skills per lesson - these sort of skills need to be practiced and honed over time by building the into other lessons. I the same way that computer skills are best thought, not by having a 'let's learn how to use excel' lesson once a week, but by using Excel repeatedly in physics, chemistry, English and other subjects.
I wonder why you doubt that an average teacher can teach these things to an average student? Are you saying the average student is incapable of learning the skills, or the average teacher is shite? Or is there something else?
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: You are wrong - there are many.
Provide the google query that returns, say, at least 1000. All free of course.
Provide the google query that provides follow up studies and/or information that demonstrates that each of those 1000 does in fact succeed in teaching the skill(s).
_Maxxx_ wrote: I wonder why you doubt that an average teacher can teach these things to an
average student?
Many reasons
- Complexity
- Poor understanding of the skill and what it means to be skillful at it.
- Inability to teach the esoteric
- Inability to learn the esoteric
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Provide the google query that returns, say, at least 1000. All free of course.
So many == 1000?
Why free? I know teachers are underpaid, but professionals sometime have to pay for resources.
jschell wrote: Provide the google query that provides follow up studies and/or information that demonstrates that each of those 1000 does in fact succeed in teaching the skill(s).
what am I? Your mother?
This Site[^] seems to have quite a few - with user ratings. Now, before you ask, I don't think the results of the lessons are subject to a five year study on how well the students cope with team work after school. In fact I am unaware of any studies of any specific lesson plans other than within individual schools; Curricula are frequently investigated and modified depending on various study results - but in most countries at least, the implementation of the curriculum is up to the teacher via the HOD via the principal so the effectiveness of a particular lesson plan is at too detailed a level to be of note in the curriculum study.
jschell wrote: - Complexity
You think the teaching of, say, physics, chemistry, even Maths or English is not complex? Teachers learn skills ant teach them all the time, Are you saying team work is too complex?
jschell wrote: Poor understanding of the skill and what it means to be skillful at it.
A condition of employment as a teacher (in Qld anyhow) is continued professional development - so where a teacher has a poor understanding of something they are required to teach, it is this PD that helps skill them up.
jschell wrote: - Inability to teach the esoteric
- Inability to learn the esoteric
I'm not sure what you mean here? in what way are these skill sets esoteric? Surely they are as much life skills as other things one learns at school?
Even where they in some way esoteric, then why cannot teachers teach esoteric skills? You seem to have a dim view of teachers!
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: So many == 1000?
Yes that works.
_Maxxx_ wrote: Why free? I know teachers are underpaid, but professionals sometime have to pay for resources.
Because if there are in fact many excellent ones there the market will dictate that little or no price. Additionally it is much more likely that there will be independent evaluations of them.
But feel free to provide a 1000 ones that you must pay for and the corresponding independent evaluations for each.
_Maxxx_ wrote: what am I? Your mother?
You made the claim that there are "many". I presumed that you actually knew of them. Thus it was possible for you to prove your point rather than requiring that I prove it.
_Maxxx_ wrote: I don't think the results of the lessons are subject to a five year study on how well the students cope with team work after school.
Which of course is a problem. It isn't a stretch to say that it is likely that teachers that are given new lesson plans are, on average, more likely to initially approach it enthusiastically and thus more likely, at the end of one year, to give it a higher rating.
_Maxxx_ wrote: You think the teaching of, say, physics, chemistry, even Maths or English is not complex?
The understanding of the first examples are very, very well known. There is no uncertainty about the equation for force or how one proves what the area of a right triangle is. As for the last there are in fact many ways to teach it and at the lower levels things like spelling and sentence construction are well understood however at the higher levels, again, one of the factors is complexity. Otherwise universities and even high schools would be turning out a vast number of best selling authors.
_Maxxx_ wrote: A condition of employment as a teacher (in Qld anyhow) is continued professional development
Poor understanding by of all of humanity not the teachers themselves.
_Maxxx_ wrote: Surely they are as much life skills as other things one learns at school?
Are you claiming that schools, average schools, are competently teaching "life skills" to a majority of the students?
_Maxxx_ wrote: Even where they in some way esoteric, then why cannot teachers teach esoteric skills?
I already gave you a list of reasons why teaching such things by average teachers to average students is very difficult if not impossible. If the average teacher can teach all esoteric skills to average students then why do not more high skills graduated gifted painters?
|
|
|
|
|
My problem with the whole "look at how successful I have been as an entrepreneur! You should all follow my example!" - is:
If everyone followed the entrepreneurial path there would be nobody left to clear up the mess and ensure the company was successful.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm <<douglas mode="">> telephone sanitizers <>
|
|
|
|
|
Being successful has more to do with passion. I like to program, but I like what I do after work more than what I do at work. If I had even a portion of the money that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet does, I would check out and live for me. They are successful because they are passionate about what they do. It isn't about the money, but what they accomplish with their passion.
I'm okay being average, every successful person needs cogs like me to get their ideas working and keep their companies running. I'll give you a good 40 hours every week, but not a ton more. I'm not saying that I don't want to be better, but that I don't want to get my career get in the way of my family and hobbies!
Good luck to the people that are passionate, I want to work for them!
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
