Sometimes I feel university courses should be made harder. Why? So that the ones of "less intelligence" will be filtered out. The matter of fact is, too many people nowadays have degrees. Therefore it's really really hard to distinguish who is really skilled at what they do.
To be honest, I wouldn't hire half of the people who I studied with. And out of the few many I'll only hire a few. And they aren't anything grand either. To enrol into currently requires an OP of 12. That's kind of low. It's like saying "if you're average you're good enough to do IT". And that's wrong, because there's always a greater need for skilled people. Skilled people are the ones who get the economy moving and expanding, factory type workers only serve to work and be part of the system. I used to come from a really competitive school where only the best 40 students out of 440 odd students are only allowed to take Science. Let's face it, having interest in something would very likely make you score well in it, but many people don't know what they are interested in, so they take something "easy to do". Or even worse, chase the area of study which has the most money. But some people just suck at things they are interested in.
There should a "generic" course for such people.
IT nowadays is treated like a factory worker type of skill. We need hundreds of programmers to finish this one project! Yeah let's just get Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z who know the basics of Java and employ them! We need factory type workers.
Good software is built by a SMALL TALENTED team. Always has been and always will be. Not a bunch of factory workers.
Look around you. Everything that's currently big, started off small. Microsoft, Apple, youtube, google, blah. Then they start becoming massive mammoths, hiring workers by the hundreds... a la factory, while the founders become billionaires. There's no company that started off BIG.
In fact, everything that's big has always started off small. Do you wonder why? Because there would be too much bureaucracy, paperwork, politics, and dim wits pulling down the productivity levels of the team.
You don't hear of a success story of a company with 100 founders. That will never happen.
If it's what I've learnt, small teams are always more powerful, more productive, and definitely more of a threat as compared to a large clunky corporation. But everyone, aka the majority of people, feel "safe" joining a large corporation or government type of organisation. Makes it look good on their resume and employable by other large corporations.
I wonder what the heck HR managers learn in uni. Who do they employ? The rebel / smart person who has tried to start his own company, or the person who will make a "loyal servant" to the company? (i.e. less risk taker, security type person, with little / no ambition, average grades) The founders of a company always want to strike out on their own. Can you imagine if they didn't? Would they even be "employable" because they are more likely to work at XYZ company and quit only after a few years having learnt everything there is to learn? In an alternate universe, what if the founders of google never started google but went to work for another corporation, would they employ them? Who are HR managers to decide how much YOU are worth? If you are a high productivity person joining a large corporation, chances are you are being gauged accordingly as a low/average productivity person and paid accordingly.
Experience is learning and tolerating the ways of overcoming problems imposed by bureauracy, and office politics. What a damn waste of time. I'll rather be learning, and having a high level of productivity doing actual work that benefits society. Large teams suck big time. Always have and always will. "Yeah I joined this super large mega huge MNC and was part of a low productivity workforce!! Hire me!"
The smartest people always stand alone improving the economy, and the rest, form the factory workers.
"Industry best practise" is another term that I find ridiculous. If every company was incorporating industry best practice, then it WOULDN'T be industry best practice now would it? It would be "average low productivity practice". If everyone was doing the same thing, how would that be best practise?
The best practises are therefore never common. Once told to others, it's not best practise anymore. If your company is following "industry best practise" from an "industrial source", chances are very likely that you are NOT following a best practise, but some form of average practise that everyone is using which has deemed to be stable. But I can tell you it's definitely not best practice.
It's like attending a seminar that says "do this and you will make a million dollars". Now if everyone does it, then honestly do you think it'll still make you a million dollars? Of course it will, but the chances of it happening again are rare. This is common sense. The people giving the seminar made a million dollars because they tried something originally different from "industry best practise" and it worked for them. Then they get richer by selling their idea to other people. It's sort of like a pyramid scheme where the people at the top get richer and richer and the people at the bottom get the scraps.
Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment