Generality creep

[Mike Franklin]

On Friday, 29 March 2019 at 13:57:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

>> Or a team of subordinate apprentice/junior engineers (who have 
>> demonstrated sufficient potential) working under the 
>> mentorship of a master who is willing to make an investment.
>
> This is a lot more difficult to set up than it seems.
>
> One reason is that surprisingly few of the contributors come 
> here to learn, to acquire knowledge.
[...]
> I think it has to do with a simple reality - I was trying to 
> mentor people who didn't want to be mentored.
>
> So I think it would be difficult to establish a master/mentee 
> dynamics.

I understand (as my head hangs in disappointment).  I've observed 
it for myself, and may even be guilty of it in a few instances.

This is why I added the word "subordinate" to my sentence before 
I submitted it.  The apprentice would have to agree to 
subordination as part of the up-front agreement.

It's not just knowledge the apprentice is seeking.  (S)he may be 
also be seeking credentials and experience.  The credentials 
include the trophy of accomplishment and the privilege to use the 
master's name as a reference in their future prospects.  
Insubordination results in being fired and losing those 
credentials, not to mention the time and effort spent, and the 
opportunity to expand their knowledge.

The master would have to be selective, just like an employer, to 
find the right people for the apprenticeships, and there would 
have to be some up-front agreement with conditions and 
expectations.

I don't have any experience with this kind of thing, so perhaps I 
don't know what I'm talking about.  It's just a shame that people 
are willing to take out a loan for 10s of thousands of dollars 
for an education built around contrived assignments, when there's 
an opportunity here to do real meaningful work, led by some of 
the most reputable names in the field, that doesn't cost 
anything.  What am I missing?

Mike