Too Much School Can Be a Bad Thing

Building upon my earlier post, I have come to think that maybe it does not hurt so bad to have less formal schooling. We have spent so much time in school that we get too preoccupied with our chosen subjects or disciplines. What results is that we get stereotyped (a doctor, an engineer, an accountant, a lawyer, even a historian?) by our chosen field of study to the point that it defines us as a person, and even affects our habits.

Someone who has less formal schooling, conversely, is less influenced by school subjects. At that stage, school forms but only a part of his or her life, and does not consume it like it does the rest of us. Given sufficient circumspection and maturity, he or she can advance in the direction that provides the best odds of sustenance and sustainability, and not be tainted by the subject matter until it colours his or her whole existence, and choices. And where it does not work out as planned, he or she can change tracks easily. Somehow that flexibility is not often imparted to school students, who are more often than not taught a methodology by which follow for the rest of their lives.

Which is why we see so many early school-leavers being much more flexible than graduates and post-grads in career choices and also, much more successful. More years in school doesn't really help, unless you are depending on someone else for your livelihood. And it takes away time you could possibily spend more fruitfully working, and learning.

Two and a Half Years On...

I think evidently my priorities have changed. I am no longer the kid who does nothing all day except indulging his interests in history and books, and far-fetched fantasies about being a mover and shaker in international politics and diplomacy.

I have more down-to-earth objectives and aims--to maintain my parents and to afford myself and my family a reasonable standard of living, which given the current environment of soaring CPI's is fast becoming an all-comsuming occupation.

Therefore I have to consider whether to continue my current pursuits in the past will yield significant returns, especially financially. And the answer, it seems from the past 1 year of pondering, to be a resounding "no".

And hence my priorities have changed some. To me, the most important thing right now is not whether a new piece of narrative about the past can be unearthed, but of what relevance and benefit it can bring to contemporary and subsequent generations, and ultimately, to me.

It has led me to realise a particular truth about school, work and life in general as well, assuming the mass majority of graduates like me seek the same object after graduation--a reasonable means of livelihood and financial independence. The truth is that, when we were in school, we indulged in subjects and disciplines, but after graduation we seek a livelihood and an income that can sustain and enrich ourselves. Now, if that is so, what are we doing by being an employee? Shouldn't we be doing something else?

Musings at Work (Bad! Bad!)

I think I am a monarchist.

Why do I say so? Let's observe the following phenomenon. I think the majority of office workers can attest to this. Very often a document to be sent to external parties is never produced by a single party. An initial draft is first created, then circulated round the entire office, sometimes involving top management and even crossing international borders. What emerges at the end of the process, which in some cases can last for years, is a highly edited piece that bears ridiculously little resemblance to the original draft probably drafted by some extremely junior nameless executive in some alley hole of a back office.

Now what is the effect of such a process? Not difficult to fathom. After the initial ego boost of having been asked to draft such an important document to the organisation, the original author of the document starts to lose a feeling of ownership of the document as it gets circulated around and gets edited beyond recognition. The quality of subsequent drafts go down--"Hey, what's the point? It's gonna get rewritten anyway."

The people who get roped in to edit the draft are not idle either. They often have their own portfolios and have to take time out to read the piece. Very seldom will the piece even be related to their core jobscope. So they do what they can afford time for and pass it on--"Ah, don't worry, someone else will edit it later, and I don't have responsibility for writing the document in any case."

And hence the draft, like an abandoned child, gets bounced from department to department like a football, with no one willing to claim ownership nor responsibility. All the more so when something goes wrong and something gets miscommunicated to the external party, or even worse, the public. Then comes a round of finger-pointing--the initial writer for not writing properly, the subsequent editors for not doing their job (They will self-righteously protest, "It's not my job!"), resulting in black faces all round. The history of corporate communcations will exhibit countless examples.

The effects are not limited to the above. It will breed distrust within the organisation, a drop in morale for junior staff when they see that their work is not respected and disillusionment in the office. The list goes on.

Lesson: Writing is an art, and you don't break it down into a factory assembly line, period. Democracy seldom works in such cases. Only when ownership is clearly allocated will the executor ensure the quality of his or her product.