Sunday, December 11, 2011
This is an unconventional blog, but I am hoping to make it relevant. The article I read is all about how companies are less willing to hire new graduates because of the lack of new creative ideas and because they are less tolerant of the missteps that new graduates are bound to make. The article suggests that employers adjust and invest in training of these new graduates rather than turning them away. And I got to thinking, what would liberty say about this? While mostly liberty would say that if it is the companies preference to do so, then it should be able to(should be used in the sense that there are all these pesky government regulations that might get in the way). But I was also thinking that while this could be a great risk for companies, this could create a great advantage for companies as well. Most people (myself included) graduate college with a lot of more or less non-specific knowledge. Sure we are taught the things with our majors and all those extra 'well-rounding classes' we need to take, but it is not like an apprenticeship, where we are taught the specifics of the industry that we are going into. This is nice because it allows flexibility when we do graduate but it leaves employers having to tie up the loose ends. However, if there was an actual training program for each company they wouldn't need to worry about it, they would simply tailor the student to what they needed and if at the end of the given training period the student did not work out, well at least they would find out sooner rather than later. This can also be an indicator of error, perhaps the schools are erroring and not properly educating their students. Either way this seems to me to be a big red arrow for some entrepreneur to come and fix it, or it is possible that this guy at the New York Times is full of crap but I guess I'll find out soon enough!