Motors Blog

In Canada some university institutions have a "co-operative" curiculum for engineering. Waterloo University is the one that began it all as far as I know. The graduates are university graduates but every third term is spent in the field doing practical work not academic studies. The students are placed in topic related companies so the work experience is directly related to their field of study. I have worked alongside such students in the past.

In Canada some university institutions have a "co-operative" curiculum for engineering.

same in this country,

I also have worked along side these students, And they do need to get thier nose out of the text book and into real life practical experience.

"Bring back apprenticeship?"

Absolutely yes! Nothing was better than the theoretical AND practical training to make one fully understand what was being taught in class. I was fortunate to be one of the "last" (dare i say) of the old school who went through apprenticeship with my journeyman. It kind of gave me a general sense of respect too.

I don't know about the rest of Europe but apprenticeships have declined in the UK depriving the country of practical engineers. Some larger companies still operate training schemes but, otherwise there is only vocational training. This really only scratches the surface of the problem as it is too short term to produce competent engineers.

Apprenticeship would be an excellent system to return to!

The two items that make this a hard sell are: The concept of "Journey-Man"; i find it improbable that any of todays 'modern' management schemes could find it acceptable to supply training to be applied in another firm (a requirement). Also think it would be difficult to convince today's 'here, & right now!' beginners to accept the necessarily lower wages required for one in constant training.

The schemes used to work because the companies could effectively offset all of the training costs against their tax liability, the apprentices were 'free' labour. I don't know if that is still the case today.

The "free labor" bit, i can't see working, today.

Maybe if combined into an official school programme it could work. It would have to be graded, though. The Co-Op students we've had turned out to be a bunch of wankers; summer experience turned into summer holiday.

We NEED to find a way, though....

"a bunch of wankers" , Excellent description and so true, Todays students/young workers don't offer much, in the hard work dept. the work ethic today is very different from when we started out (I'm in my mid 40's) absenteeism is ramp-it and there desire to lean and do better is a rarity.

We do have a great need for apprenticeship programs, especially in the manufacturing sector all of the ad are looking for skilled Toolmakers/machinist there are no apprenticeships to speak of in our region and very few youths are entering the field which there is a Huge demand for. Maybe there should be tax incentives for these programs because companies are no longer investing in them.

Jim C

We still have apprenticeships throughout Australia, luckily they weren't killed off during the "Hawke Clever Country" era. Australian, South African and Kiwi tradesmen are in big demand especially in the UK. In recent years however "Competency based training" has debased the currency somewhat with the dumbing down of standards. Technical Colleges get a small fraction of the funding applied to Universities yet are expected to produce an order of magnitude higher number of graduates. Despite still having a fairly good training system and rigorous licencing Australia is suffering a skills shortage during the current boom. The "Multiskilling" or more accurately "Multi-deskilling" of the Hawke era cost us badly. Too many tradesmen are now driving dozers.

My experience of late is that American companies do not want to invest the time or the cost or make the long term commitment that it requires to have an effective apprenticeship program. In spite of what companies say the focus is on the short term. Many American companies have done away with pension plans. They have cut their long term commitment to the employ and at the same time taken away any reason for the employ to have a comment to them.

Companies will not hire without experience so when someone gains experience in their job it is in there best interest to move to what ever job offers the best pay. There is nothing to loose and every thing to gain by going were the money is.

I am being paid to take early retirement. 20 employees have to go and if you don't take the retirement offer you then become subject to dismissal so the goal of 20 can be reached.

Regards, Mike

Next quarter thinking, @ it's worst!

These newly minted MBA types think that they are SO SPECIAL; let's propose a startup w/ no staff but 20 fresh MBA. Their future?

Mike-

I sympathize with your predicament. Our company went through a wave of "voluntary" retirements a while back, too. Usually no effort was made to train someone to step into the shoes of an exiting employee with 35 years experience. Sometimes two new people had to be hired to take the responsibilities of the lost employee. Even then, the job went lacking. But, maybe it has always been this way. Perhaps 35 years ago the retiring oldtimers were saying the same thing about us.

Bill Morrow

I've served on a university chem dept's Industrial Advisory Board for over two terms, and the dept strongly encouraged its chem major students to find an internship. We had a difficult time finding companies to offer them, but could usually place most of the students. This became more difficult during an economic slow down when many companies were cutting back. From the other side, some companies felt short-changed when they trained a student for a summer or two and the student graduated and took a job at a different company. With all the required courses and new things added to the curriculum, taking an internship could often make getting a BS degree a 5 year event.

"some companies felt short-changed when they trained a student for a summer or two and the student graduated and took a job at a different company. With all the required courses and new things added to the curriculum, taking an internship could often make getting a BS degree a 5 year event."

Of course, if all firms were doing this the 'training for someone else", would be a wash.

The extra year could easily double the value of the coursework, by answering the age old question: 'why are we studying this?'

I'll proffer: that by self-serving 1st, any firm lowers the mean of the talent pool from which they too, must draw. Again, SHORT TERM THINKING.

I have long advocated that nobody should be allowed to call theirself an "engineer" without having a minimum year-long experience on the working end of a wrench (or the disciplinary equivalent). As to the worth if they go elsewhere, think on this:

What if I train my people and they don't stay?

But what if I DON'T train them, and they DO?

Unfortunately the problem is widespread. Here in South Africa apprenticeships, in all sorts of work areas, stopped about 15 to 20 years ago. The country is now going through a severe skills shortage but still companies do not pursue apprenticeships. Everyone seems to rely on "others" doing the training and then poaching the skills. Young people are entering the workplace having college and university educations, but with very little practical experience. To compound this issue, once they are employed they receive very little "on-the-job " training, and are thrust into senior positions and are expected perform at a high level very quickly. This causes frustration for the new employee and employer alike. The government has started to implement a programme of "learnerships" (whatever happened to good words like apprenticeships) in an attempt to correct the problem, but without companies buying into the programme it is doomed to die a slow death. Everyone is simply too focussed on getting quick returns rather than investing in the future.

Coming from the other side of the work force (hands on for 30 years), a years apprenticeship would be wonderful!

But, a mind open to suggestions & working knowledge would be even better.

You don't know how much working people love to see smarty engineers fall on their face after being told & shown "it probably won"t work as designed".

You don't know how much working people love to see smarty engineers fall on their face after being told & shown "it probably won"t work as designed".

Actually I do, one thing is, how the engineer handles himself, if he looks down at everybody on the shop floor and treats them as inferior, he just made his own bed and sooner or later, he'll have to sleep in it.

Dear oh dear!

I remember attending a major symposium some time ago on "Apprenticeship training - how to encourage todays youth into the trades".

Quite funny really - here was a hall filled with over 300 business leaders, university and government types. All chiming in with what they thought what should be done.

One little guy at the back of the hall stands up and asked for a show of hands - "how many people here, with kids, want them to go to university and how many would encourage their kids to enter the trades"

No contest - university hands down.

I was depressed and left the hall right after that, concluding that if the movers and shakers of the country dont think it is a good enough idea for their own kids, then there is no way it would ever fly.

Been 10 years, has not changed and not likely to in the future either. Lets face it. The manufacturing jobs of the developed world which formed the backbone of the trades has all but gone. Replaced by automation and globalization (a fancy word for moving to low cost third world countries). Yes there is still a need for skilled trades however the skill sets have changed dramatically.

Tool and die making - long regarded as the top trade has gone from a "much needed" to "no longer required" trade due to offshore competition and advanced cnc machining. All this in the space of 10 to 15 years!!

Good luck to anyone trying to figure it all out. Technology today makes it very difficult to put a finger on what skill sets to teach. I am fortunate being a little bit older - I no longer have to worry about it!

It's a matter of EGO; almost every group thinks they have something up of the rest of us. University better than trades school, Physician better than Nurse, ScD better than BSME, MIT better than RIT, ad infinitum.

Now, stop & think: we imagine an automobile; it has a V-12 engine, DOHC 4valve/cyl, EFI, twin intercooled turbos - the works! Pretty special, huh? Oh yeah, one of the tires is cut. What is the most important part of this auto?

Spot On !!

Apprenticeships work but it's not fast or cheap! I am an apprentice in dimensional metrology as a layout technician and CMM programmer. I had formal math, blueprint, machining, CAD and CNC programming training in Tech. school and on the job as well as 6 years hands on as a machinist. I went to technical college to make myself trainable, able to be an apprentice in todays high tech environment and finally got a chance to put it to use a couple of years ago. No I work on our hardest projects with our most demanding engineers. They rework $250,000.00 dies and release hundreds of thousands of dollars of product based on my inspections. Apprenticeships work but most employers or employees aren't up to the commitment.

Now, these are just my personal opinions gathered from living and working Stateside for thirty (30) years now. I attended one (1) year of high school in the U.S.A. and followed this with four (4) years of vocational training while I completed a toolmaker's apprenticeship. I also taught the machine trades class and the mathematics class at the local technical school for a seven-year period.

I sincerely believe that one can first blame higher academia (I'll explain my reasoning later) in general, and second the business community for short-sightedness.

Now, the first part. Many years ago our public school systems focused their guidance efforts solely on those who were naturally inclined to attend and graduate university, followed by those who could (with educational assistance and financial assistance) attend university. Vocational training was seen as a path for the "dumb" students who did not, would not, or could not pursue an education that was purely academic in nature.

So, the best and brightest went/go on to university; many to complete a liberal arts degree that qualifies them for nothing useful to the business or manufacturing world. Some entered the field of education as teachers, and a handful became engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc.. Most public universities are largely funded with State (taxpayer's) monies, and very little of this money was/is spent to maintain and improve the technical and vocational schools. The schools were left with old equipment that operated at the technology level of our fathers, and sometimes grandfathers.

I lived in Tennessee when Nissan Motor Company announced they were building an assembly plant here, and suddenly much money was appropriated (finally!) for the vocational and technical schools. That was the first serious money spent since many of the schools were built during the 1950's and 1960's.

Businesses are under the impression that apprenticeship programmes cost them money. Of course during the first years of one's apprenticeship one is not making much of a contribution towards the bottom line of the business, and it takes a few years of work at the journeyman/master level to "repay" the cost of that apprenticeship. But, those who serve successful apprenticeships tend to stay where they were educated, so there is improved longevity.

But, I think we are discussing the American business mindset here; the mindset where a long-term goal is considered to be less than one (1) year. I am not bashing my country of citizenship-I am just typing what I have seen in many industries. Long gone are the days when forecasts were made and plans developed for the years (not YEAR!) to come.

I could whine a lot here, but I digress.

Best Regards,

Ing. Robert Forbus

You hit the nail on the head. All good points. I think that Business today (past 20 years) is only looking for the short return, Countries like Japan, Germany maybe it's Culture,Tradition or both have extensive apprenticeships in the factories, they have the long term mindset that we need to follow.

I think we rely on government too much for tech schools, I went to one, they do help get your foot in the door, and they are needed, but the businesses need have training in place for the long term, As I said (above post) maybe tax incentives are needed to get businesses to invest in these programs. Something needs to be done soon.

All of the shops I once worked at no longer have apprenticeship programs, these same companies now only place ads for "experienced toolmaker/machinists only". problem is, nobody answers there adds. because the there's no one left to fill these positions. They all have a aging workforce (avg age 45 or higher) and the workers have the attitude "they don't pay me enough to train someone" or "it's not worth the aggravation" and the famous "not my job" and the demand for toolmaker and machinists is at a all time high. Companies can't afford to pay high skilled worker to do apprentices level work. but that's what they are doing.

Jim C

'and the workers have the attitude "they don't pay me enough to train someone" or "it's not worth the aggravation" and the famous "not my job" and the demand'

Have detected an animosity between 'management', & 'labor'(most venomous on the part of 'management'; i recall "shoot to KILL" orders given to Pinkerton agents during early union strike actions), that's definitely NOT in the 'we're all 1 team, rah, rah, &c' spirit. (particularly if unionism is involved!!) Send all employment to a 3rd world country, that'll fix 'em!

Let's see: considered to be 'improper' to discuss wages w/ co-workers; i guess "free market" is a 1 way street?

A true 'team' isn't about making a single star shine!

True "animosity between 'management, & 'labor" You will get this at every company and at every level, some worst than others. I am not management . Was a machinist, moved up to Designing "Sort of in between" But I train all the time and it is not in job description but I do it because I remember what it was like when nobody would train me. So much was self taught on my own time. There needs to be a middle ground. You can encourage growth only so much the rest is up to the individual. But the businesses should offer apprenticeships at least to the people who want to learn. but then you can get favoritism, thats a whole other subject. Obviously no easy answer. But as some manufacturing comes back to the US, they will have trouble finding the talent to make it.

Jim C

Apparently one of the few programs that is robust. I voted you a GA because you care...

long term planning in our community, education, and the responsiblity toempower todays youth or anyone with a desire tomake a difference in their community.

unfortunately the todays youth belief is instance gratification.

I didn't see your post as off topic so gave it a GA to reflect that.

In Queensland schools students are frequently prevented from persuing the subjects they need and it is now also much easier to get an OP score to assure a uni place in an Arts course by avoiding maths and science. The interferance in subjects has gone on for a long time, in the early 70s I had to fight to be allowed to do Technical Drawing rather than Latin. Because I was doing the "Academic" stream (based on year 8 results) I was prevented from doing woodwork and no metalwork was offered.

Move on a generation, my younger daughter was doing metalwork in year 9, but because her standard of work was higher than many of the boys, her projects were routinely damaged or stolen so she dropped out. With a fight she kept Graphics (read Tech Drawing) and in senior years picked up Tech studies. The poor performers had dropped out of school by then, so no more stolen projects, but she completed most projects at home because my workshop is better equiped than the school could dream of. This gave her the grounding to study Civil engineering at Uni and still communicate with tradesmen on a respect basis.

In summary I agree with the posts that state secondary school is based on the needs of academia rather than the real world. This so evident at Uni where too many lecturers even in Engineering have never worked outside the Uni.

GA Emjay4119,

This really points at the heart of the problem. School systems (Academia) world wide are the foot-soldiers of the True One-World Government. Entrenched bureaucracies everywhere owe their existence to them. Pin-headed pretty-boy (and girl) politicians are always looking to appoint some experts to do their thinking for them. Once the failed policies of those experts are revealed they get another panel of experts to fix it, ad infinitum.

I am pretty sure you all know the definition of the word expert. My dad told me that any unknown word can be deciphered by breaking it down to it's individual syllables. Ex then is either an unknown quantity or a has-been and spurt is a drip under pressure. The other day, however, I think I stumbled on a new definition. My mother said she heard one of my brothers say that I am an expert mechanic. I said, "Why yes ma, I was sick the other day and spurted eck all over the place". So I guess 'sicko' could be added to the list.

Mankind seems to be driven to have a caste system (in effect, not necessarily by name) where those in control stack the deck to the benefit of 'their group'.

"Degree req'd" for jobs that don't require it at all. Better still, from a "name" school, & best of all from my school or frat. Mostly to give artificial weight to the value of a degree in society. It's an example of the golden rule: 'he who has the gold, writes the rules'.

If, tomorrow, your Bentley fails to start; would you call an attorney? a CFO or CEO?

you'd probably bite your lip & call a neandertal tradesman.

In defence of today's youth. I am seeing many young apprentices with a huge load of responsibility on their back just like it was when I did my apprenticeship in the 70s. We see 20 year old second year kids earning a bucket load for their employer working alone or in charge of jobs and frequently with no one to guide them. The downside is the high injury rates for kids expected to just know how to do the job. Long hours, long drives to and from the job site, poor or non existant accomodation and no wonder so many get killed on the road coming home.

Like I said in an earlier post we are lucky we still have apprenticeships and the training guarantee levy. With a severe shortage of tradesmen however there is a lot falling on young inexperienced shoulders.

I personally put a lot of effort into training apprentices and other tradesmen because I can remember some of the know nothing "tradesmen" I was forced to work with.

What does dismay me is the lack of knowledge most of the tradesmen I interview for jobs have, not just young ones. When I get told by some young thing he can't remember basic things like the types of DC motors, "because it was a while since being taught that at TAFE", I get a bit angry.

I can remember some of the know nothing "tradesmen" I was forced to work with.

Things may not have changes much.

Did you work in a union?

The Electrical Trades Union in Queensland Australia has always been more interested in assisting Labor (yeah they can't spell either) Polititians into parliament than looking after tradesmen. I take your point though, I've been unpopular on some sites for completing work scheduled for a month or so in half a day.

says the generation that some would say ruined this world with their 'needs'

After 6 years of basic education it is possible to separate students into college and working educational tracks. In 4 more years they can be separated into general labor and semi-skilled labor tracks. Those in the general unskilled group would learn what was needed to flip burgers, be housekeepers, janitors, lumber stackers and such including some on-the-job training at various positions in two yrs of work-study. The semi-skilled track would spend their last two yrs of education in semi-skilled work-study. Then after 12 yrs of education aimed at the college level some would go to 2 yr technical colleges to be trained in skilled work and others would go on to college.

All graduates of 2 & 4 yr colleges should be able to apprentice for at least 1 yr at minimum wage plus and the apprenticeship would delay the repayment of student loans as long as it lasted or for 5 yrs. If an apprentice machinist, engineer, medical tech or whatever cannot learn to do the job for regular pay in 5 yrs, then they need another career. Apprenticeships would have to be under educational oversight and legal oversight to prevent taking advantage of apprentices. Properly set up and controlled it would help a great deal.

This will never happen, because all parents are convinced that their little noodniks are just as smart, talented and deserving as every other, that all children are equal until out of high school. The truth is that not all children are created equal in ability, talent, skills, intelligence, strength, determination, personality and so on. Each child is unique and as a whole do not fit into one homogenous group or even 3 or 4 groups. There are likely dozens of small groups that most could fit into fairly well. Government schools do not serve the needs of each of these groups. Students get discouraged by trying to fit into a mold they cannot fill and quit without education. Education needs to be made to fit the child rather than force the child to fit the education. Parents cannot pay for government schools and for private schools which will better educate their children. Something has to be done to reform education from the beginning to the end.

Taganan,

The main thing standing in the way of that grand scheme is the leftist adjenda and the teachers unions. It's sad that many good hard working people in unions are duped by the lefty's hair brained ponzy schemes. By allowing their leadership to buy unscrupulous politicians who will vote them more benefits and power, they are cutting their own throats and the throats of their children.

I agree all the way, Shadetree. Yet there are quite a few people who have seen the truth and would make all schools compete by having the funding go through the student instead of being funneled through "professional administrators" tied to politicians.

Once had a friend who felt that way, was a proponent of "voucher system" funding for education @ early levels (USA conservative talking point).

Then i asked him: "should we operate our fire(suppression) department & Policing that way, too? Reminding him of a time when the fire teams were a part of the insurance company, & that if the homeowners policy was not with that particular companies firm, they'd watch it burn ( a decal on the window to inform, on a house-by-house scheme).

The mafia was started when regular Policing was inadequate.

I'll agree: all are not endowed equally. However, i suggest that all are entitled to equal opportunities, (& not by lowering the ceiling!!)

Free, public education needs to be so good that the only benefit to private schools offer only 'snob appeal' as the attraction.

sidevalveguru,

My perspective on this centers (at this point) on my granddaughter. She just finished 4th grade. Here in the State of Washington they use a standardized test called the WASL. Because funding is based on how kids perform on this test, all the teaching is geared toward it. We were wondering why the teacher wasn't teaching much math and science and found out those subjects were not even covered on this dumbed down test. This was the reason we home schooled her the first 3 years, but my wife (who has MS) needed a break and we thought maybe by fourth grade they would have a better curriculum. Boy were we wrong.

It's no wonder we can't get engineers and scientists out of our schools. The system is totally broken. It needs to be trashed so we can start over again. The teachers don't teach math and science because they can't. They don't know it themselves.

Shadetree,

Fully agree with your concern! The only test that should matter is 'real life', the others should be to help us keep on task.

Interesting,that wasl; the more help the kids look like they need, the less funding?

My fear is: some souls will get their only formal education in public schools, we owe it to ourselves to ensure that it is possible to obtain a good one.

"funding is based on how kids perform on this test, all the teaching is geared toward it"

"the teacher wasn't teaching much math and science and found out those subjects were not even covered on this dumbed down test"

You have touched on one of the fundamental problems. Our educational system in the U.S. has fallen prey to the same thought process (or lack there of ) as our businesses have, the "quick and easy / looks good on paper" approach. It's a false reality that will come crashing down some day. I know this first hand because my mom, sister, and cousin are all teachers and my oldest son recently graduated with a high school diploma that wasn't worth the paper it was written on. He is not dumb but was not taught to work and was not prepared for college at all and is learning it all now, the hard way. He dropped out but is set to go back in January with the attitude and work ethic that he should have had to begin with. My neighbor was his math professor and in talking to him he said that he was astonished at the lack of basic mathematical understanding todays students have and that it's a struggle to teach them the basics, forget advanced studies. His son was the class valedictorian and is even struggling in an engineering program, sure he was book smart but he couldn't build a bird house if he had to and he wants to be an aerospace engineer! I gave him a stack of trade magazines and offered to teach him CAD but he's not interested! I said life ain't no video game son, it's hands on work, so pull your head out of your butt and roll up your shirt sleeves and get to work otherwise prepare to fail............ He looked at me like I had 2 heads. Watch, I'll probably work for him one day and will have to spoon feed him like the rest................

"and roll up your shirt sleeves and get to work otherwise prepare to fail............ "

Another aspect to this dilemma is motivation & vision. The kids have to believe that work is honorable & will make goals attainable. (Stop offshoring jobs, importing illegal labor to screw-up supply/demand in wagescale, & make it both necessary & possible to earn your promotions & wage increases)

There is much more to education than just the classroom. We all have both a part & a stake in this.

Slidevalveguru-

Your remark makes no sense. Schools are entirely different from fire and police departments. No one will go without the educational service, it will simply be delivered differently, so that it will better suit the needs of the individual child.

Your non sequitur sounds like a liberal Democrat talking point. My opinion comes from having been a teacher in both types of schools.

I don't quite agree with this comment, sure the education will be delivered somehow but the quality of that service will differ greatly. We already have a problem in the UK where parents will move into the catchment areas of better performing schools in order to ensure that their children have the best education. Those who can't afford to do this end up with a random choice & have to accept whatever they are given, good or bad.

In the U. S. those who can, move to the areas having the government schools with the best reputation, if they can afford it. Areas near good schools attract people and the value of the area goes up.

However if all the money went with the child, that would tend to even it out. I would never tell any parent that they could not add to their child's share of education funds either. While the exact amount per child could vary by age, disability or giftedness, it should also be the same for each child no matter where they live. That would put an end to rich and poor districts and further level the playing field for all students and all schools, government or private.

"While the exact amount per child could vary by age, disability or giftedness"

That's an interesting thought. Would you spend more on a gifted child because it's a better investment or spend less because they can achieve their goals with less help?

"In the U. S. those who can, move to the areas having the government schools with the best reputation, if they can afford it."

& what do you say to those who CANNOT; " It sucks to be you"?

sidevalveguru-

No! The point is to provide the same amount of money for the education of each child, with variations according to grade, ability/disability and such, no matter where they live. As it is the government schools are tied to local areas for funding and as they build their tax base by attracting wealthier families who build bigger homes and start businesses in the area, those who can't are left out. Money is not the solution, but it helps to have it.

By making all schools dependent on attracting the students they serve, then all schools will try harder to be the best and attract more students. Distance, facilities and transportation times are limiting to the areas served, but you would have multiple schools of similar types with overlapping areas. If the parents are willing and able to provide transportation beyond that provided by school buses then even distance is less limiting.

Since the children in poorer areas would have the same money attached to their attendance as those in richer areas, then the schools in poorer neighborhoods would have equal funding per child served. That would encourage those who wish to educate those children to compete in quality of education offered in the schools there.

The point is that each child has money for its education collected by taxes, but unless that money is used at a government school, the government steals the money collected and spends it only on those attending government schools. In a country which is supposed to favor freedom of choice, choosing a private school means losing the money collected for education and to add to the injustice of it, still having to pay for the education of all the other children and still having to pay for your child's education at the school which best serves your child.

So what do you say to those people who are not rich and scrape by every year, paying taxes to educate all children but their own, whose children are not well served by government schools and who pay out-of-pocket to get the best education they can afford? " It sucks to be you"?

Taganan, you are spot on, ga points from me.

"So what do you say to those people who are not rich and scrape by every year, paying taxes to educate all children but their own, whose children are not well served by government schools and who pay out-of-pocket to get the best education they can afford? " It sucks to be you"?

I believe that if a ponzi scheme is concocted to allow stripping resources from one public school to fund someone elses the rich will get more at the expense of the regular joes (jill, too)

Your scheme says: "SUX to be from here"

Just as i posted, CR4 had this quote: "Whoever is spared personal pain must feel himself called to help in diminishing the pain of others. We must all carry our share of the misery which lies upon the world." -- Albert Schweitzer

my thoughts, too.

sidevalveguru-

"I believe that if a ponzi scheme is concocted to allow stripping resources from one public school to fund someone elses the rich will get more at the expense of the regular joes (jill, too)" To begin with a Ponzi scheme is one which pays the early investors with money from later investors, which has nothing to do with dividing the education funds equally by child. You say it will strip resources and give the rich more, Each child would receive the same amount, adjusted for grade and ability/disability.

A government school system of 2000 students may get $8,000 per student, a budget of $16,000,000. If 1000 students went to private schools the government school would get the same $16,000,000 budget but would then spend $16,000 per student because their operating cost was halved. The $8,000,000 collected for the education of the students who went to the private school is stolen from them, they get zip. Then their parents are forced to pay taxes to the government school and dig out of their pockets to educate their children. Legalized theft to fit a political motive.

It is not justice and not right.

Taganan,

Although I am not positive about this (because I'm no CPA), I believe there might be a hole in your grasp of the facts.

It is my understanding that, at least in my state, funds collected ostensibly for schools do not actually go automatically to the schools but into the general fund. From there they can be siphoned off to other projects. I hope I'm wrong and I'm not sure where to look to ascertain the truth of the matter. I hear news people talk about the general fund this and that and have often wondered.

I can only go by the state I live in now and the state I went to school in, where there is a special tax collected just for education. There is no hole in my facts simply because in some states the citizens have allowed the politicians to dump everything into a general fund to be spent at their discretion, including non-educational uses. People in those states need to make their politicians actually make a separate budget just to fund education. If anyone should get livid it is those who live where the money is siphoned off into a general fund for non-educational purposes.

Putting their children in private school is a matter of personal choice, which I do not malign. However, I do not advocate this. Instead of trying to circumvent the problem by withdrawing from society, it would be much more beneficial to all to fix the problems in the public school systems.

The government schools are not being fixed because it is government. First, they are trying to serve the needs of the majority of students, but are failing to meet the needs of the minority. The very gifted and the students with various disabilities are not being served. Second, the idea of having the money go with the child to whatever school is best able to educate him, in the opinion of the parents, does not mean a withdrawal from society. It is basic justice and freedom, since the present government school system forces everyone into the government mold, where everyone is taught the same dumbed-down curriculum, just enough to pass the standard tests. The general aim in government schools is to have everyone go to college or just attend until finished. I see far too many people who were given a high-school certificate [for attendance all 12 yrs] who were functionally illiterate. The schools got money for having a warm body, even if they taught them nothing.

You say that private school is a personal choice. What choice does a poor family have for their disabled but intelligent child which the government system places in special education with children who have learning disabilities, various physical and mental and emotional problems? How do they have a choice in sending him to a private school which specializes in such children, when there is no money provided to help. I have heard of many cases where these children were not served by government schools and could have been helped by private schools. Still, some boneheads continue to force these children to attend government schools for some political reason, some fear that these little private schools would threaten the "System".

Do the supporters of government schools fear the private schools might actually prove so good that government schools would have to close and sell off their facilities? It cannot be fear of losing jobs, because the student-age population seldom decreases anywhere and private schools usually have smaller classes, which would require more teachers. Could it be that the teachers union is protecting a bunch of teachers who are so substandard that private schools won't hire them, yet government schools do? What is it that makes people who say they believe in fairness, justice and freedom be so opposed to it when applied to education and the monies raised for the education of all children, by denying that money to all children who do not attend a government school? Are they hypocrites?

"Each child would receive the same amount, adjusted"

If, in fact the alternate schooling cost $10K with your $8K payback, where does that leave the family with no disposable income? Needing another $2K to play! (read again: no disposable income). Now we have the people who have enough income leaving, & those @ the bottom, stuck.

"their parents are forced to pay taxes to the government school and dig"

Can you think of a better motivation to make sure the public system is fit to use for all? Instead of repairing, you want to abandon it.

sidevalveguru-

Anyone can say "If this" or "If that", making fallacious assumptions that support their views. Many private schools do cost less than the government schools and do a better job of instruction. I am not referring to the snob schools, but those which serve the same type of student as the government schools. You assume that the private schools will simply raise the price and leave the poor behind. There is no reason for all the alternate schooling to suddenly rise in cost, they would be in competition to provide the best education at least cost. Your "people with no disposable income" can always organize their own schools that cost what their child's share of education money will pay for.

I have a feeling that your motives in your argument are based more on class envy than any sense of justice, Again you try to assume that private schools will cost more per student than government schools and that dividing the money equally by student will somehow help the "rich". As if the rich man's child doesn't deserve any tax money for his education, simply because he is rich. That is not a Republican attitude, that is not even the attitude of a good American, it smacks of liberal, socialist class warfare.

Certainly some parents who can afford it will pay more for a better school and to tie the money to the child will enlarge the base for the higher cost schools. However many families just want a say in their child's education that they do not have in government schools.

Why the great fear of tying education funding to the child and sending it to the school chosen by the parents? Is it possibly the loss of control over what is taught? Or is it the loss of control over all that money?

I am truly concerned with the plight of those with no disposable income, since I am one, and I have seen the problems they face from government educators who are totally unwilling or unable to address their children's special needs. There are many who would benefit from having one teacher to one to ten children. There are also gifted children among them whose families cannot get the government schools to provide for and cannot afford to do it themselves. There are those with multiple problems that the government schools simply ignore, lumping them all as special education.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I was a teacher in government schools and I saw the problem from the inside. Perhaps I was too close and cannot see the "Big Picture" as you do from the outside. Maybe you are just yanking my chain. Well, the chain broke with this "If". Thanks for sparring and further clarifying my thoughts, but we should end it here.

Amen! The default system has to be as good as we can make it!! !! Stripping moneys out out of the public system to fund (partially) private education can do nothing but widen the class divide.

"Schools are entirely different from fire and police departments"

Please explain how; I see tham a tax supported entities for the use on any person that needs that service. One may opt to pay for additional services at an alternate source if one desires/ is able.

I see that you've misspelled my screenname; does that mean you should visit an optometrist?

sidevalveguru - excuse the previous typo in your name, it was late and my fingers were less nimble.

"Please explain how; I see tham a tax supported entities for the use on any person that needs that service. One may opt to pay for additional services at an alternate source if one desires/ is able."[sic] When the government schools fail to provide the education needed for special students, due to emotional, psychological or physical problems or gifts and their families are not rich, you would tell them to go to the government schools and fail or somehow "just find the money". When an ordinary family has both parents working two jobs and living near the poverty line to provide an education for their children that the government schools will not what happens to all the tax money collected to educate their children? The government keeps it! Their education is not supported by taxes, instead their share is stolen by the government to be spent on the failing government schools and other children/administrators/teachers and luxury offices.

The police enforce the laws passed which apply to everyone and the firemen put out all fires, which are all a matter of public safety. They don't [are not supposed to] fail to protect some people and property as well as they do others. Government schools are for the majority of students and the students at either extreme are not served properly. In fact, having been a teacher, I know that many are just warm bodies to get money allocated to the school. There are far too many who graduate HS with a certificate of attendance, a history of special educ classes that did not work. There are also too many gifted and talented who cannot slow down enough to plod through with the majority, become frustrated and drop out.

If it benefits all of society enough to collect taxes to educate every child, how can it be just to deny the money collected for that education, simply because the child does not attend a government school? How can it be just to collect education taxes from the child's family, spend it on other children and demand that they either send their child to a government school or pay again to send their child to a school that that will give them a better education? Many of the children who need the private education are growing up in poverty and their families cannot afford to break out of the cycle of poor education which leads to further poverty. Many of them are black or Hispanic.

Changing the system of payment would not destroy the government schools, but they would then have to compete on a level playing field to provide better education or lose some students to private schools that will provide what is needed. I say, "Power to the People; not to government!" and I am a conservative Republican. How can an apparent liberal Democrat, such as you seem to be, say "Power to Government; not to the people!", in effect?

Dear Tag; I've been registered 'Republican', & considered myself 'conservative' for the past 35 yrs. However, the more times i've been "used" (a euphemism for: SCREWED OVER!) the more 'liberal' i've become. I've gone to tech school, worked hard, studied independently, studied more @ school; watched offshoring of jobs, watched tax credits awarded to said offshoring; the ENRON debacle, &al. There seems to be a caste system in USA too. I refuse to be treated as a 'consumable'!

Maybe your 'sarcasm' is misdirected?

THINK ENRON

Taganan,

We in Australia still have our apprenticeships and the existing model is far better than what you propose. Training within the apprenticeship is part of the package and is uniformly provided by TAFE Colleges (Technical and further education). Apprenticeships are routinely 4 years and generally pay a return for the employer depending of course on choosing the right candidate in the first place.

High performing apprentices are often signed off early say 6 months or sometimes even 12 months for the mutual benefit of apprentice and employer. The shortened apprenticeship seems to work well, I completed mine in 3 years in the 70s. Generally apprentices are encouraged to move on at the end of their apprenticeship to avoid becoming permanent "fifth year apprentices", some employers resist this stage of development but many are happy to take their more experienced worker back at a later date. Some employers formalise the procedure by giving former apprenticeships 6 to 12 months work as a tradesman before moving them on, or allowing them to apply for a permanent position.

One feature that has started to go wrong is group apprenticeships. Originally the group apprenticeship organisations were started to increase the number of apprenticeships offered by sharing apprentices between employers who might not have enough work or variety to fully sponsor an apprentice. Commerce being commerce though these organisations quickly turned into labour hire companies supplying apprentices to companies who would hire them anyway. The end result is profit for the group apprenticeship scheme to the detriment of the apprentice.

Workplace training in Australia is not in the poor place that US members report, we have a Federal training guarantee levy which is charged to those larger companies who don't train their workforce. Yes this is being abused, a large portion of the money is wasted on "Generic Inductions" and refreshers of same. The out and out rorts have been tamed and some money is left for real training.

Education on the other hand is coming under a lot of scrutiny with the present Federal Govt vowing to introduce the previous Govt's policy whether their fellow traveller State labour Govts agree or not.

The reforms proposed are better pay for teachers, performance pay for teachers, recruiting graduates from non teaching fields, disclosure of school relative performance etc. The Feds propose to use the old carrot and stick approach.

The private schools are not too happy with this, which is probably why the previous Govt didn't bring it in rather than opposition from the teachers union and the states. The private schools claim the moral high ground, but their results when their extra privileges are taken away don't stack up. Too many of the teachers are not fit for the state system, including paedophiles.

It seems that the situation in Australia, even though we aren't happy with it and are demanding change, is in a totally different league from what you describe.

All I can say is the thread topic is important and going on yours and other input the apprenticeship issue is only part of a greater malaise in your part of the world.

While we still have traditional systems that still work reasonably well, improvements are needed. Presently Education and training are the preserve of the states and this isn't the best approach as standards differ between states. Clearly education, health, transport and water are too big and too important for the usual Commonwealth vs States argy bargy and uniform standards are essential.

Emjay4119-

I am sure that there are systems, however imperfect, that may work better than something I thought of after midnight and having no experience with any real apprenticeship programs. I think that apprenticeships are very important in almost all fields and at all skill levels. Here we use the Dictionary of Occupational Titles which classifies almost all jobs by exertional levels, skill levels and time needed to learn the job.

A young person with low intelligence and poor academics might benefit from apprenticing to a custodian of many years experience or being taken on in many positions just to learn the basics. Someone with a bit more ability could apprentice as a machine operator on various machines or at other semi-skilled work. As for engineers, teachers, mechanics, electricians and such, they are all classified as skilled work, requiring a much longer training time. Being educated and holding a degree does not mean you are ready to work in the field at the level of those who have more experience and certainly not at the same level of pay. So I agree with the concept, yet am not sure of the technical aspects of exactly how apprenticeships should work, other than that they should be considered ongoing education to delay education loan repayments and should be at lower cost to employers to provide and give higher rewards for those who complete apprenticeships. Having them begin while in school is a good idea too. Many here have to graduate a 2 yr Technical College before becoming apprentices and some may remain at that level for many years.

Taganan,

The links below are representative, with 4 of the 7 state education and training departments, the Federal Govt also gets involved (at least financially). Briefly, much of what you yearn for in schooling and apprenticeships is already here. Many Americans would be better off emigrating to Australia, especially if future generations are taken into the equation. The problem is getting a 457 Visa, proof of skills is required usually in the form of trade papers. For instance in my trade (Electrical), licencing is compulsory. We have been taking tradesmen from South Africa and Zimbabwe where there was once a trade training system and it is reasonably easy for fitters etc., but getting Electricains up to speed and licenced is quite a task and it means the employer sponsoring the 457 visa is paying for someone who can't be utilised in the electrical trade, at least not as a tradesman. Without recognised trade papers I don't know how it would go getting involved in the 457 scheme.

https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/

http://www.det.wa.edu.au/education/

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/

http://education.qld.gov.au/

Apprenticeships here are for skilled callings and training is part and parcel of the apprenticeship. On the job training and specialised training covers the rest, remembering that the training guarantee levy is there to ensure skills are kept up to at least some degree. There are Government incentives to train apprentices as you will see above. Tradesmen can then take on various tertiary studies either part time or full time for instance Bachelor of Electrical Engineering. Paying as you go attracts a discount on the HECS fees and those who enrol in a cadetship usually have their HECS met by the employer, frequently on a per subject passed basis. Australian Universities train large quantities of full fee paying overseas students especially from throughout Asia.

HECS means Higher Education Contribution Scheme and is like a student loan. Students start to pay it back by a surcharge on their tax once they start to earn a reasonable income.

Our model seems very much like what you have been advocating. Education is administered by each of the 7 States but much of the funding comes from the Federal budget. Private schools are also funded and the funding is on a numbers basis with the results based model being investigated at this moment. From my personal experience as a student, Private school classes were up to 60 students and State schools (at least in QLD) max 28 students. State teachers were definitely better quality and the State schools had less institutionalised violence. The Marist Brothers were violent misfits given the job of teaching, because that is what the order does to earn a living. Skill or aptitude not a priority.

At the company that I work for, http://www.rwbeck.com R. W. Beck, we have apprenticeships -- deemed interns -- that we make sure get practical experience on real projects. We are an engineer consulting firm so the interns work on developing not just engineering skills but also talking and presenting to clients. It is a great program and we get a pretty good turn around on returning interns as employees. Most of the interns are straight out of college but can't get jobs because they have no experience. R. W. Beck gives them the experience they need to be successfull. I think it just depends on the company. I heard that CH2M has something close to what we do as well.

Excuse me. Almost all of you are OFF TOPIC !(sort of). Apprenticeships are post secondary education and employer sponsored (at least they were the USA) secondary education Votech and post secondary educational private Votech schools "Lincoln tech etc", are great to your foot in the door, But on the job training employer sponsored Apprenticeships are what this discussion was about. And why should they bring them back. I want to know where and why there gone! Why employers stopped investing in there workers. Why is it a bad investment for employers train the workers to become journeymen in there field. In my earlier post I said the government should offer tax incentives may be a start, Because let's face it the lack of skilled workers is another factor in where our economy is headed, At the same time we have employers with there hands up in the air trying to figure why ther can't find any skilled help! Investing in there workers is a start.

I think that as a part of a reform of education away from government domination there should be more apprenticeship as a part of education. Post educational apprenticeships are rightly up to the employer to offer and to decide the terms of the apprenticeship. Why they do not have more such programs, if they are as good as you say, is a mystery which is probably rooted in the bean counters and HR shortsightedness.

I have been in the shipbuilding industry for over 50 years and am now retired. When I first started out, the ratio of engineers to designers was about 1 in 15. Today, the ration is more like 10 engineers to one designer. Designers were the hands on people who came up with designs that were put into ships. Engineers carried out tasks like tests, spec writing, calculations, etc. Certainly they were necessary, but it was the designer/draftsman who did the real work. Today, there is a shortage of people who know the shipbuilding industry. It is populated with engineers, many who have just graduated from college and have never even seen a ship. They have to rely on the expertise of the "old timer" designers which are getting scarcer by the day. They are retiring with no new designers to take up the slack. This puts a strain on the new engineer who has to learn everything by himself. This process adds to the costs of building ships. On-the-job training is very expensive. It causes over-runs and delays in production. Designers/draftsmen have always been part of an apprentiseship program, whether formal or informal.

Naval architects, usually spend a semester working with a naval architecture firm. I don't know if other disiplines do the same.

I came across this description on another forum and thought you might be interested.

"Apprenticeships depend on countries. Some countries (like Sweden) have no apprenticeships and work like the US, and some (all the German-speaking, plus Italy and France) have a 3 or a 3.5 year apprenticeship program.

When young guys want to become cabinetmakers (or anything else), they must go to a one-year fulltime school where they learn how to work with wood 2 days per week and 3 days they learn the other theoretical knowledge. At the end of the year, they have to take tests in both theoretical and practical, which last a whole week. If they pass, they can take that certificate to a shop for an interview. They sign up for a contract of 2 or 2.5 years as apprentices. They start the apprenticeship and get around $350 in the 1st and around $450 in the 2nd year/month. They work in the shop 4 days and on 1 day must attend school for further vocational training, and every 2nd week one additional day for practical training in school. (In some states they work a whole week and must go to school 6 weeks in wintertime - carpenters in Bavaria, for example.)

Shops and schools have a plan which is required by law that an apprentice has to undergo all kinds of woodworking from A - Z. From solid woodworking to panels, from sanding to staining and finishing and spraying, all kind of styles of cabinetmaking and all the epochs. And within these two years, he has to go for 3 weeks of machinery training in a woodworking school. At the end of the apprenticeship, he knows how to design and build cabinets, windows, staircases, ceilings, doors and work with plastic. Then he has to undergo a theoretical test, which is 1 week, and has to do a difficult practical test, which is 2 or 3 days, and has to design and build his "Gesellenstück", which means "journeyman's-furniture or cabinet", which has to be built in 3 or 4 weeks in the shop.

An apprentice must build everything manually, without any machinery, in 1st and 2nd year, and just in the 3rd year he is allowed to use machinery.

If he is good in all 3 parts of "Gesellenprüfung" test, he gets the journeyman's license (Gesellenbrief) and he will be "spoken free", which is an old ceremony by a guy from the trades headquarters. Then the contract of apprenticeship is fulfilled. If he didn't pass the test, the contract will be lengthened for 2 X half a year, with a new chance to make the test. If he doesn't make it then, he cannot get a license anymore

In most countries, he can open his own business now, but not in Germany. There he has to work 3 - 5 years as a journeyman (it depends on the state) in a cabinet shop until he is allowed to sign up for another woodworking school (Masterschool), which lasts between 1 and 2.5 years. At the end, another very difficult theoretical test has to be done. Also a very difficult practical test and also a "masterfurniture" has to be designed and built. That often takes 6 to 9 months. If he passes all 3 parts of the test, he will undergo another procedure of becoming "free-spoken" and he gets the right to be a "free-citizen" (sounds terrible but that's how it is named). After another year, he gets his Masterdegree (Meisterbrief) and he is allowed to open his own shop. He will be monitored if he has a clean record - if yes, he is allowed to train apprentices then - if not, he can't become a "Meister".

After 50 years being a master, the government changes the "Meisterbrief" into a "Golden Meisterbrief", which is just a kind of ceremony with a short article in the newspaper.

If the apprentice belongs to any of the construction trades (carpenter, bricklayer or whatever) he can (but doesn't have to) go for a "Walz" which means that he must go for 2 or 3 years throughout the world to work in different shops. He is a "journeyman" then and he gets some substitutes within those years. He isn't allowed to come closer than 50 miles to his hometown and he must always wear the clothes that are required by his trade. All trades have their own costume over here.

Every shop owner has to give him work and accommodation for at least 1 day when the guy says a special and secret poem to the shop owner when knocking on his door. These poems and songs are absolutely discreet and none of the other trades or other people are allowed to know them.

The guys have to wear a special earring with a long chain and sign of his trade. If he isn't a good worker and messes up something, the shop owner is allowed to tear this earring out of the guy's ear. So, if one day knocks a guy with a carpenters-costume at your door, saying a poem, you must give him at least one day of work and accommodation. But take a look at his ear first. If there are many scars, he is not a good worker - but still, you must give him some work.

From contributor J:
Contributor M, why all the veneer equipment? Do small shops do all their own panels? We use a vacuum bag for the small amount of veneer work we do. Are the small one- to five-man shops over there specialized in one product or do they do it all - doors, millwork, furniture and built-ins?

We do not have CNC in our shop but are moving in that direction. Our shop probably does more variety than most in the US. We are in a high-end rural area and do mostly custom casework, and some doors and special millwork.

From contributor M:
Due to high competition, the small shops have to do it all. Even a 6-man shop has more equipment than most 30 - 40 - 50 man shops in America. The veneer equipment is necessary because in Europe we have to sew the veneer ourselves because of the grain and the face of the veneer. That means we take solid wood for the frames or veneer with straight face for the frames and a veneer with symmetric "flower" for the fillings which go inside the framedoors, etc. (The part that goes between frames - I don't know the English word, but call it filling.)

We glue 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 pieces of veneer symmetric on the panels. If no stain will be painted on, we flip each veneer-board over so the "picture" of the veneer will be almost symmetric and look like a candle flame. It has to be symmetric and the gaps must be symmetric within the frame, too.

Large 4ft x 8ft veneer sheets with a 1/16 laminate on the back are not available over here, because of too wild and asymmetric grain-direction and different colours from sheet to sheet (customers wouldn't accept that). But certainly we can buy the pre-veneered panels (mostly 3/4 thick) with all kinds of veneer, but we cannot use those panels for visible parts (we call it blind-veneer).

The veneer is cut layer by layer with the knife-cutting method, not like the turning-method where the veneer gets cut like on a turning machine.

Customer's demands are much higher than in the US. If we make cabinets, they look even inside the cabinets to find a little chip. To avoid chips we often run certain parts first on the saw and then again on the shaper. If there is just one little chip, you must take it all back to the shop and to do it again.

A shop without a 60 K widebelt sander has no chance anymore over here. Most shops have two, a common one for solid wood-boards and a CNC-one for the veneer sanding jobs. Sanding with a small $40 sander like is common in America is absolutely impossible here because of the little microscopic scratches in the veneer. Customers wouldn't accept that.

A high tech dust-collection system is required by law, which costs even for a 2-man shop more than 80K, and a spray-cabin with air-cleaning unit, etc. I forgot about the high-tech and low emission heating, plus a cutting machine to heat with the waste. Cheapest ones start at 90K. Heating with oil or electricity is impossible because of costs.

There's something I'm not getting. You seem to be telling us: It takes years (while earning no money) of work for a cabinetmaker to earn his "Gesellenbrief". Once he does, he then has to go out and spend a fortune in tools to get started. Assuming he gets his business off the ground, he then has to face scores of overly picky customers who refuse to pay him.

What I'd like to know is:

1. Where do these guys find the money to purchase all of these tools in the first place?

2. Why do shops over there insist on "Doing it all"? Given the circumstances you describe, it would seem beneficial for shops to specialize (i.e. doing veneer work for other shops). Over here many shops farm out things like raised panel doors and dovetailed drawers.

3. Finally, what in the world motivates someone to go through all that training and spend all that money on start up, only to be rewarded with cantankerous clients?

From contributor M:
I am sure that probably every craftsman in Europe asks those questions himself and hasn't found the right answer.

Americans are better businessmen than Europeans and have a very good ability to make money. Europeans haven't got that ability because it's been forever that you must go through the special apprenticeship and stay your whole life in the same profession. There's no way to adjust or change your profession. It is absolutely impossible to do anything else or get a job in another profession except if you start at zero as an apprentice in another trade, for example.

1) In America, almost every good guy with some money has the opportunity to start his small cabinet shop. Not here. The guys who own shops inherited the money, sold a farm or overtook the cabinet shop from family.

2) Almost every shop has all the equipment to do it all and almost every shop has the knowledge to do it all. In Europe, we are hard competitors. We do not have enough work to fill every shop, so you need to do it all.

3) If you do not go through all that kind of vocational training, you can sleep under bridges your whole life because you will never get a job. Having no education means to exist on social welfare. I have a Masterdegree and am a master of cabinetmaking, am a CAD technician, vocational teacher and carpenter and I hold a degree in business administration. I spent my whole life in fulltime and part-time schools plus apprenticeships, college and courses in the evenings and weekends.

I don't dovetail my drawers because most people don't want to pay the extra cost.

I build my drawers out of 1/2" birch b-2 plywood butt-joint style. Each drawer has a total of 6 pieces, including the drawer front. Cut the sides to total length to hide end-grain (front and back). Glue and nail or staple the 4 sides together, then glue and staple the 1/4" luan to the bottom. Remember, glue is the key. I then round the top edges of the drawer with a rounding bit and sand them. This tends to lessen the effect of the plywood core. Glue and staple the drawer front to this assembly. I love the European bottom mount drawer slides. The bottom of the drawer cannot possibly cave in or fall out.

I know this sounds like boxmaking 101, but I will stack this construction method against any dovetailed drawer in the world. I have tried to tear these drawers apart and you will absolutely tear the wood to pieces. Bottom line? The joints held. Also, the staples or brads that show when you open the drawer are filled and sanded. I like to do things the right way also, but in this day in America, you must be

inventive. "

The German system described is way over the top and beyond any reasonable apprenticeship system, being based on medieval guilds with all the secret poems, handshakes, signs and passwords. Perhaps that is why every apprentice unlucky enough not to have made the "Meister" grade fled [still flees] to other countries where they become successful in their fields and contribute to the greater employment and prosperity there. Also the failures do not have to live under bridges and can do other work. Everyone should have the right to work at any job they can and not be barred from work because they cannot fulfill a particular apprenticeship. If their work is poor they will get fired, they will lose their customers and have to find something they can do.

Need an apprenticing system, but not so Draconian and broader-based, starting at a younger age and for many jobs, not just those that are highly skilled. Not make work stuff using hand tools, but using the machines and tools in common use.

If anyone is interested in 'taking on' an apprentice, I am totally up for trying ;) Send me a mail. I am in third year civil engineering currently, but feel that I am missing all the practical aspects of the profession. Would love to learn from a veteran of the field.