quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Why can't companies like Microsoft train their own people? If they're really so desperate for trained employees, why can't they just gather up a bunch of raw recruits out of high school, put them into an accelerated training program, and get them up to speed so they can fill these particular openings they have?

quote:

You've 12 million illegals. What do you propose to do with them if they are illegal in your mind?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Why can't companies like Microsoft train their own people? If they're really so desperate for trained employees, why can't they just gather up a bunch of raw recruits out of high school, put them into an accelerated training program, and get them up to speed so they can fill these particular openings they have?

Why should they train their own people?

quote:


what loyalty to any company is there with Americans today?

quote:


would you pay tens of thousands of dollars to train someone just for them to leave after they completed training to get a few more bucks from your competition?

quote:


That is one thing I think immigrant students do have, is more loyalty to the company that goes thru the H1 visa paper mill to give them their first good job..

quote:


an American doesnt have that (H1 visa) drawback and can move to another company tomorrow..

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm going to venture a guess that in other countries "K-12" education isn't relied upon to do what ours is relied upon to do. Parental involvement and support of education is worse in the larger "city" schools than it is in the suburban schools, in general. And, in general, more money is spent per pupil in the larger city schools, and the results are generally worse. Are the teachers in city schools worse than the ones in suburban schools? I would be shocked if they were, in general. Sure, there will be teachers better than other teachers, but, in general, I would highly doubt that the teachers in higher performing school districts are that much better than those in lower performing districts. My father was an educator, so the importance of education was stressed and supported, and anything less than our best wasn't acceptable. Other than my chucklehead brother whose teenage rebellion consisted of blowing off school, the 4 of us kids did very well in school. We had the same teachers as everyone else.

quote:


The income disparities were there, but not as pronounced as you would find in a city district, and since the school had a vast majority of caucasians (blacks, hispanics, asians, and Indians were less than 25% of the student population), the educational result disparities can be seen without any sort of racial lens. Parental involvement and support of education, and parents relying on themselves to actually be the parents (as opposed to relying on the schools to also provide the parenting) will improve the education of America. Teachers will not have any bullshit expectations that are near impossible to meet, and they will have a much better perception by the general public.

quote:

quote:

There are also disparities between states and individual school districts in which some students do very well and others not so well.
Why can't companies like Microsoft train their own people? If they're really so desperate for trained employees, why can't they just gather up a bunch of raw recruits out of high school, put them into an accelerated training program, and get them up to speed so they can fill these particular openings they have?

Because you end up with kids that have a great education in programming, but are not "well-rounded." I can see them taking kids right out of college and doing that, but it's probably a lot more expensive to do that. I can't imagine them not doing it, if it would be cheaper.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm going to venture a guess that in other countries "K-12" education isn't relied upon to do what ours is relied upon to do. Parental involvement and support of education is worse in the larger "city" schools than it is in the suburban schools, in general. And, in general, more money is spent per pupil in the larger city schools, and the results are generally worse. Are the teachers in city schools worse than the ones in suburban schools? I would be shocked if they were, in general. Sure, there will be teachers better than other teachers, but, in general, I would highly doubt that the teachers in higher performing school districts are that much better than those in lower performing districts. My father was an educator, so the importance of education was stressed and supported, and anything less than our best wasn't acceptable. Other than my chucklehead brother whose teenage rebellion consisted of blowing off school, the 4 of us kids did very well in school. We had the same teachers as everyone else.

I think teachers and parents both play a role. That may be where the difference lies. Schools which have involved parents probably do better than schools where the parents couldn't care less.
But there are differences between districts, though. I moved a few times in my school days, and I could tell the difference between schools. It may not necessarily be the teachers, though, as they have to teach the curriculum they're assigned.
Some schools might water down their curriculum and lower their standards to keep kids from failing and/or dropping out. From the school's point of view, it might be better to do that than to start losing students, since losing students means losing money.

quote:

quote:

The income disparities were there, but not as pronounced as you would find in a city district, and since the school had a vast majority of caucasians (blacks, hispanics, asians, and Indians were less than 25% of the student population), the educational result disparities can be seen without any sort of racial lens. Parental involvement and support of education, and parents relying on themselves to actually be the parents (as opposed to relying on the schools to also provide the parenting) will improve the education of America. Teachers will not have any bullshit expectations that are near impossible to meet, and they will have a much better perception by the general public.

I agree completely. Parental involvement is key.

quote:

quote:

There are also disparities between states and individual school districts in which some students do very well and others not so well.
Why can't companies like Microsoft train their own people? If they're really so desperate for trained employees, why can't they just gather up a bunch of raw recruits out of high school, put them into an accelerated training program, and get them up to speed so they can fill these particular openings they have?

Because you end up with kids that have a great education in programming, but are not "well-rounded." I can see them taking kids right out of college and doing that, but it's probably a lot more expensive to do that. I can't imagine them not doing it, if it would be cheaper.

That brings up another point about the general philosophy of education at present, the idea that students must be "well-rounded." It seems to go back to the days when higher education was more the domain of the elite, where enrichment, refinement and culture seemed more important than following any career path, since the children of the elite already had their futures set anyway. Nowadays, kids are more goal-oriented towards career and immediate results, so they might wonder why they have to take unnecessarily difficult classes which have nothing to do with their career choices.
I've heard lawyers say that law school does not teach people how to be lawyers. They say that you learn to be a lawyer in the first 6-12 months of actually doing it. I've heard doctors say that they could teach an EMT to do surgery in six months. It makes one wonder why people have to go to school for years and years, plodding through a lot of irrelevant coursework, when it might be more practical to have an accelerated program with a curriculum focused solely on a career goal - which may not necessarily be "well-rounded."
If I understand the situation correctly, companies like Microsoft need engineers, technologists, and programmers, not Shakespeare scholars or people who can speak Latin fluently. They don't need those skills, yet colleges seem to think that those skills are necessary to be "well-rounded."

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
And I am telling you thats complete horseshit based on Microsofts need to hire in as many cheap indian and chinese techs as they can.

And yes they don't pay based on region of the world someone is from. That is why they hire foreign workers cause they "fit" Microsofts wage scale.

yeah,.. sure.. except avg starting salary at microsoft is second highest at $91,500/yr.. You keep spouting that same line but where is your proof of that?

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2012/06/25/top-10-starting-tech-salaries.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Why can't companies like Microsoft train their own people? If they're really so desperate for trained employees, why can't they just gather up a bunch of raw recruits out of high school, put them into an accelerated training program, and get them up to speed so they can fill these particular openings they have?

Why should they train their own people?

Because they need workers, right? If they really need workers that badly, then they should be willing to do whatever it takes. Right now, they expect American taxpayers to pay to educate their future employees, and they also expect the American government to change immigration law for their benefit. Why should Americans go along with that? What's in it for the American people to allow this?

quote:


what loyalty to any company is there with Americans today?

More loyalty than U.S. companies seem to have to America.

quote:


would you pay tens of thousands of dollars to train someone just for them to leave after they completed training to get a few more bucks from your competition?

They could have them sign a contract requiring them to work for Microsoft for X number of years, or else they could then bill them for the cost of the education. I don't see this as being any kind of impediment to doing this.

quote:


That is one thing I think immigrant students do have, is more loyalty to the company that goes thru the H1 visa paper mill to give them their first good job..

I wouldn't make that assumption.

quote:


an American doesnt have that (H1 visa) drawback and can move to another company tomorrow..

But why would an American do that, if Microsoft is such a great company to work for? And if there are better companies out there paying better salaries, perhaps Microsoft might consider that as well. If they can't match their competitors, then that seems to be Microsoft's problem, not something that would require changes in immigration policies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Why can't companies like Microsoft train their own people? If they're really so desperate for trained employees, why can't they just gather up a bunch of raw recruits out of high school, put them into an accelerated training program, and get them up to speed so they can fill these particular openings they have?

Why should they train their own people? what loyalty to any company is there with Americans today? would you pay tens of thousands of dollars to train someone just for them to leave after they completed training to get a few more bucks from your competition? That is one thing I think immigrant students do have, is more loyalty to the company that goes thru the H1 visa paper mill to give them their first good job.. an American doesnt have that (H1 visa) drawback and can move to another company tomorrow..

Really tired of hearing you go on about how "bad" Americans are....can you please get the fuck outta my country

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I'm not saying that teachers don't play a role, but I believe parents play a far greater role. Typically, the teaching profession attracts a certain type of person. They tend to be caring, giving, and nurturing. Not everyone is cut out to be a teacher. I recognize that in myself. I could be a tutor, and probably would excel, but a roomful of kids that don't learn at the same speed? I would go nuts. From top to bottom, I believe teachers are well-suited, well-trained, and capable to perform their duties. Are there differences? Sure. There are great teachers and there are bad teachers. I have talked to a guy who graduated HS one year after me. We both had the same teachers (unless he took French instead of Spanish), and our parents were of similar socioeconomic levels (my father was a school administrator; his was an engineer; both of us had stay-at-home moms). My favorite teacher was the one that I learned the most from: math. His least favorite teacher was the one he learned the least from: math. Same guy. His opinion was that this guy was the worst teacher he had in HS.

I will maintain - until it's changed - that teachers are overstressed and underpaid for the demands placed upon them. If parents would be parents to their own children and not rely on the school system to take care of that, too, teachers stress levels would plummet.

quote:


While it is true that a software engineer doesn't need to know Latin, Shakespeare, or anything outside of their profession, what kind of person do you end up with? Outside of his/her workplace, he/she's what? Have the skills and information necessary to make a critical decision about a political program been taught? There is no fundamental psychology, economics, poli-sci taught. No chem, bio, or spoken language classes. I fully believe that past generations were more well-rounded coming out of high school than they are now. They might know what's on a test, but I don't think the basics are there to give real meaning and depth to the learning. That isn't on the teachers. Don't get me wrong. That's on the funding, metrics, and well-intentioned incentives.

quote:


I've spoken to many people, in many fields that all say about the same thing: college didn't prepare them to do their jobs as much as actually doing their jobs did. Lawyers learn about law and are taught the background information and basics, but actually learn how to be a lawyer by practicing. I don't doubt that. Does a Medical Doctor have the same outcome results after 6 months of practicing law? I would highly doubt it. A surgeon may be able to teach an EMT how to perform surgery in 6 months, but will that EMT have the same anatomical understanding of the human body that the surgeon has? Hell no. I have bittersweet feelings about my classmates right now. Half of them care more about learning what to do and don't give two shits about why. It's sad to see that on the one hand, but it will mean better job security for those of us who do the extra work to find out why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

I personally hate Microsoft and the monopoly they have.. But if Microsoft is the one offering the best pay (they rate as second highest for avg start salary) then that is who they are going to work for.. I did see one article that showed a satisfaction rating of employees at various tech companies and Microsoft was only 68% and one of the lowest or very lowest.. but money talks, doesnt it, especially when starting out.. and it looks good on a resume to work for oh mighty Microsoft rather than never heard of XYZ Newbie Tech corp..

quote:


Considering that students sign a contract for their student loans and so many default on them, I wouldnt say a contract really means much.. people break contracts all the time and then it would be Microsoft suing an ex-employee and really, how good for MS rep is that? Not to mention that some may decide that tech just isnt their thing and drop out, so what does a contract do? Or what if the person is really not up to snuff & MS wants to dump that person? a degree shows that person does have that knowledge and knows how to use it, he/she is a much more proven commodity.. Contracts are only good if both parties hold up their obligations.. I do see that as a big problem and likely a reason why its not done.. cuz if that was a good idea it would be being done now..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
But not every district is like that. When our family moved across country between my freshman and sophomore year of high school, I noticed the standards were slightly lower at my new school. Some of the teachers were quite good, though. But they also have higher-ups to deal with, so if they're dealing with bad administrators, then that can also be a serious problem. One of the criticisms of our local district is that they're too top heavy with administration. Too much money is going to pay huge salaries to administrators, and not enough is actually getting to the classrooms. Teachers routinely have to pay out of their own pockets for classroom supplies because districts have their own interpretation of the "trickle down" theory.

quote:

I can see what you're saying, but I think there has to be a happy medium somewhere, because colleges might want people to become so well-rounded that they might not have any useful specialized skill to earn gainful employment.

As far as past generations go, it's true that they were more well-rounded out of high school, and especially out of college. But then again, there were a lot of people who dropped out before they even got to that point. The percentage of high school and college graduates was smaller back in those days.
Neither of my grandfathers ever made it past the eighth grade. They had no choice; they had to work. That was the case for a lot of families in that era. College was mainly something that only well to do families could afford, and they wanted their kids to have a well-rounded education. For past generations, school was more or less "optional," so those who did attend school were those who actually wanted to be there and were more motivated to learn.

quote:

But those who didn't want to go had options, too, since there were still employers willing to hire them. Both of my grandfathers ultimately did well for themselves, even without a high school diploma. But nowadays, it's almost impossible to get by without one. It's getting to be that way with college degrees, too. There are a lot more college-educated people than there used to be, so those with just high school diplomas may not be able to compete unless they get some sort of useful trade or skill - something they probably didn't learn in high school.
Society itself has changed in that professions are far more specialized nowadays. I think this has also influenced the way people look at education, as people might be directed towards the specialized subject of study. Society is no longer as well-rounded as it used to be; we've become more specialized and compartmentalized. So, it's not surprising that a lot of people are thinking along those lines rather than a well-rounded education.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

I personally hate Microsoft and the monopoly they have.. But if Microsoft is the one offering the best pay (they rate as second highest for avg start salary) then that is who they are going to work for.. I did see one article that showed a satisfaction rating of employees at various tech companies and Microsoft was only 68% and one of the lowest or very lowest.. but money talks, doesnt it, especially when starting out.. and it looks good on a resume to work for oh mighty Microsoft rather than never heard of XYZ Newbie Tech corp..

I don't have a huge problem with Microsoft as far as companies go. Our economic system is what it is, and they're in business to make money. If they're second highest in pay but one of the lowest in job satisfaction among their employees, then that says something. If they're having difficulty finding employees, then maybe there are other factors to consider, other than salary. Some people might be willing to take a little less pay at a different company, if there are other intangibles which might make the job more satisfying.

quote:


Considering that students sign a contract for their student loans and so many default on them, I wouldnt say a contract really means much.. people break contracts all the time and then it would be Microsoft suing an ex-employee and really, how good for MS rep is that? Not to mention that some may decide that tech just isnt their thing and drop out, so what does a contract do? Or what if the person is really not up to snuff & MS wants to dump that person? a degree shows that person does have that knowledge and knows how to use it, he/she is a much more proven commodity.. Contracts are only good if both parties hold up their obligations.. I do see that as a big problem and likely a reason why its not done.. cuz if that was a good idea it would be being done now..

Sure, there might be reasons why they're unwilling to do it, but the bottom line is, they're the ones who need the skilled employees and are complaining about the lack of skilled people. I don't really doubt that, but what are they doing to fix the problem?

I'm actually in favor of immigration reform, at least in some form or another. If people want to come and live here, help enrich our country, contribute and help make America a better place, I can't see turning them away. But in the course of the debate, a lot of other problems get mentioned, such as the lack of skilled workers, Americans not wanting to do certain jobs, not having as much of work ethic anymore. It seems that, in so many words, the underlying message here is "we suck." I have to admit that does kind of bother me. Are things really that bad? Have things degenerated that much?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
what a joke, sure you won't leave. you won't ever leave.
Does bringing products from china to north america supress pricing of north american made goods?  Its the same as labor. Of course it does.....use your head.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
For your edification ds i will stipulate for equal quality products coming into the US from china at a lower price the affect will be to surpress  pricing by the us manufacturer. Same as labor coming out of schools. I would contend that that "product" is superior than the foreign made ones from China or India. However, because the product can be bought on the cheap using the H1 visas, companies like Microsoft support those purchases of human product thereby suppressing wages here.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)