Theory or Practical Experience Make A Real Professional?
-
I was just thinking of the old woman saying even taxi drivers are also talented expert in their field.
Just curious, what you guys think? Someone who read a lot and a lot of theory, good in english is a professional or someone who have real field experience even he is no that highly qualified should be considered as a Professional?
To test a professional person, we must also know whether the tester is qualified expert..He may be Professor in theory but in real practise he may be out of the industries for more then 10 years..because his job is teaching basic theory..Hence you can outtalk him like he outtalk his student everyday. Does that meant that your field experience is no better then him? Seriously I questioned..
So how are we going to examine our expert and real professional in their actual field..I wouldn't wanted a sewage expert to ask me sewage question because I only know how to polish metal. -
............So the pt is ???
-
Originally posted by Wind6:............So the pt is ??? How we know the professional that qualified is only good in paper talk while the work are actually done by his field assistance.
The other question is how we conduct the testing of professional unless all doing the same job? or all teachers?
Who are the highest qualified professional in their respective field? It's definitely cannot be a lecturer teaching in school because he is out of touch from the industries. It must be the real one outside.
This is just like a general who know "Sun Sze" by theory but never fight a real war and another general who fought an actual battle. I believed many soldiers knowing them will choose the latter..because he fought and survived.
The earlier may search for his manual under his table when enemies attack.. -
both. an engineer can tell u how the machine works but might not know how to assemble it. a technician can take it apart and put it back together but might not know how it works.Originally posted by king108: I was just thinking of the old woman saying even taxi drivers are also talented expert in their field.
Just curious, what you guys think? Someone who read a lot and a lot of theory, good in english is a professional or someone who have real field experience even he is no that highly qualified should be considered as a Professional?
To test a professional person, we must also know whether the tester is qualified expert..He may be Professor in theory but in real practise he may be out of the industries for more then 10 years..because his job is teaching basic theory..Hence you can outtalk him like he outtalk his student everyday. Does that meant that your field experience is no better then him? Seriously I questioned..
So how are we going to examine our expert and real professional in their actual field..I wouldn't wanted a sewage expert to ask me sewage question because I only know how to polish metal.
to emphasis. The year 3s working on our uni's racing car can design all the components and know the theory behind it, but when it comes to assembly, sad to say, many r hopeless.
only someone both well versed in the theory and the pratical side, is a true professional. -
Heng's right - you need both. There's no point having a lot of experience if you don't have the technical knowledge to back you up and give you a framework for exploring the possibilities of every situation.
On the other hand, the technical knowledge without experience is practically useless. In my field, you need your hand held for the first three years, for the next three years, you're positively dangerous, and that's downgraded to being a hazard for the following three years. After that, if all goes well, you can be unleashed on an unsuspecting public without fear of a major lawsuit.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:Heng's right - you need both. There's no point having a lot of experience if you don't have the technical knowledge to back you up and give you a framework for exploring the possibilities of every situation.
On the other hand, the technical knowledge without experience is practically useless. In my field, you need your hand held for the first three years, for the next three years, you're positively dangerous, and that's downgraded to being a hazard for the following three years. After that, if all goes well, you can be unleashed on an unsuspecting public without fear of a major lawsuit.
-
Originally posted by HENG@:both. an engineer can tell u how the machine works but might not know how to assemble it. a technician can take it apart and put it back together but might not know how it works.
to emphasis. The year 3s working on our uni's racing car can design all the components and know the theory behind it, but when it comes to assembly, sad to say, many r hopeless.
only someone both well versed in the theory and the pratical side, is a true professional. Thanks for the feedback, as mentioned the real professional must be a "Wen Wu Shang Quan" type of expert in his field. No pure "Wen Sheng" or "Wu Sheng".'
So how about the "imperial examiner" must he be also one of the real master in his field?
What type of question should be set for people who going for the "imperial examine". Should it be based on his academic studies or his actual field? What basic qualification he must process then? -
hi, just my two cents,
i would say, we need both theory and practical experiemce..
they both complement each idea..
knowledge(theory) is needed on whatever you do, and practice of those knowledge would lead to more undertsanding of the knowledge...
in other words, a hands on expericence of what happens
And easy example is Science ^^ -
My take on this is the ideal package is a composition of BOTH theory and practical. However depending on which industry or companies you are in, employers are more inclined to hire practical ppl for practical reasons. Small companies do not have the means to spend so much money and time on theory aspects of business. They feel only top boss need know and then the workers below just do the practicals to start earn money for company.
I always use the analogy of general and soldiers. If there are only theory generals but no soldiers how do you fight a war with NO soldiers? If there are only soldiers but no solid theory planning from generals, the soldiers are marching towards a massacre. So the ideal should be BOTH generals and soldiers. That is ideal.
My work experience is a lot of ppl want to do the theory but shun the practical so there is always a constant fight to take the theory positions in company whereas the practical positions are always vacant to be filled by foreign talent -
Originally posted by sohguanh:
[/b]
My take on this is the ideal package is a composition of BOTH theory and practical. However depending on which industry or companies you are in, employers are more inclined to hire practical ppl for practical reasons. Small companies do not have the means to spend so much money and time on theory aspects of business. They feel only top boss need know and then the workers below just do the practicals to start earn money for company.
I always use the analogy of general and soldiers. If there are only theory generals but no soldiers how do you fight a war with NO soldiers? If there are only soldiers but no solid theory planning from generals, the soldiers are marching towards a massacre. So the ideal should be BOTH generals and soldiers. That is ideal.
[b][b]My work experience is a lot of ppl want to do the theory but shun the practical so there is always a constant fight to take the theory positions in company whereas the practical positions are always vacant to be filled by foreign talent [/b]
tats true -
That's not a bad analogy. Going along those lines, of course, a general must start as a private at some point, then later as a lieutenant, captain, major and so on. Ultimately, when the OC moves up to CO's position, one of his subordinates must be in a position to move up to the OC post.Originally posted by sohguanh:My take on this is the ideal package is a composition of BOTH theory and practical. However depending on which industry or companies you are in, employers are more inclined to hire practical ppl for practical reasons. Small companies do not have the means to spend so much money and time on theory aspects of business. They feel only top boss need know and then the workers below just do the practicals to start earn money for company.
I always use the analogy of general and soldiers. If there are only theory generals but no soldiers how do you fight a war with NO soldiers? If there are only soldiers but no solid theory planning from generals, the soldiers are marching towards a massacre. So the ideal should be BOTH generals and soldiers. That is ideal.
My work experience is a lot of ppl want to do the theory but shun the practical so there is always a constant fight to take the theory positions in company whereas the practical positions are always vacant to be filled by foreign talent
Again, along the lines of the military analogy, the higher you go, the more your focus will move from the tactical to the strategic.
Applying the above to a startup company, the boss starts off as either a solo act, or one of a small number, which means that he's got to do the hands-on work himself. As the company grows, he gets further away from the hands-on work and more into managing the company at a strategic level. Take this further down the track, and the boss will find himself not doing any hands-on work anymore.
That's the theory at least.
The reality is that if the boss doesn't go looking for staff who have the basic knowledge to follow the path he has taken, he'll find himself having to go back to do hands-on work, since the staff won't be competent. Further down the track, as the business expands, the boss will require middle-level managers to be OCs while he commands the division, so to speak. Poorly-chosen hires will leave him without good OC candidates within the company, and he'll then have to take his chances looking for someone in the job market. Even in successful companies, there's a fair element of this occurring, and if the boss ignores it, quality and business will drop.
Bosses who hire people who only do the practical work and earn money for the company are being extremely shortsighted, and sooner or later will find themselves doing a lot more work than they bargained for. -
Anything to do with Professional regardless of which fields..as long as someone is qualified by the imperial examiner make a unprofessional decision, the imperial examiner should also be procesute. This will ensure that all are really professional and responsible for the action done.
-
Uhh, what imperial examiner? Are there any emperors or empires left?
As for the rest of it, for most occupations in the "professional" category such as doctors and lawyers, you already have regulatory bodies, and if someone gets through without being properly certified, these bodies cop a lot of flak.
If someone screws up on the job but if they're properly qualified, I don't see why the regulatory body needs to be part of any litigation. After all, their job is to determine if the person's technical qualifications are suitable for the role, but asking them to be responsible for the actions of that person is just plain silly.
I'm not sure if you understand what professional in this sense means. If the guy's a professional he's supposed to act according to the responsibilities and obligations that follow, so why do we need nannies for these people?
If you need to constantly backcheck someone's work, that's sai kang, not professional work. In professional work you do have some oversight by people qualified in that particular field, but you don't have someone constantly eyeballing you because you're supposed to know what you're doing.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here, but from what I can decipher, it's not reasonable. -
The examiner must bear the punishment for confirming anyone unprofessional else anyone passed his test can be one.Originally posted by Gedanken:Uhh, what imperial examiner? Are there any emperors or empires left?
As for the rest of it, for most occupations in the "professional" category such as doctors and lawyers, you already have regulatory bodies, and if someone gets through without being properly certified, these bodies cop a lot of flak.
If someone screws up on the job but if they're properly qualified, I don't see why the regulatory body needs to be part of any litigation. After all, their job is to determine if the person's technical qualifications are suitable for the role, but asking them to be responsible for the actions of that person is just plain silly.
I'm not sure if you understand what professional in this sense means. If the guy's a professional he's supposed to act according to the responsibilities and obligations that follow, so why do we need nannies for these people?
If you need to constantly backcheck someone's work, that's sai kang, not professional work. In professional work you do have some oversight by people qualified in that particular field, but you don't have someone constantly eyeballing you because you're supposed to know what you're doing.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here, but from what I can decipher, it's not reasonable.
We are only seeing professional punished for fatal industries accident but the examiner can still carry on to qualify the same quality professional without fear. -
That is true, but attracting, retaining and training staff in a new start-up is easier said than done. That's why most small companies sort out the practical side of stuff first, at least got money in the pocket.Originally posted by Gedanken:That's not a bad analogy. Going along those lines, of course, a general must start as a private at some point, then later as a lieutenant, captain, major and so on. Ultimately, when the OC moves up to CO's position, one of his subordinates must be in a position to move up to the OC post.
Again, along the lines of the military analogy, the higher you go, the more your focus will move from the tactical to the strategic.
Applying the above to a startup company, the boss starts off as either a solo act, or one of a small number, which means that he's got to do the hands-on work himself. As the company grows, he gets further away from the hands-on work and more into managing the company at a strategic level. Take this further down the track, and the boss will find himself not doing any hands-on work anymore.
That's the theory at least.
The reality is that if the boss doesn't go looking for staff who have the basic knowledge to follow the path he has taken, he'll find himself having to go back to do hands-on work, since the staff won't be competent. Further down the track, as the business expands, the boss will require middle-level managers to be OCs while he commands the division, so to speak. Poorly-chosen hires will leave him without good OC candidates within the company, and he'll then have to take his chances looking for someone in the job market. Even in successful companies, there's a fair element of this occurring, and if the boss ignores it, quality and business will drop.
Bosses who hire people who only do the practical work and earn money for the company are being extremely shortsighted, and sooner or later will find themselves doing a lot more work than they bargained for. -
Hey, don't take this the wrong way, but if you're talking about "imperial examiners", it's a bit hard to take your grip on reality seriously. You're not even in the right century.Originally posted by king108:The examiner must bear the punishment for confirming anyone unprofessional else anyone passed his test can be one.
We are only seeing professional punished for fatal industries accident but the examiner can still carry on to qualify the same quality professional without fear. -
Undoubtedly, but that does not mean that said company can afford to not take their recruitment procedures seriously. Of all the failed SMEs that I have come across, the most common failure lies in making decisions based purely on expediency. They make hasty decisions that fail to work out, and in short order these organisations find themselves behind square one, because they have wasted time, money and effort on an incorrect decision.Originally posted by Uncle_MooMoo:That is true, but attracting, retaining and training staff in a new start-up is easier said than done. That's why most small companies sort out the practical side of stuff first, at least got money in the pocket.
In contrast, I have been fortunate enough in my early days of employment to have been part of two rapidly-growing young organisations (the owner of one of which was voted the Chinese Chamber of Commerce's Entrepreneur of the Year), and the common link between the two was that the owners took care to think through each decision thoroughly, examining all aspects instead of rushing to fill a position. Even though some decisions were urgently required, both bosses opted to take their time to make a late decision, rather than a quick erroneous one that would require them to repeat the entire exercise again.
There is unfortunately no getting around the fact that decisions, both tactical and strategic, cannot be rushed. -
So how would you advise a start-up to attract good people? I mean whether the able or the talented, other firms can easily outpay you. Even if you match their pay, the "prospects" and security on the other side will usually seem better.
-
Okay, let's problem-solve this one.
You've started up your own company, and you've done well enough to not only stay afloat but to grow and take on new staff. As the company grows, your new people will take up the spots that you vacate as you yourself move up.
In the early days, the infrastructure won't be all that developed yet, and your new hires will probably have to do little less than what you had to do in order to get to that particular point. The learning curve is therefore still pretty steep for them.
What qualities are required to perform successfully in such a situation? A certain amount of intelligence and initiative to work without an established framework, the drive to take on more responsibility in a small organisation and the foresight to see the growth potential of the role.
If you're not offering as much as the big boys, you will tend to attract two kinds of applicants - the types described above who will recognise the role for what it is, and deadbeats who don't really care what they apply for.
It's pretty easy to tell between the two types as you go along. The deadbeats will tend to send generic carbon-copy cover letters with their applications, showing that they're just trying their luck and aren't seriously interested in this specific role. The winners will demonstrate that they understand the challenges and opportunities of the role. Of course, the caveat is that your position description must be written in such a way as to convey the right message - this is the first point in which you as the employer can cut corners and shoot yourself in the foot.
Throughout the rest of the selection process you can assess what the applicant is like. Does their history (referenced, of course) reflect that they're the type to go out and get things done, or are they the sort to wait for things to happen? If you bother to test them properly (which woefully few Singaporean employers do), are they conscientious and emotionally stable, or are they the sort to freak out and break down at the first sign of danger? In the interviews, are they well prepared, and do they demonstrate initiave, or do they wing it and go whichever way the wind blows?
There are a lot more issues to touch upon, but in the scope of this discussion the above will do to make my point.
This illustrates two points that I'm making. In choosing someone for a role, you need to put in the right type and amount of effort, and not go with the expedient options. If you do it right, it'll be easy to tell the serious players from the turkeys (as a rule of thumb, you get one good one for every ten turkeys). If you get someone with the right qualities, and who would take the long view and go for something that pays more than just a good starting salary, you've got a winner - grab the bugger and hang on to him. Hanging on to good employees is a discussion for another day. -
talk less work more...
-
Yeah? What if you're a deejay?Originally posted by tt3:talk less work more... -
Good post Gendakan, thanks for the effort.
-
No sweat, Moos - I used to do this sort of a thing for a living, and I still keep in touch with the business once in a while.Originally posted by Uncle_MooMoo:Good post Gendakan, thanks for the effort.