Thread: 40% wish they could be a carpenter

I may be a slow learner, but after a 4 year apprenticeship I was in no way equipped to tackle 50% of tasks a qualified chippie tackles daily - I'd say 2 years after my apprenticeship I considered myself competent..... Now, after 15 years (4 apprentice, 11 on the job) I consider myself adequet, so I would struggle to see how someone with only 1 year of knowledge based learning would trump someone completing an apprenticeship. Sure, they may know the why's and the shoulds but the 'this is how to get it done to achieve the desired result in a timely manner' I don't think would be there. Fir this reason I believe apprenticeships will be here for a long time to come unless there is a big overhaul of not just the schooling/teaching methods, but the industry as a whole.

As stated in an earlier post - it's not the learning how to use a technique, but how to apply that technique to a given situation accurately - and learning which technique to use takes time

These are just my thoughts and observations....

And who would set my drop saw up every morning if I didn't have an eager to learn apprentice??......certainly not i

Originally Posted by Lappa

They would be be teaching the exact same competencies as TAFE as they are Govt. mandated. Same theory, same practical, same tools same tasks. The biggest advantage is overall time although the actual training time (3 days a week for 12 months = 1 day a week for 36 months) is the same as TAFE.
The rest of the “real world training” is done “on the job” in an apprenticeship if it’s done correctly. I notice the course you spoke of has 800 hrs of “real world training”. Is that done on the other two days a week or at the end of the course?
”Real world Training” is an essential part of the course as it is the 3rd element of assessment and without it you can’t get a qualification.
I’d also be interested in fees. Non apprenticeship courses are not Govt subsidised in NSW. $12,670 non apprentice for Cert III Carpentry vs $2000 for an apprentice.

I did an apprenticeship but did it in a three year traineeship structure because of my age. Loved every minute of it.
Cheers

Stuff like this is not real world training and very little of doing scale models like that transfers into actually working on a jobsite, working at heights, working in a team (important), working with tools and materials with the actual difficulties they ACTUALLY present when in full scale, dealing with ladders, dealing with scaffolds, wearing a harness?

It's not just knowledge that makes a true craftsman, sportsperson or a specialist, it's knowledge, interest AND most important of all practice.

Some people have a natural aptitude so they can pick things up faster than others but most of us unfortunately don't, and some of never will no matter how hard we practice.

The brain boffins reckon whether it's a ballerina or a bull wrangler, a trade or a PhD, the average person to become truly competent needs about 10,000 hours of practice.

On a 40 hour a week, 48 weeks a year basis that's 5 and 1/4 years.

Most education systems simply fail to recognise this and that's often why supposedly qualified people are less skilled than they should be.

I cannot speak directly toward carpentry as my first hand experience isn't in running a business of building houses (those who know me, know that I've a hell of a back story though).

My business experience is in IT, where the really hard stuff is done and the crap is really sifted fast.

Education isn't the only pathway to excellence. Experience has shown me that passion plays an astounding role in key areas of knowledge, aptitude and success. I've hired people with no eduction who are mind bogglingly good and those with awesome educations (masters, PhDs) who are astoundingly inept (unbelievably so). Difference? Passion. The passionate approach every situation on a completely different level.

What I despise is the enforced pathway of a single medieval system that indentures people in an exploitative serfdom. If an education system has failed to deliver competent graduates, then the fault lies jointly with the student (for failing to apply themselves) and the education body itself (for failing-upwards). Graduating incompetent people serves nobody justice. It would be better for the institution to fail them, as in the past. Big Fat F.

The same wth apprenticeships. I've seen first hand over the last few years how trades apprentices are little more than cheap indentured labour. They are not being taught real skill in any meaningful manner. Again, the apprentice has failed to show passion, or the master has failed the student (which seems like a humanistic crime to me).

Passion can be killed by both systems, or it may never be present.

I don't know the answer.

The brain boffins reckon whether it's a ballerina or a bull wrangler, a trade or a PhD, the average person to become truly competent needs about 10,000 hours of practice.

On a 40 hour a week, 48 weeks a year basis that's 5 and 1/4 years.

Most education systems simply fail to recognise this and that's often why supposedly qualified people are less skilled than they should be.

Three thoughts cross my mind, Bob.

Firstly, experience and practice are a vital ingredient of all skills, whether these are technical, practical or intellectual. The knowledge of what to do and how to do it, is equally dependent of when to do it.

The second factor is not a function of training, however good it may be. It certainly may be groomed and encouraged, but it is inherent - either one has it or one does not. And this is creativity. The ability to look outside the box, the ability to problem solve, and the ability to make do with what one has ...

Thirdly. It is not enough to have knowledge or creativity if you cannot organise and manage your time. All the best ideas and ability will fail to bear fruit without the ability to work to a plan and deadline.

Training courses, whether based at Tafe or university, provide an academic foundation for these skills. Individuals have to provide the important ones.

Regards from Perth

Derek

https://aeon.co/essays/we-live-in-a-...ome-a-polymath

Having run across a few of the qualified by TAFE guys I can say most of them are pretty dammed useless. Part of the purpose of an apprenticeship program is to turn out guys who can work unsupervised as self employed contractors etc. From what I've seen the TAFE type guys are capable enough but they're capable as employees, not necessarily capable enough to be an employer. What they've been taught they may do well but often they'v really only taught how to do a few things and they lack the broader experience of someone whos had 4 years of on the job training.

Its the difference between "automotive technician" who installs new parts in a car and "mechanic" who may be able to repair whats broken as opposed to tossing it over his shoulder and putting a new one in.

But I also think that the emphasis on competency based apprenticeships and RPL is great. Some people have more skill and aptitude then others - why should they be held back on a 1st year apprentices pittance if they come in with enough skill to be halfway there at the start. Bloke I know not long ago did a diesel fitters apprenticeship entirely by RPL in 12 months, and so he should have... he probably had more engine/transmission/driveline rebuilds under his belt in his mid 30's then the TAFE guys instructing him will do in this lifetime, and I'd have no hesitation in letting him work on my gear anytime whether he had the piece of paper or not. At the other end of the spectrum I know at least one guy who got signed off on a trade after 4 years and the prick is totally useless.

The real issue should lie in having the skill, not the how and where you got it. Sometimes I think that more then just apprenticeships in some trades it need to almost go back to the guild system where beyond just having a trade there are further levels of competency recognised.

You know what's interesting and might be worth thinking about, is my son plays AD&D once a week with a group of friends (as did we all when young!)

Level 5 Fighter with 89 experience points
Level 3 Driud with 23 experience points
.....
Level 10 Cabinet Maker with 150 experience points.....
Level 1 Novice/Journeyman with 2 XP.

Each job is one XP, verified on social media by the client... Instagram, Facebook, etc (I.e. a real verifiable human).... "Yes Joe did build this house/cabinet/display". It is worth 2 XP.

XP can only be gained that is appropriate to my class type (it is nominated at the beginning e.g. Im a Fighter/Knight). If I steal something in an act act of thievery, I get no experience in my Figter class. If I engage in Gyprock Cornicework, one can only gain XP under the Plasterer class, not the CabinetMaker class.

When engaging a new cabinet maker you can literally review the sum of all jobs, chronologically, showing how that experience was gained. It's a public verifiable list of jobs.

It has always troubled me that someone can proclaim themselves a "woodworker" simply because they have a vague passing interest in it. It makes it very hard for the public to determine competence - and therefore price.

Only problem I can see with this woodpixel - I'm awesome at rolling 6's.

Originally Posted by John.G

Having run across a few of the qualified by TAFE guys I can say most of them are pretty dammed useless. Part of the purpose of an apprenticeship program is to turn out guys who can work unsupervised as self employed contractors etc. From what I've seen the TAFE type guys are capable enough but they're capable as employees, not necessarily capable enough to be an employer. What they've been taught they may do well but often they'v really only taught how to do a few things and they lack the broader experience of someone whos had 4 years of on the job training.

An apprenticeship is one day at TAFE or a Private Training provider and four days at work. TAFE does not have them full time. Those four days at work are supposed to be the on the job training. If they are not getting the correct on the job training, then don’t blame TAFE, blame their employer.

Its the difference between "automotive technician" who installs new parts in a car and "mechanic" who may be able to repair whats broken as opposed to tossing it over his shoulder and putting a new one in.

True up to a point. In many cases these days an integrated assembly has no available spare parts - the manufacturer does not make them available. The other factor is the time taken to exact a repair vs a replacement part. For example, an alternator can be bought for eg. $100 - at eg $120/hr labour cost, why would you rebuild one and charge the customer twice to three times the cost of a replacement? .
Apprentices are taught how to be build suspension struts but how many businesses do it! It’s far cheaper to buy a complete assembly in many cases. Another instance is an outer CV joint on a Nissan. Outer Joint and boot is $95 plus labour cost to remove the old one and replace with new. An entire new shaft complete is only $124.
If parts are available and it’s a cheaper option for the customer to rebuild, then a rebuild it is.
In a “make a living” situation and “keep the customer happy re price”, a rebuild is not always an option

But I also think that the emphasis on competency based apprenticeships and RPL is great. Some people have more skill and aptitude then others - why should they be held back on a 1st year apprentices pittance if they come in with enough skill to be halfway there at the start. .

Agree entirely, that’s why there is RPL in place in all forms of training.

If Australia was serious about trade training we would introduce a Master system, similar to Europe. One of the problems with our current system is erosion. Each generation becomes less competent than the last.
Now, to add insult to injury, we look at fast tracking. A sure recipe for further degradation.
The Master system places an apprentice with a competent teacher.
All tradesmen were not created equal. All tradesmen dont necessarily make good instructors. All teenagers dont automatically make good apprentices.
Place the little darlings in good hands and they soon run short of excuses.

There was talk of making a tradie do a cert iv in Training And Education before he or she could take on an apprentice. Likely just talk.

DaveTTC
The Turning Cowboy
Turning Wood Into Art

Rustynail wrote:

Now, to add insult to injury, we look at fast tracking. A sure recipe for further degradation.

Unhappily, this appears to be occurring as well among professions, where fewer years to qualification are being pushed. One day brain surgery may become a 3-week online course.

The point is that training is not about minimal skills, but about necessary skills.

Regards from Perth

Derek