[HN Gopher] Work is not school: Surviving institutional stupidity
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Work is not school: Surviving institutional stupidity
        
       Author : sherilm
       Score  : 158 points
       Date   : 2025-10-02 14:58 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.leadingsapiens.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.leadingsapiens.com)
        
       | bitwize wrote:
       | At work, data, metrics, and KPIs are great for "fishing
       | expeditions"--looking for reasons to fire you in case you start
       | to become too expensive to want to keep around, or if
       | middle/upper management just doesn't like you.
       | 
       | With that in mind, remember that corporate IT department knows
       | everything you do on your work computer. Every email sent, every
       | process started, every keystroke. Good luck!
        
       | hobs wrote:
       | "Study hard, get good grades, follow the formula and ultimately
       | merit wins."
       | 
       | That's really funny, I remember the day I watched a kid's femoral
       | artery get slashed in a fight and watched my teacher use his belt
       | as a tourniquet, thankfully the kid lived because of that.
       | 
       | Most of my schools were taught by burnt out underpaid angry folks
       | who wanted you to stay in line, that's it, any other behavior
       | would be met with derision, verbal abuse, and targeted violence
       | by other students.
       | 
       | Meanwhile rich kids get into good schools because they can afford
       | after school activities and tutors since birth.
        
         | everyone wrote:
         | Yeah, in work it's all about who you know. What your
         | connections and background are. Everything is like that,
         | including school, but I guess the person who wrote this article
         | didnt realize that.
        
         | SilverElfin wrote:
         | > Meanwhile rich kids get into good schools because they can
         | afford after school activities and tutors since birth.
         | 
         | This is a myth - most non-legacy admissions kids getting into
         | good colleges aren't spending on these things in the way that
         | you think. They're getting there because they're actually smart
         | and hard working and have a stable environment (like two
         | parents). It doesn't take much to get a very high test score
         | for example - most of them aren't even paying for group classes
         | let alone tutors.
        
           | bigyabai wrote:
           | > This is a myth
           | 
           | Citation?
        
             | astrobe_ wrote:
             | I want to see that too; because OP is saying between the
             | lines that "public school kids" are lazy dorks by birth.
        
           | cosmic_cheese wrote:
           | Based on personal experience I don't believe it has as much
           | to do with smartness or willingess to work hard. A lot of
           | poor kids have that too.
           | 
           | The bigger difference is that successful parents are
           | constantly acting as role models, giving their children cues
           | to follow, and passing on important knowledge that schools
           | don't whether they realize or not. Many poor kids miss out on
           | those things entirely, and as a result end up spinning their
           | wheels later in life due to misplaced efforts and fumbled
           | attempts. They may eventually figure things out on their own,
           | but it'll happen several years down the road, and while they
           | can narrow the gap closing it entirely becomes more difficult
           | the further they ascend (feels a bit like Zeno's Paradox).
        
           | righthand wrote:
           | > and have a stable environment
           | 
           | For example, having a good supportive community with after
           | school programs or other youth outreach programs.
           | 
           | I was dining and eavesdropping a conversation at a table in a
           | restaurant. It was a mother and 8 year old daughter talking
           | about her future. They were talking about a career path to
           | being a doctor, SAT scores and how she is studying right now
           | for the SAT and other tests and the extra-curricular that
           | would be required (whether the child naturally wanted this
           | path is unknown). The mother remarked on another conversation
           | with her daughter's friend; that she did not ask the
           | daughter's friend about the career prospects, because she
           | wasn't sure if the friend had any. She didn't want to have an
           | awkward conversation. Notice that the supportive environment
           | doesn't extend to the daughter's friend in any manner.
        
             | paulryanrogers wrote:
             | Damn. That's quite early to be teaching the test. And
             | specializing in niche extra curriculars. Competition must
             | be fierce.
        
       | apwell23 wrote:
       | it used to be that tech provided somewhat a safe space for
       | autists like me to hide out. now its full of management ppl who
       | would've gone into other industries but were lured in by high pay
       | in tech.
       | 
       | i miss the days where tech pay only slightly above average and
       | ppl in tech were considered losers and dorks.
        
         | isoprophlex wrote:
         | Someone downvoted you and it's against the spirit of HN to
         | challenge this because it makes for boring reading but
         | 
         | I AGREE
         | 
         | PEOPLE tell me WHY you find this thought distasteful or
         | disturbing
         | 
         | tech used to be a safe hiding spot for geeks to, idk, hack on
         | something with total disregard for social norms and personal
         | hygiene; now we have assholes weaponizing this by promoting
         | RTO, hustle culture and "hurrr we are all one family" but it's
         | fucking fake performance theatre and noone cares about
         | computers anymore, only about number go up.
        
           | aitchnyu wrote:
           | In the past computers affected only telephone lines. Now they
           | affect drones, taxis, movie distribution etc so "noone cares
           | about computers anymore" and "other industries" as GP said is
           | hard to define.
        
           | thewebguyd wrote:
           | Also in agreement, I miss the old days.
           | 
           | I still find that environment somewhat over on the ops side
           | of things (I'm a sysadmin, technically) as corporate IT is
           | still the red-headed step child so I get left alone for the
           | most part but its still pretty rough.
           | 
           | We aren't immune over in ops land though either. Still
           | getting newbies that are in it only for the money and I've
           | worked with people who actively hated computers and didn't
           | enjoy the work at all, only the paycheck.
        
           | snozolli wrote:
           | I've lamented that in the late 90s, it seemed like there were
           | a lot of smaller companies hiring at good pay. I've seen job
           | listings recently, looking for senior engineers with a
           | laundry list of skills, and the pay is lower than I made in
           | 1998 as a new grad, adjusted for inflation.
           | 
           | However, I have to admit that maybe companies that engaged in
           | this seemingly fair behavior went out of business because,
           | ultimately, it's not good business. It seems like the only
           | places paying well these days are FAANGs (or whatever it's
           | mutated to) that will work you to the bone.
        
         | linguae wrote:
         | As someone who transitioned from industry to full-time teaching
         | at a community college, I sympathize. The boom-driven influx of
         | people in the industry who are not passionate about technology
         | but are passionate about money has affected even those who are
         | passionate about technology, because what happens when a
         | company's management and executives are only motivated by money
         | at all costs?
        
       | rs186 wrote:
       | > If you have to, blame stupidity not malice
       | 
       | > No one is out to get you; they're just out to get through the
       | week.
       | 
       | The author seems to be too naive. I don't have first-hand
       | experience, but just hearing my friends who work at a certain
       | company talking about what's happening, I know how terrible some
       | people can be. And that's a widespread issue (otherwise I would
       | not hear about similar things happening to people in different
       | organizations).
       | 
       | One example: people take credit for other people's work in front
       | of higher management. You think someone would accidentally make a
       | mistake and forget what they actually did themselves? Is that
       | even possible? No, they know exactly what they are doing and why
       | they are doing that. They are not trying to be friends with you.
        
         | yoyohello13 wrote:
         | Yeah I think "don't attribute to malice what can be explained
         | be stupidity" is applied too broadly these days. There is
         | absolutely malice behind some decisions/actions, and it's
         | dangerous to just shrug it off. Even more concerning, often the
         | malicious people will hide behind stupidity.
        
           | andy99 wrote:
           | > Even more concerning, often the malicious people will hide
           | behind stupidity.
           | 
           | yeah a lot of people that get ahead seem to be intentionally
           | ignorant (to the point of fooling themselves) to provide a
           | kind of plausible deniability. It's obviously put on because
           | you see they are shrewd political operators and and "errors"
           | are always in their favor. But there's this game of who can
           | appear the most aloof and thus impossible to ascribe any
           | malice to.
        
             | aleph_minus_one wrote:
             | > But there's this game of who can appear the most aloof
             | and thus impossible to ascribe any malice to.
             | 
             | The people who are actually hard to ascribe any malice to
             | are often politically very _inept_ , i.e.
             | 
             | - (nearly) "everybody" knows these people are not malicious
             | 
             | - but since people want to be manipulated, such people
             | don't make any career
        
           | Joel_Mckay wrote:
           | It is not mutually exclusive, as people can be both
           | pernicious and stupid if they choose to be...
           | 
           | https://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-
           | stupidi...
           | 
           | Engagement is mostly derived from upset people, and thus
           | algorithms or clowns behave in unsustainable ways to make
           | millions of pennies.
           | 
           | Academic bias arises from the ivory tower phenomena in a
           | walled garden, and if some naive kid is often told they are
           | the best-of-the-best special... they tend to truly believe
           | the rhetoric as they slowly indenture themselves.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
           | 
           | Most HR folks quickly tire of entitled peoples petulance, as
           | no matter how conventionally "smart" a applicant may be... no
           | office wants to deal with drama everyday. =3
        
             | pixl97 wrote:
             | This said, most HR folks are head deep in their own ass
             | with their own drama, so there's that.
        
               | Joel_Mckay wrote:
               | External staffing agencies are a set of problems unto
               | themselves.
               | 
               | One usually exchanges Faustian contractual consistency
               | with creative talent that drove initial success.
               | 
               | Politics is rarely about the technology itself, and there
               | are always skeletons next to pirate treasure boxes. lol
               | =3
        
         | BinaryIgor wrote:
         | It's just it's stupidity or incompetence more often than
         | malice; but, of course you should judge on the case-by-case
         | basis and if somebody repeats certain (evil) behavior it's
         | malice
        
           | nick486 wrote:
           | "sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from
           | stupidity."
        
         | righthand wrote:
         | Agreed. For example, if 90% of C-Suite at corporation are only
         | interested in extracting capital from their subordinates and
         | riding trends, then it's malice, not incompetence.
        
           | Joel_Mckay wrote:
           | In general, some incentive structures allow managers to
           | retain stock and 3% of unspent division budget as a year end
           | bonus. Thus, they naturally cut every possible cost rather
           | than risk growth liabilities.
           | 
           | Perhaps someone will come up with a better incentive
           | structure, but those people were fired years ago. As process-
           | people often eventually win over creatives due to their
           | singular focus. lol =3
        
         | potato3732842 wrote:
         | I don't take issue with the fact that he's naive or that his
         | ignorance of corporate dysfunction has been shattered. You
         | don't know what you don't know until you do.
         | 
         | What I take serious issue with is that there's a whole
         | ecosystem of not identical but comparable dysfunction in
         | academia and yet he didn't spot it or is ignoring it. That to
         | me is indicative of bigger problems.
        
         | everdrive wrote:
         | I would imagine that the author is young, very intelligent, and
         | just really starting to pick up real-world career experience.
         | What the author points out is true, but I cannot imagine most
         | HN readers are thinking "I'm expecting my workplace to be
         | totally fair and merit-based, just like school was."
         | 
         | This statement is pretty interesting and revealing; school is
         | very much not like that for a lot of people, and I suspect this
         | means that the author was in a strict STEM curriculum where
         | there can really be said to be correct vs. incorrect answers.
         | (vs. something like English, social sciences, etc.) As noted,
         | this likely also means that the author is just recently out of
         | school, and is just figuring out how the real world works and
         | how few people are capable of stepping back and judging
         | objectively. (alternately, maybe the author has known this for
         | years and is just writing for a younger audience)
        
           | em-bee wrote:
           | _" I'm expecting my workplace to be totally fair and merit-
           | based"_
           | 
           | i don't know where you worked, but i have been working for a
           | few decades now, and i still expect exactly that. even more
           | so than school was. the point is, even if my expectations do
           | not match reality everywhere, not expecting that would be
           | like giving up. instead, because of this expectation, i do my
           | best to create a work environment where this is actually
           | true, and i do not allow others unfair behavior deter me from
           | my belief and expectation of fair treatment of everyone
           | around me.
        
             | everdrive wrote:
             | I'll bet we agree more than you think. Understanding
             | reality isn't the same as capitulating to it. Correct
             | expectations can help you push back more effectively than
             | constantly having your (overly-optimistic) hopes dashed.
             | ie, I'm not just saying "everything sucks, be cynical."
        
         | graemep wrote:
         | It depends who you work for and what they are like.
         | 
         | One of the nicest things a boss has done was when it looked
         | like I was getting the blame for something was to email
         | everyone connected with it saying he had done it, not me.
         | 
         | I have worked with a lot of people like that too.
        
           | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
           | That was my management philosophy.
           | 
           | If things go good, the team gets the credit.
           | 
           | If things go bad, it's my fault.
           | 
           | Management 101. It's shocking how few managers know this
           | simple motivational technique. The team appreciates it,
           | because they know you have their back, and your managers
           | appreciate it, because it's easy to fix the blame, and they
           | [may] respect you, for doing it.
        
         | xivzgrev wrote:
         | He's got a program to sell you, he's focused on the problem he
         | addresses.
         | 
         | He's not helping people solve toxic workplaces, he's helping
         | people shift their thinking as they move higher in org
        
         | lumost wrote:
         | That kind of behavior is far less successful than many would
         | expect. Higher ups are pretty aware of who does what, at least
         | at 1 year+ time frames.
         | 
         | That being said, I've seen many outrun their own incompetence.
         | Getting incentives right in large organizations is difficult.
        
           | apwell23 wrote:
           | Being aware is totally irrelevant. Their incentives are not
           | about rewarding the right person. Their incentives always are
           | to protect themselves at all costs.
           | 
           | You are screwed if a higher up perceives you as threat. real
           | or imaginary. you won't even know about your status till you
           | get laidoff.
        
         | dboreham wrote:
         | Some people get through the week by abusing other people.
        
           | apwell23 wrote:
           | One of my coworkers made up a totally bogus story about me to
           | show her "management potential" about how she managed a
           | situation with uncooperative team member on a project.
           | 
           | ofcourse our middle manager knew that it was bs but she was
           | the one mentoring this person so she ran with it.
           | 
           | i didnt even know about this when all of a sudden i saw it my
           | review with hr.
           | 
           | i considered this person my friend and we even hung out with
           | each others families over holidays.
           | 
           | i was totally shaken by the whole situation.
        
         | bawolff wrote:
         | Both stupidity and malice happen. It can often be difficult to
         | tell the difference as we arent as objective as we think we
         | are.
         | 
         | However, accidentaly attributing stupidity to what is malice is
         | generally not too bad. If its malice it will happen again and
         | you can revise your opinion.
         | 
         | Accidentally attribute malice to what is stupidity is an easy
         | way to start grudges. This can blow back on you and turn
         | someone who just made a mistake into someone who does actually
         | hate you, and make third party observers think you are
         | unreasonable.
         | 
         | So erring on the side of assuming stupidity is generally a good
         | call.
        
         | superfrank wrote:
         | I don't know. I agree with the advice even if they are not 100%
         | correct.
         | 
         | Yes, there are shitty people at work who take action out of
         | malice and actually are out to get you, but in my experience,
         | that's a small minority of the time. It's fundamental
         | attribution error.
        
       | geocrasher wrote:
       | My experience with school wasn't that different from work life.
       | Lessons that I learned in school that followed:
       | 
       | 1) I am a dork, embrace it
       | 
       | 2) Avoid Math
       | 
       | 3) Scientific method = troubleshooting with purpose. Use it.
       | 
       | 4) People in charge can be total idiots, but they're still in
       | charge
       | 
       | 5) Popularity and Competence are not related
       | 
       | 6) Competence and compensation are not related
       | 
       | 7) If you stay focused and just do you, you'll succeed despite
       | other people's drama and your personal pains
       | 
       | 8) Abuse is abuse, and people negligent in doing anything about
       | it are participating in it. Get toxicity out of your life.
       | 
       | 9) People who believe in you are right. Ignore the rest and allow
       | yourself to thrive despite them.
       | 
       | School sucked.
        
         | BinaryIgor wrote:
         | 5) Yes - but even if not popular, competent people are always
         | respected 6) I would say that there's correlation, but it's not
         | 1.0, more something like 0.5 - 0.7; other factors matter as
         | well.
         | 
         | Sometimes these do not hold true, but then you have a truly
         | toxic organization - one that you should run from, as fast as
         | possible
        
           | geocrasher wrote:
           | High school was toxic, and so were my first few jobs. Lessons
           | learned the hard way.
        
         | yoyohello13 wrote:
         | I'm with you except for 2. Knowing math is great.
        
           | geocrasher wrote:
           | Math is amazing, and I'm becoming interested in it after
           | being out of school for over 30 years. But, my own
           | incompetence with numbers meant gravitating away from them,
           | for me. I am not dyslexic, but I think my ADHD does with
           | numbers what dyslexia does to words and letters.
        
             | pixl97 wrote:
             | dyscalculia is it's own thing too.
        
               | geocrasher wrote:
               | Wow. I have never heard of this. Thank you. I just
               | Googled it and while not all of the symptoms fit, a good
               | number of them do. It's rather interesting, I know how to
               | use numbers- I've done several types of analyses over the
               | years, professionally. And my own budget/savings is done
               | in my own self-designed spreadsheet, calculated/balanced
               | down to the cent.
               | 
               | But ask me to do subtraction? Forget it.
        
           | rockercoaster wrote:
           | I _want_ to disagree with 2, but OTOH it 's also so easy to
           | do that I've just accidentally done it my whole life.
           | 
           | 20 year programming career and I've never engaged with math
           | beyond approximately Algebra II, in the real world. Hell, I
           | go years at a time not needing anything trickier than Algebra
           | I.
           | 
           | Nearly all of the math I actually use I learned in the 6th
           | grade or earlier, overwhelmingly elementary school arithmetic
           | --mostly the "bad" kind I got from memorization-based
           | practice that mathematicians seem to hate even though it's a
           | contender for the best bang-for-buck of almost my entire
           | educational career, plus a lot of fractions-related stuff
           | (so, so very many people are terrible at this, can't even do
           | basic things, IME it's where an awful lot of people
           | permanently fall off the math-train, way back in like 3rd
           | grade), basic arithmetic, and pre-algebra-tier simple
           | variable substitution.
           | 
           | Every now and then I get a bug up my ass to try to expand my
           | math abilities, but 1) I'm so goddamn rusty at this point
           | _because I never use any of it_ that I have to start back at
           | brushing up on high school stuff, which is discouraging, and
           | 2) I 'm not even really sure what I'm going to do with it
           | (long experience suggests: nothing) so the motivation fades
           | fast.
        
             | yoyohello13 wrote:
             | I do agree high level math isn't as useful for dev work. I
             | have a masters in math and started working as a data
             | analyst. I moved to programming years ago and I basically
             | never really need to use the math stuff I know anymore.
             | 
             | Weirdly my math background is actually more useful as a
             | 'soft' skill in my current work. I am the go to person for
             | talking to the data analysts in my company, and having a
             | statistics background is pretty helpful for interfacing
             | with managers or people outside the dev department.
             | 
             | Every once in a while I remember an algorithm for doing
             | something I can include in our app and feel like a God,
             | lol.
        
               | rockercoaster wrote:
               | > Every once in a while I remember an algorithm for doing
               | something I can include in our app and feel like a God,
               | lol.
               | 
               | I can distinctly remember the three times this happened
               | for a team I was on, in my couple decades of doing this,
               | because everyone involved kinda got a thrill out of the
               | extreme novelty of doing something resembling actual math
               | of even a lower-end-of-undergrad level. Lasted all of a
               | few minutes to perhaps a few hours, but still.
        
             | dkarl wrote:
             | You're probably using math without knowing it. Debugging
             | through a piece of code is the same as finding a hole in a
             | proof. "This method HAS to return the right value because
             | C. C is always true because B. B is true because A. Ohh...
             | but A isn't true if the record passed in is for a legacy
             | user with no org manager. The method needs to be changed to
             | work for inputs that don't satisfy the current
             | assumptions."
             | 
             | It's not the math facts you learn so much as getting lots
             | of practice with that kind of reasoning.
        
               | codingdave wrote:
               | I sit here, pondering whether that type of logic is math
               | or philosophy. Most likely, it is the intersection of the
               | two. Of course, spending even a few minutes pondering
               | such things tells me that I personally need to avoid the
               | math and embrace the philosophy.
        
               | dkarl wrote:
               | Philosophy includes the study of mathematical reasoning,
               | but you don't get practice at it while you're studying
               | it. It's like taking a music theory class versus learning
               | to play an instrument.
        
               | codingdave wrote:
               | Hm. When I was studying philosophy, we did have logic
               | classes, and did diagram out the logic of arguments. It
               | was a critical component for success in later courses, so
               | I'd say we absolutely practiced it.
        
               | rockercoaster wrote:
               | I own a modal logic textbook used by a course in a
               | philosophy department, and on any given page it looks an
               | awful lot like a math textbook except that the
               | presentation is far friendlier and the explanations are
               | better than are in 99% of math books.
               | 
               | It contains lots and lots of exercises.
        
               | rockercoaster wrote:
               | OK, but I've never been anything but complete shit at
               | proofs, and I'm really good at debugging. They don't feel
               | like the same activity to me at all.
               | 
               | This "well actually you're doing math!" stuff feels like
               | some kind of rhetorical trick, when the "math" I'm doing
               | doesn't seem strongly related to _or to require being any
               | good at_ the math-thing it supposedly is. It 's not quite
               | the same thing nor _quite_ so far off the mark, but it
               | seems at least in the same ballpark (ha, ha) as claiming
               | that professional sports players use lots and lots of
               | complicated trigonometry. Sort-of yes, going by something
               | like unfair riddle-logic, I guess? But in reality, no, of
               | course they don 't.
               | 
               | I don't see any daylight between this claim and,
               | "diagnosing a funny noise in an engine is math," and if
               | that's true then I think we're heading into territory
               | where we've rendered the term "math" so broad that it's
               | no longer useful.
        
         | throwaw12 wrote:
         | > If you stay focused and just do you, you'll succeed despite
         | other people's drama and your personal pains
         | 
         | Can't agree, I know people who got more work because they
         | focused and did the work
        
           | geocrasher wrote:
           | These weren't universal truths, they were my personal truths.
        
         | flybrand wrote:
         | > 8) Abuse is abuse, and people negligent in doing anything
         | about it are participating in it. Get toxicity out of your
         | life.
         | 
         | This needs to be taught more actively in school. Negligence in
         | stopping abuse, or fostering abuse = just as immoral as abuse.
        
           | geocrasher wrote:
           | Exactly. I left high school over abuse. Another student spent
           | the whole period sitting next to me staring at me muttering
           | about how he was going to tie me up in the middle of the
           | desert, and all the things he was going to shove up my ass,
           | serious serial killer vibes, and the teacher just acted
           | helpless, despite seeing everything. When they started
           | stalking me after school, and it started getting physical,
           | and the school did nothing, I left.
           | 
           | Thankfully that level of toxicity did not follow into the
           | workplace, but I did have a car vandalized by a coworker.
           | 
           | Truth be told I was a bit of a punk, and had a knack for
           | pissing off the wrong people. We all have our flaws, but
           | nobody deserved what I went through. I'm a man now, not the
           | insecure boy who tried to act like he was better than others
           | to compensate, and I reject toxicity immediately. No room for
           | it. Hard lessons to learn when you grew up with abuse.
        
       | everdrive wrote:
       | I was quite surprised how different work was from school. There
       | are a few specific considerations I never really see discussed:
       | - In school you can fail the entire class, (ie, all the students)
       | which is less true at work. At work, you're just hiring your
       | "section" of the bell curve, and insofar as being "successful"
       | means "doing well at your job and not getting fired" then a C or
       | D student can potentially be happily and gainfully employed
       | indefinitely. They might have to take a less prestigious job, but
       | they can find their niche and their place. This one really
       | surprised me. You just don't have freedom of movement in school
       | the way you do at work, and so anyone who is observant and hard
       | working can pivot to a relatively-good situation for themselves.
       | This just is not true at school.            - You get nearly
       | endless chances to fail at work, and you usually have a PIP
       | period of weeks or months to parachute to another job if you
       | actually encounter failure. I know some people who have been
       | failures for an entire 30-40 year career.            - If you're
       | bad at writing essays in school, it doesn't matter; you simply
       | need to write essays and getting better or worse at writing
       | essays won't modify the number of essays you need to write. With
       | work on the other hand you can specialize and minimize your
       | weaknesses and play to your strengths. Yes, you can more easily
       | change positions to accomplish this, but even within a single
       | position you can just find ways to focus on the parts of the job
       | you're best at and and excel at that area.            - Very,
       | very few jobs have anything which resembles testing. In the real
       | world you must understand _why_ certain things need to be done,
       | but almost everyone has the opportunity to pause and look up the
       | details via references. Testing really does not represent this
       | whatsoever. It's also the case that some tasks at work will be
       | done over and over again, and in real depth, and via this depth
       | and repetition you will actually memorize things via real
       | behavioral reward mechanisms that are just not possible in a
       | classroom environment.            - You can always seek more
       | clarification in the real world, and can even negotiate your own
       | limitations. Your boss has asked you to do something? Have a
       | conversation with them and explain the limitations in the
       | approach and what sort of partial approach you think might work.
       | This works great in the real world but is much, much more limited
       | in a classroom environment.
       | 
       | I could go on, but I was honestly shocked when I got my first job
       | and I was actually a pretty good employee. This has been true
       | ever since, but I was screwing up in school all the time.
        
         | rockercoaster wrote:
         | Seconding all this.
         | 
         | I'm worry that somewhere out there there are kids hearing
         | adults go "high school has to do [shitty thing] to get you
         | ready for the 'real world', which is even harder!" (LOL no it
         | fucking isn't) or "enjoy it, these are the best days of your
         | life, adult life is so much harder" (what the actual shit are
         | they smoking? Harder stuff than weed, for sure)
         | 
         | I had a _relatively good_ high school experience, and even so,
         | if people saying that stuff had been correct I 'd have surely
         | killed myself by now, probably before age 30. There is no
         | possible way I could have tolerated _decades_ more of life as
         | unpleasant as high school, let alone worse. Harsh and short
         | deadlines, general inflexibility of expectations, begging to be
         | allowed to take a piss, the equivalent of multiple hour-long
         | presentation meetings _every single day_ , very-early starts,
         | lots of rooms with shitty lighting and no windows, terrible
         | seating that you're in all day long, complete assholes common
         | and you're just stuck with them, they're not gonna get kicked
         | out (this goes for teachers and students alike), and _no_
         | realistic ability to leave and find something better.
         | 
         | Luckily, I had a part-time tech job in high school (I did later
         | work a couple very-low-paid non-tech jobs for a while, so I'm
         | not writing this "no really high school is far worse than adult
         | life" perspective from an _entirely_ privileged perspective)
         | and could see that something was wonky about what these people
         | were saying. Then I go to college and it 's like a _goddamn
         | vacation_. On to the  "real world" and there are hard times but
         | it's nothing like the 4-year marathon rigid-schedule grind of
         | high school. Those tend to be more like, oh this _week_ is
         | rough, or this _month_ , or perhaps this _quarter_. And I have
         | so very much more freedom of action to fix things that aren 't
         | going well.
         | 
         | Adult life is far easier than high school. High school is
         | _insane_. Like it 's an actually-crazy thing to subject kids
         | to.
        
           | selimthegrim wrote:
           | Now try grad school when you run out of money.
        
           | aio2 wrote:
           | on god
        
           | ryandrake wrote:
           | > Adult life is far easier than high school. High school is
           | insane. Like it's an actually-crazy thing to subject kids to.
           | 
           | This is probably not universally true. It certainly matches
           | my life experience, but I have to admit that a life that gets
           | easier and easier as time goes on is something that
           | relatively few privileged people experience.
           | 
           | For me, school was a prison full of torturing peers, strict
           | teachers with no flexibility, and ultra-high-stakes tests
           | that to a large extent determined your future. Whereas work
           | is a paradise and a breeze in comparison. And as life goes
           | on, I make more money, can optimize my way further and
           | further up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and things get better
           | and better. _This is an ultra privileged scenario though, and
           | we have to admit that._
           | 
           | For many (most?) people, school was lower stakes and less
           | pressure. You fail a test? No problem. You get a B or C on
           | your report card? Not the end of the world. You don't get
           | into Harvard? I wasn't trying anyway... Then you start
           | adulting, and the pressure is on! You gotta gets some kind of
           | job now and make some money every week so you can avoid
           | homelessness and starvation. You've got a boss on your ass
           | and threatening to fire you (or worse) every day. Your family
           | can't help you anymore, and you're on your own to figure out
           | the world. I know a lot of people who just can't deal with
           | adulthood and hate it, and wish they were back in high
           | school.
        
             | rockercoaster wrote:
             | There's perhaps more pressure in a way because you're now
             | responsible for fixing any problems, but kids are exposed
             | to the exact same _risks_ of adult life and employment via
             | their parents, plus some extra ones that adults aren 't
             | subject to (parents can be abusive, for one thing--adults
             | can abuse other adults in their household, but getting out
             | is a lot easier for an adult than a kid, especially young
             | kids).
             | 
             | That's one factor that's lower-pressure (sort-of... plenty
             | of kids end up working to help support the household, in
             | addition to school) but still offering up similar risk &
             | worries, on one side, and then all the bad stuff of high
             | school and of not yet having the freedom of an adult on the
             | other side, increasing pressure. I still think in the
             | typical case, being a high schooler's a ton worse.
             | 
             | Add to this that the pressure on you in high school is in
             | part to perform well _so you don 't fail at adult life_.
             | That adult life pressure, and the concerns about e.g. lack
             | of employability or homelessness, are is already present in
             | high school. The harm is in the future, but the pressure is
             | _already there_.
             | 
             | Though, yes, one absolutely can "fail" badly at adult life.
             | I don't mean to suggest it's entirely easy street. It's
             | just a whole lot less unpleasant or difficult _on average_
             | than high school.
             | 
             | I mean, truly, if adult life were anywhere near as harsh as
             | high school, assuming I hadn't offed myself, I'd definitely
             | have "failed" by now and be living on the street or
             | something. Expectations are just... comically low, most of
             | the time, not much-higher as so many suggested when I was
             | in school, so it's pretty easy to do alright provided you
             | don't get hit by bad luck (which exact same bad luck
             | potential, again, high schoolers are exposed to via their
             | parents anyway).
        
               | svachalek wrote:
               | Are you a young adult who is not responsible for anyone
               | but themselves, perhaps? Many adults have to take care of
               | children or their own parents, manage teams, work jobs
               | with serious consequences on other people's lives, deal
               | with having cancer, etc. High school was tough in its own
               | way but I think mostly due to everyone being young and
               | having no life skills yet.
        
               | rockercoaster wrote:
               | Solidly in middle age, three kids, plenty of other
               | problems.
               | 
               | Still way easier than high school.
               | 
               | If next week the world went topsy-turvy and providing for
               | my kids now (for some reason) depended on my attending
               | and doing tolerably well at high school for the remaining
               | decade or so that my kids are at home, no other options,
               | _but also_ I 'm somehow relieved from all the hard parts
               | of taking care of them and such... frankly, I dunno if
               | I'd make it. High school was incredibly stressful (even
               | after I threw myself a life line and deliberately stopped
               | giving as much of a fuck about grades) and, quite
               | literally, depressing, as in it _gave me_ seasonal
               | depression that took most of my 20s to stop cycling
               | through, and recurring nightmares that didn 't end until
               | my early 30s, _and I wasn 't even bullied or anything_.
               | The whole institution's a mental-health catastrophe in a
               | way that _nothing_ I 've seen in adult life compares to
               | (perhaps prison does, I, fortunately, am not in a
               | position to compare them)
               | 
               | (Separately, yes, I'm sure--very sure, having seen it up
               | close enough times now--that old age health problems and
               | the process of dying are going to be extremely, perhaps
               | incomparably, bad, but I don't think that's what people
               | were talking about when they said schools had to be
               | shitty in order to prepare me for even-shittier adult
               | life, I think they meant work and paying bills and
               | parent-teacher conferences and stuff)
        
             | pixl97 wrote:
             | >school was a prison full of torturing peers,
             | 
             | This can be quite true. My mother worked in the justice
             | system and had kept track of the students in and around my
             | grade. A significant portion of them ended up incarcerated
             | a short few years after graduation. Being under 18 had
             | protected them somewhat from the bullshit they had pulled
             | in school.
        
           | balamatom wrote:
           | "Teacher, will we ever use this in real life?" "You won't
           | even get to ask that question in real life."
           | 
           | You may enjoy https://humaniterations.net/2018/10/24/the-
           | first-prison
        
         | ElevenLathe wrote:
         | I have the same experience, but would like to clarify that
         | almost everything on this list is mostly only true of middle
         | class employment. You absolutely can "fail" if you are on the
         | bottom rung of the political-economic ladder -- this looks like
         | a life in and out of prison, homelessness, despair, and an
         | early death. You don't get endless chances from your landlord
         | or your parole officer. If your area of weakness is "money"
         | (earning enough of it, knowing how much to spend and how much
         | to save, etc.), then you are still fucked. To someone with a
         | poor education, filling out a job or EBT or WIC application is
         | indeed a high-stakes test with disastrous consequences for
         | failing. Your boss in the restaurant kitchen does not want you
         | to question their methods of dishwashing -- he will fire you
         | instead for being lippy if you try to negotiate around it.
        
           | everdrive wrote:
           | That's a fair point. My first job was retail, and I was
           | accidentally late for a shift _once_ and I got put on
           | probation for weeks and wasn't even allowed to take sick
           | leave during the probationary period. The better the job the
           | less you're treated like trash. People float all sorts of
           | explanations for why this would be, but I think fundamentally
           | people just don't know how to move away from class hierarchy.
           | I think it's built into us.
        
             | orisho wrote:
             | I believe it's because if you are easily replaceable, then
             | screwing up means you're not worth the trouble. If you
             | aren't easily replaceable (whether it's because you have
             | demonstrated you're a good employee or you're working a
             | high-demand role), you are worth the trouble and you'll get
             | more chances. There are other reasons too, such as
             | jurisdictions where suing after being laid off is more
             | common, which makes more chances, PIP and severance
             | packages more likely.
        
               | pixl97 wrote:
               | >I believe it's because if you are easily replaceable,
               | then screwing up means you're not worth the trouble.
               | 
               | These ideas work great when you have a large/growing
               | labor population, we're seeing it start to fall apart in
               | a tight/shrinking labor population. "nobody wants to
               | work" is the drum beat of the employers that used to burn
               | employes.
        
               | rmah wrote:
               | Well, then they're not easily replaceable. Which implies
               | those workers have other options. And thus employers that
               | treat workers worse than other employers will see workers
               | leave and/or find it harder or more expensive to hire. So
               | it all works out.
        
               | array_key_first wrote:
               | It all works out, unless everyone is doing it, and then
               | entire swaths of the economy just burn down.
               | 
               | In lower level jobs like retail and food service, nobody
               | can retain workers.
               | 
               | You would _think_ then  "oh, labor market, the cost of
               | labor goes up"
               | 
               | But no. Everyone is greedy, stubborn, and stupid.
               | 
               | Instead, you just run your business with half the labor.
               | Does it work? Not really.
               | 
               | So then you think, "oh, well free market dynamics. These
               | companies will go out of business because their product
               | or service sucks"
               | 
               | But no! Because everyone is doing it! And now everything
               | just sucks!
        
             | rgblambda wrote:
             | Often I hear "I wouldn't take a higher paying job. It's not
             | worth the stress". But I find the opposite to be true. The
             | better paid the job, the less that's expected of you.
        
           | BoxFour wrote:
           | Most of the examples you gave seem focused on life outside of
           | work aside from the last one, so I'm curious which of them
           | you'd say don't also apply to lower-income jobs. There are
           | lots of ways for middle-class people to "fail" too outside of
           | work.
           | 
           | Personally, I worked in food service for a decade (mostly as
           | a line cook of some sort) and most of these rules still
           | applied, maybe to a slightly lesser degree.
           | 
           | Even with dishwashing, if you have some way of dishwashing
           | that halves utility costs, someone would listen to you.
           | 
           | The answer might also be "who cares, get back to work" but
           | that's also true of a lot of middle-class employment. Your
           | manager won't give a shit if you think the expense reporting
           | system sucks. Amazon's famous for "disagree and commit" which
           | is just a corporate way of saying the same thing.
        
             | ElevenLathe wrote:
             | That's fair, but I don't totally agree that there is a
             | "work sphere" that is different from the "life sphere" in
             | this regard. That distinction between politics and
             | economics is a synthetic big-L Liberal one that only goes
             | back to approximately Napoleon. The fact that some people
             | have worse jobs, worse working conditions, and worse pay is
             | fundamentally related to the fact that they rent, struggle
             | with money, and have a poor education. Our society has
             | bucketed them into this life, which is a package deal, just
             | like the middle class package is.
             | 
             | Anyway, in this context I was mostly addressing the idea
             | that these "lessons" from high school don't hold in the
             | "real world". To me, the "real world" includes your
             | landlord, the cop on your street, etc., just as much as it
             | does your job.
        
               | BoxFour wrote:
               | Sure, but these are all true of middle-class employees as
               | well:
               | 
               | 1) _Many_ middle-class families rent and their landlords
               | aren't necessarily any more understanding.
               | 
               | 2) Not to be too political, but many middle-class
               | employees don't enjoy a friendly relationship with police
               | either and similarly can easily "fail".
               | 
               | If your argument is that being wealthy affords you a lot
               | of leeway to fail in life, I mostly agree (though again,
               | there are plenty of minority groups who would disagree
               | that wealth always affords that privilege), but "middle
               | class" encompasses a very wide swath of people which this
               | doesn't apply to. Many middle-class employees in the US
               | are a paycheck or two away from being pretty destitute.
               | 
               | Maybe you meant "professional" or "upper class" instead?
        
               | ElevenLathe wrote:
               | We can quibble about where to draw the markers, but my
               | point is that these "lessons" that people in these
               | comments are decrying as mostly not true about the "real
               | world", are in fact true for some people, likely even
               | some of the people that you went to school with. You and
               | I heard our asshole math teacher say "It's not gonna be
               | this easy in the real world, cats and kittens!" and
               | probably now regard that as the opposite of true. Many
               | others wish life was as easy as high school. Thanks for
               | the engagement but I don't see any point in "arguing"
               | this point -- that we appear to both agree on -- any
               | further.
        
               | BoxFour wrote:
               | I don't think we do agree, but fair enough. I'll
               | "disagree and commit".
        
         | taeric wrote:
         | Worth probably underlining in heavy ink that if you find that
         | any of these points are not accurate where you are, then you
         | are likely in a bad place.
        
         | marcosdumay wrote:
         | Maybe mandatory schools and merging education with
         | certification need to change.
        
         | godelski wrote:
         | I also find really interesting how we frequently talk about how
         | different the two are yet also reinforce the divergence.
         | What you learn in school doesn't apply to the job         Yet
         | we still:           - fixate on GPA instead of having a
         | sufficient threshold. E.g instead of considering anyone above a
         | 3.0 we prefer a 4.0 student over a 3.8 student.           - we
         | prefer hiring students with prestigious pedigrees
         | 
         | I'm not saying what you learn in school doesn't matter (I think
         | it does. It forms the foundation) but we often talk as if the
         | knowledge is completely disjoint and then hire using academic
         | pedigrees as the primary signal. I had an interview last week
         | where a guy was saying "this is an engineering role. It's very
         | different from academia" and then was fixated on my publication
         | record. This seems quite common.                 We test
         | applicants based on leetcode and academic like problems
         | 
         | This was clearly originally inspired by the traditional
         | engineering interview but it's become optimized where all we do
         | is study these problems. Instead of building more things and
         | expanding our portfolios. Maybe we should go back to whiteboard
         | interviews and in person. It'll put the focus back on
         | evaluating how a candidate thinks and you can't use GPT on the
         | whiteboard (without easily being caught)
         | 
         | But I think we like to say things and act a different way.
         | Academia has lots of politics, but so does work. Navigating
         | these is something I find challenging and exhausting.
         | 
         | My last job my boss told me "this isn't academia, we care if
         | things work." I was confused, because in my academic research
         | the primary goal was to make things work. Just at a more
         | fundamental level. I also used that knowledge to 20x the
         | performance of one of their systems. They left the PR on read
         | as it wasn't as flashy as the larger more complex model that I
         | out performed.
         | 
         | Honestly, I think just no one knows what they're doing and
         | we're all trying to figure it out. But we're talking
         | confidently about causality and then don't walk the walk. I
         | mean the first part is fine, the world is complex, but do we
         | need to pretend that things are so easy? Maybe if we didn't
         | they'd actually become a bit easier. Instead of having the
         | complexity of the world and the complexity of (business and
         | cultural) politics and navigating all the double speak we would
         | just have the complexity of the world. Idk, I feel like half
         | our problems (or more) are created because we want to pretend
         | things are easier than they are, because not knowing is scary?
        
       | BinaryIgor wrote:
       | _" Meanwhile, subjective decisions are constantly happening
       | behind the scenes. The decisions about who to trust, or who gets
       | a shot are made through informal reputations and shared stories
       | about your value. Then the "data" is used to justify them in
       | retrospect."_
       | 
       | True; as long as humans are humans, this will remain to be the
       | case.
        
       | saltysalt wrote:
       | This is great advice:
       | 
       | "It also means that staying the course when things don't go your
       | way isn't just a virtue but a practice. To play the long game,
       | you have to keep showing up even after crushing disappointment
       | without getting cynical of the process. Put differently, you need
       | high levels of frustration tolerance."
       | 
       | Stoicism helps, or any form of resilience training. Leaders need
       | high frustration thresholds to reach the top, because the view
       | from up there doesn't get any better.
        
       | SilentM68 wrote:
       | Hmm, this does not sound like an accurate interpretation of work
       | culture. Perhaps this is true in an ideal job environment. The
       | word "Work" says it all. It's work, labor, hard stuff, not fun
       | and stressful. There is no actual way to manager that kind of
       | stress unless your work is what you normally do for fun, and you
       | enjoy. This does not describe the average work environment.
       | 
       | In my experience, everybody that I've worked with has been
       | stressed, by the job, the managers, co-workers, and their client
       | base. The worse the economy is, the higher the likelihood of
       | people getting let go, so of course everyone is weary of
       | everybody else and making sure that if somebody's head is heading
       | for the shopping block, it's not themselves.
        
       | jongjong wrote:
       | I always assume malice until otherwise proven and I let my
       | enemies believe that I'm well-intentioned towards them.
        
       | mayhemducks wrote:
       | What a load of dung.
        
       | not_that_d wrote:
       | I have seen really inept people given manager positions because
       | they were out going and then crash after six months in the
       | position and expecting that we fix all the management issues for
       | some reason.
       | 
       | Honestly, I have no energy to be as social as the work life needs
       | me to be, maybe that is ok. Maybe no.
        
       | nadis wrote:
       | > "When you assume stupidity instead of malice, you stay above
       | the fray, stop taking slights personally, or turning misjudgments
       | into betrayals. This way we retain agency and choice."
       | 
       | I'd never thought of it this way explicitly, but it makes sense.
        
       | octagons wrote:
       | Wow, this is overall great advice.
       | 
       | I am much later in my career than the audience I assume this is
       | intended for, but I have struggled to mentor junior colleagues on
       | many of the major bullet points here so succinctly.
       | 
       | This should be recommended reading for new college grads entering
       | a more traditional (I.e. non-startup) work environment.
       | Definitely keeping a bookmark of this for that reason.
        
       | OutOfHere wrote:
       | Sorry but I'd rather not play politics at work. If they don't
       | value me, I'd rather just go where I'm valued for the time that
       | I'm valued. I don't want to serve an undeserving organization.
       | Playing politics at work implies avoiding adversity, which in
       | turn means not actually growing transferable skills.
        
       | lordnacho wrote:
       | The drawing of the pyramid addresses something I've been saying
       | to people for years on this topic:
       | 
       | School is conveyor belt. Everyone can be educated, everyone can
       | learn what they teach you in school. Depending on where you went,
       | you can all be high quality or you can all be terrible. You can
       | pretend to compete, but in the end, nobody is really stopping you
       | from anything.
       | 
       | Work, and by that I mean high-achievement work that is the type
       | of thing that the top kids end up applying for, is a pyramid. You
       | can have the cream of the crop starting a new analyst class,
       | every single one of them a top 1% achiever in education. Most of
       | them by far (like really far) will not be MD or CEO. Whether you
       | are the guy who makes it rarely depends on anything you have
       | control over.
       | 
       | I need to tell people this, because if you go to a top uni,
       | you've run into a lot of people who were studious, ambitious
       | kids. They think "hey, if I put more effort in, I get rewarded".
       | Which is true for these non-rivalrous things like science exams.
       | 
       | Then they graduate, and if you were an ambitious kid there's a
       | fair chance you gravitate towards certain careers. And in those
       | careers, the game is different. If you think being a good kid
       | will help you, you will be frustrated. Other young professionals
       | have got the same plan, to stay up until the early hours working.
       | Or spending time playing the politics game. IMO you can't really
       | win at the pyramid game, even if you make it to the top there's a
       | lot of sacrifice and a lot of nervousness about whether you get
       | there and how long you can stay.
        
         | oceanplexian wrote:
         | Is it weird that I have a totally different perspective on
         | this? Then again I dropped out of college at 19 to start
         | working in Big Tech (tm) after exiting my startup and have been
         | there 15+ years now.
         | 
         | It doesn't matter how fast you spin your wheels working on
         | things unless those things are aligned with delivering value to
         | actual paying customers. Politics also doesn't really matter.
         | Well, it matters to idiots, there are certainly a lot of those
         | out there, and there's some truth that if you piss off the
         | wrong idiot you're likely to be kicked out to the curb. But at
         | the end of the day the times I or anyone else I know has
         | created real business value, it has been heavily rewarded with
         | promotions, money, etc.
         | 
         | The problem I see with a lot of academics is, like you
         | mentioned, even if they are smart and spend a lot of time on
         | interesting and hard problems, if they can't draw a straight
         | line from their project to whatever business problem they are
         | actually solving they don't last particularly long.
        
       | bencornia wrote:
       | > Assuming malice turns you into a cynic. In contrast, assuming
       | stupidity keeps you curious.
       | 
       | Curiosity is a superpower that you can leverage. It keeps you out
       | of fight/flight and helps you reason when the stakes feel high.
       | It demonstrates your willingness to collaborate instead of being
       | reactive. Success at work comes from collaboration and
       | communication.
        
       | prmoustache wrote:
       | I prefer just doing my job, while putting my limits in the energy
       | and time I dedicate on it. And I just look for a new job when I
       | get fed up and/or want a rise.
       | 
       | This whole mastermind bullshit just seems mentally exhausting.
        
       | aidenn0 wrote:
       | This is somewhat funny because many of my classes in school
       | barely even managed a veneer of objectivity in scoring, and
       | grades for many things were far more opaque than any annual
       | review I've had at my job.
       | 
       | - In general any class with subjective grading where the work was
       | not anonymized, the name on top would affect the grade (sometimes
       | significantly).
       | 
       | - Some friends actually did an experiment once; person A said
       | that the instructor was grading them harshly because they didn't
       | like them. Person B said "surely not, maybe they just don't like
       | your writing style." So they wrote papers and swapped their
       | names. The paper written by person A, but with person B's name on
       | it got an A, the other got a B-.
       | 
       | - The most extreme case of this was when I pissed off my
       | instructor and she took me aside and informed me that regardless
       | of the quality of work I turned in, I would not be getting a
       | grade higher than a C on any assignment, and I should expect a D
       | for the class. In retrospect, I think the instructor was trying
       | to get me to drop her class, but I was a freshman and didn't
       | realize that was something you could do 4 weeks into the semester
       | and I ended up with a D.
       | 
       | - I once had a paper returned scored "56/100" the only comments
       | on the paper were "Great Job!! Almost an A paper!" The cutoff for
       | a passing grade in that class was 60%.
        
         | quelsolaar wrote:
         | Yeah the idea i that school is somehow a bastion of meritocracy
         | is misguided.
         | 
         | Academia is better at setting clear requirements and measuring
         | those goals, but whether these requirements have anything to do
         | with being successful or useful in the real world is an
         | entirely different matter.
         | 
         | School isn't reality, its mostly not even trying to simulate
         | reality. School breads a lot of "Why was I not rewarded? I did
         | everything they said i should do" disappointment in the real
         | world.
        
       | cadamsdotcom wrote:
       | Once it's nice and cosy with a customer base that won't leave
       | unless it's truly awful to them, a company no longer has to
       | really do anything right.
       | 
       | Plenty of dumb stuff can happen on the inside with no penalty.
       | 
       | That's the game you're in.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-10-02 23:00 UTC)