Well that's pretty naive. I've worked with some pretty good teams that wouldn't work any other way. I suspect you've only worked at places that abused agile as described here... https://ronjeffries.com/articles/language-of-hatred/
No, I've worked in places where it works just fine.
The point is that, at the end of the day, it boils down elaborate processes to break things up into two-week chunks of work. That's it. That's the bit I thought was a concise, excellent summary.
Sometimes, for certain flavors of apps and tech and teams, that model works splendidly. Sometimes, it is silly administrative window dressing that is completely disconnected from the reality of what the team is doing. In my experience, it's usually the latter -- and the teams work just fine _in spite_ of the fact that everyone is pretending they are doing "scrum" or "agile".
I'd say what is naive is the belief that such a closely scripted, narrowly defined workflow is a one-sized-fits-all solution to optimizing teams under all circumstances and contexts.
"Elaborate processes" and "closely scripted, narrowly defined workflow" aren't adjectives I'd ever use for agile done well. And I've been doing it since we were allowed to call it eXtreme Programming. There's lots of "Dark Scrum" out there. Sounds like those are your experiences. They're not mine.
Agile is the opposite of "closely scripted, narrowly defined workflow is a one-sized-fits-all solution to optimizing teams under all circumstances and contexts." You're thinking more of Scrum?
I think you can deduce some correlation just by noting that the upper left and lower right parts of the graphs are relatively empty. Certainly there are statistical tests that would be more concrete. You can see some figures in the bottom right corners, but they're never discussed in the text.
Having worked as a consultant about 3 years ago in the NYC B&N.com office across from Chelsea Market I can attest to the following:
Most of the developers are at best mediocre. The IT managers are clueless. They reside in the same building as Google and are unable to attract NYC talent.
Every time I see the stock climb above 17 or 18 I have a strong urge to sell it short.
Interesting. I did a bit of work in that office too. I was treated quite well, but did not interact with enough of the organization to say much beyond that.
People who request and get loans are "victims" of "risk structure"? My parents told me "this is what we can afford, the rest is on you. If you earn $xx,xxx then xxx is about how much you can afford to pay per month." Seems to me that a large part of the problem is that we're letting 18-22 yr olds make career and financial decisions without adult mentor/parental input.
Take law school for example. At a top school, you've got say a 70% chance at getting a job at a big firm starting at $150k+, and a 30% chance of ending up at a small firm making $45k. The ~$200k tuition for law school is, at least purely financially, generally worth it for the people in the former group, and not worth it for people in the latter group. The expected return, weighted by that 70% risk factor is still positive. Purely objectively, for a risk-neutral person it makes sense to take on the $200k of debt for a degree from a top school.
But it really sucks for the people who aren't in that 30%. They didn't make an irrational decision to attend law school, but they still got badly burned because the process creates winners and losers in a very stark way.
The problem is the educational system. Schools should not be charging as much as they do. The market is supposed to drive costs down, but the cost of a legal education has skyrocketed since the 1950's despite being more or less the same exact process it has been for 150 years. You have seen this across the whole spectrum of degrees.
Some fraction of people who request and get reasonable loans will be unable to pay those loans back through no fault of their own. For instance, like my wife, they suffer an unexpected injury and suddenly the career path they were planning on becomes closed to them. What should happen in that case?
You lay reasonable plans. But shit happens. What happens in that case? Is it really your fault if plans that were 95% certain to work out fail due to forces beyond your control? How are people that that happens to NOT victims?
Who says you have to follow the school's curriculum. Send your 2nd grader to Kumon Math. It's relatively affordable and your child will be out achieving the other kids in no time.
My school district is a pretty well regarded one in my state. I also contribute over $7,500 yearly in property taxes to fund this district. "Relatively" affordable is a complex idea as far as I see it.
How does the amount of property taxes you pay matter? It seems to me that it's your responsibility to see that your child gets a good education. The school is just a vehicle for that. If something is lacking then you have 2 choices: work with the school to fix things or supplement your child's education out of pocket. Kumon costs around $100/month/kid. You can judge for yourself whether that's affordable. Btw, many of the kids at my children's Kumon Center had teachers as parents. While it may feel nobler to battle the bureaucracy and to try to get your $7500 worth, your kid will likely have graduated long before you can effect any change.
