The inheritance of traditional skills pays attention to the fact that teachers have a home, and they should treat teachers with respect as if they were parents. Nowadays, university teaching does not seem to pay attention to such rules, but to impart professional and technical knowledge, so that college students can acquire a lot of knowledge and skills. Comparing the two, we will find that the inheritance of traditional skills is more realistic, while university teaching is more lofty, and it seems that it does not provide all college students with the means to earn a living.
Most of the traditional skills are conservative, and they should be passed on to men rather than women. After all, the ancients had the concept of patriarchy and emphasized the role of men, while ignoring the social status of women. Because agrarian civilization needs labor, and men, as the main laborers, adapt to the development of agrarian civilization and the needs of inheritance. As a result, men are respected like never before, while women are not necessarily so respected. Men are needed for family reproduction, and men have names and surnames, and sons follow their father's surname. After a woman marries, she has no name, she is called "Zhang Wang" or "Li Zhao", etc., and the son cannot follow the mother's surname. As a result, many people with traditional skills have to consider the issue of inheritance. There must be successors, not successors.
In ancient times, science and technology were not developed, and some people wanted to rely on traditional skills to mix and eat, so they had to keep it secret, at least to ensure that they knew the craft that others would not know, or that they had done their best, and others could only retreat to the second. There are those who burn porcelain, those who make smoked chicken, those who shave their heads, those who practice martial arts, those who sell sesame cakes, those who sell ancestral plasters, and so on, all regard their crafts as treasures. To make money by craftsmanship and earn to a certain extent, it is necessary to consider the issue of inheritance. The son follows his father's surname, can **, obtain his father's craft, and continue to eat by craftsmanship. The daughter will not be able to do it, she will eventually marry out and become the daughter-in-law of someone else's family, and she will not be able to obtain the craftsmanship of her fathers, so as not to leak secrets, causing her fathers and descendants to not be able to eat.
The ancient economy belonged to the small-scale peasant economic model, many things were produced by themselves, not the result of market operation, and there would be no large-scale machine production model, even if there were silk mills in the south of the Yangtze River during the Ming and Qing dynasties, it did not necessarily represent industrial civilization. It's just a small-scale factory production, but it's not an industrial revolution. People are satisfied with the production of one household or the production of small workshops, but they will not develop into the general mode of large-scale machine production. The production of each household is relatively conservative, and it is necessary to ensure the uniqueness of the ancestral secret recipe in order to occupy the market. And now, the so-called ancestral secret recipe is still in play and still has to occupy a place in the market. However, after the capital operation, many so-called ancestral secret recipes have been put on the market and promoted to the market, so that more people can enjoy the benefits of ancestral secret recipes. Whether it is the practice of "three-dog stickers" or "Buddha jumping over the wall", they can be sold by capital and made public. But there are still some time-honored brands that open and make money through traditional crafts. It is considered to be the manifestation of a traditional culture, but it will not completely go to the market.
With the development of marketization, many traditional skills will eventually be made public and promoted, rather than always conservative. Unless the holder of traditional skills is not short of money and does not want to make it public, it will definitely be bought by capital and will be made public. Nowadays, universities seem to be able to make a lot of knowledge and skills public, but they often can't give college students good jobs.
University majors are becoming more and more detailed, and they engage in things that only professionals can study, but they are not necessarily linked to the market. In fact, universities have already shown a tendency towards industrialization, and they only train college students, but they are not responsible for finding jobs for college students. After graduating, college students can't find a job, so they can only find their own jobs, or take the postgraduate examination, public examination, and examination for editing. It stands to reason that now that society has progressed, universities should give college students certain jobs, or at least teach them the means to earn a living. But in fact, this is not the case, the university is only responsible for cultivating qualified products, but will not provide jobs for college students, nor will it give college students the conditions to start a business. It's better to teach traditional skills, after teaching traditional skills, it is equivalent to giving future generations a job. Future generations will rely on this rice bowl to make a living and eat. Universities do not provide college students with "jobs" or the skills they need to survive.
College students have a certain amount of knowledge, but they are not necessarily able to do interdisciplinary work, but they are just working hard in the low-end industrial chain, which means "killing chickens with knives". With so much knowledge and skills learned, it stands to reason that college students should be able to adapt to the development of society, or at least be able to find a job to earn a living on their own. When they arrived at the talent market, they knew how many pounds and taels they were facing, and they knew what kind of employment environment they were facing. It's not easy to get a job, but it's easier to study. After the expansion of the university's enrollment, the number of college students increased, and the university did not include allocation. Isn't there a sense of "watering" to the university?Even some universities in order to cater to the market, open a lot of emerging majors, saying that they can guarantee employment, when students apply for that major, after a few years of study, only to find that the market trend has changed, and it is in vain.
The inheritance of traditional skills has closed and conservative attributes, which is not conducive to market promotion, but it can give future generations a "rice bowl", give them a stable income, and ask them to earn money with their own hands, not stealing or robbing, and being above board;Today's university education is not closed or conservative, and is even very open, which is conducive to market promotion, but it does not give college students a "job bowl", but allows them to find their own jobs, which is irresponsible. With the operation of capital, traditional skills will eventually be sold publicly, but universities can not return to the era of package distribution, but continue to expand enrollment, and even the emergence of pheasant universities and pheasant majors, which is impossible to face.