Of government development programs
I've seen the development plans for our district. These development plans have hundreds of thousands of budgets yet they can only support dozens of individuals? Are you kidding me? How is this possible? If it were me, I will require at least 144 individuals for every 100k budget — and that is the lowest number I can go. On average, there must be around 200 people for every 100k budget, so if anyone were to submit a development plan with the minimum participants to me, then it must be damn good, like 11/10 perfection.
I'm telling you, these incremental changes from countless seminars and financial aids aren't bad, they're better than nothing. But seriously? I'm sure you have heard the saying "Feed a man a fish, teach a man to fish..." so why? These financial aids are good from time to time but too much will make them dependent from the government. And do you really think going to a seminar for a day is enough to change someone's life and make them learn a new skill?
No, sitting for several hours is never going to be enough for a person to start a business, learn a skill, and change their life. If you want them to ducking learn something in just a day, drag their ducking ass outside and give them practical bea- training. The reason why schools take so long to foster and graduate students is because they make the students learn something inside a sheepy room, learning things that they will never need. True learning happens outside with dirty hands, don't expect people to learn by just listening. Not everyone is a genius.
What these development plans need is a little bit of chaos, I mean boldness. First, all those seminars need to be focused on practical application, with real-life training and demonstration. Giving someone skills isn't enough either. They have to give them opportunities to use those skills too, otherwise those same skills they just taught them will be forgotten in just a week. It doesn't matter if it's an internship, volunteerism, or part-time job, people need to apply their knowledge if you don't want them to forget it.
Second, instead of giving financial aids to people every year, they can, instead, sponsor a few talented poverty for a decade, giving them full support — not just with financial aid but with other services as well. These may seem like favoritism but it's not. Quality is better than quantity. Long-term sponsorship is better than short-term wide-ranged financial support, for several reasons. One, it requires deep interview and background check to select the best candidates for sponsorship, allowing the government to focus its funds on its people with the highest potential. Two, by sponsoring few people, the government will gain deep insights towards the secret lives of its citizens as individuals — these insights can be used to make more targeted development programs. Three, when the sponsored individuals grow up, they'll be more likely to help others and work in the government.
What's bothersome is when these people in seminars asks "Are there any feedback and violent reactions?" while fully expecting that no one has big enough balls to give a highly negative feedback in public. If they really wanted to hear true feedback, they have to lend feedback papers and pens to everyone, give them about 10 minutes to write their feedback, then collect it using an anonymous ballot box where no person can be identified because no one has to write their name if there's no name line.
Seminars are usually boring but it's possible to make it fun with just a few steps. If it were up to me, there should be a fun social game in the beginning or middle of the seminar where attendees must communicate with each other, then disguise this game as something related to the seminar by adding a few twists. The most effective yet chaotic way to conduct a seminar is to give people relevant and functional roles to play durinpog the entire seminar, then give them rewards at the end for successfully playing their roles. This transforms the people from being mere attendees who use their phones to being a crucial part of the seminar. Not only, it will help them learn more, it will also make the seminar more attractive and engaging for everyone, not to mention lessening the burden of the organizers. Three birds in one stone.
People want to be part of something important, it's their natural social instinct. There will always be a lot of people who will be happy to help if you were to ask. So give them opportunities to help, they will like it more than you think. In seminars, you can start by giving people minor roles like food distributor and feedback collector. Hmm major roles... You'll need to be more creative to come up with major roles. If I were to think some major roles, it would be user experience interviewers, presenters, and after-cleaners. Of course, those who willingly take on a role must always be appreciated, rewarded if possible.
By the way, I'm not qualified to give any criticisms or advice regarding to government stuff, I don't have any degree nor experience with them. I only have a naive idea of what things should be, which may or may not be appropriate in certain contexts. Thanks for reading.