[sbisker]

I started reading this article excited that Recurse had gone online and, after following RC and Hackruiter for almost a decade, I might now be able to do it. I ended it in a similar state as the author - bewildered as what to think. I know the folks running that program don’t do anything lightly, and they thought long and hard about whether that decision best served their mission and goals. Still, I’m torn.

I understand people have to draw the line somewhere, but any time “exceptions can be made in an emergency”, that is a sign that an experience can, albeit maybe with considerable pain, be made asynchronous. In a remote first world, I think more and more things will be forced to become asynchronous, whether we like it or not.

I’m reminded of make-up tests. Professors dread making them, they take real time, and they indirectly “reward” those who can’t make the first sitting (with more study time, etc). Some do refuse to do it. Still, universities compel teachers to do it because the value of having each student tested is considered a crucial part of the mission.

I get that this is a different situation; there’s a social unity component, some experiences can’t be exactly recreated. But is completely booting someone for missing one initial meeting in spirit with the mission? Is so much lost from a recorded version that it is truly better for that seat to stay empty for 6 weeks and one less person to be able to join the next batch as a result of a time zone gaffe? And is it really fair to say that because no one else had this problem, the six months of evolution post-COVID should match the same intentionality and strictness of running an in-person program for a decade?

I hope that at the very least, folks over there are looking at what happened with an empathetic lens - especially if they are truly willing to take this person for the next batch, and want to see them succeed.

[PragmaticPulp]

> but any time “exceptions can be made in an emergency”, that is a sign that an experience can, albeit maybe with considerable pain, be made asynchronous.

It's not a question of whether or not something could possibly be made asynchronous. Most things could be made asynchronous with enough investment of time, money, energy, and staff.

The real question is what are the tradeoffs and what are the consequences. If the RC is trying to build a community, making the group orientation asynchronous wouldn't have the same effect.

Having a true emergency is an entirely different situation than just sleeping in (OP admits he ignored the calendar invite because it was at 7:15AM). In a true emergency, people are usually willing to go out of their way to make exceptions. When someone simply ignores e-mails and sleeps in, it's not fair to ask other people to go above and beyond to cater to that person.

Apples and oranges.

[reikonomusha]

The way you’re communicating is wildly unempathetic, and I truly hope your zero-tolerance faux-friendly “better for everyone” attitude isn’t ruining other students’ experiences. You’re painting the author as some sort of lazy individual who does things on his own accord. “Sleeping in” and “ignoring emails” doesn’t seem to be accurately portraying. Being online at 8AM is not “sleeping in” by most people’s standards. Perusing and participating in discussions is “not ignoring emails”. He made a mistake, RC has zero tolerance for it.

Why not just say “We have a zero tolerance policy for missing mandatory events” without all of the non-sequitur pseudo-rationalization? That’s OK. People may not agree with it, and it may hurt other people financially, but at least it’s direct and honest.

[sbisker]

I’ll grant that when I read the article, I missed the part where he admitted to intentionally ignoring the invite. If they tossed him for what they considered a values mismatch, that’s obviously a little different. Still, I feel like a “Listen bub!” voice conversation could have helped here, versus relying on email - if only in delivering the bad news better, if not actually hearing out the apology and talking over potential next steps. And I give him points for admitting to that mistake - that strikes me as far more in line with their values than lying and saying his mother was sick (which he could have trivially done).

As for asynchronicity, I totally get that something will be lost. The question is whether enough will be lost as to render the participant totally unable to learn those values over, say, the next few days and catch up. But something might be gained as well - it’s possible that these synchronous moments are an actual bottleneck. Experimenting with async could result in them handling more students with less staff.

[reikonomusha]

Broadcasting and passive communication will always be lossy in any format. You’re absolutely right that a “hey bub” moment would have really clearly indicated whether the author was willing to buckle down or not.

And, even better, they could have had that discussion in the interview. “We aren’t here for fun, we are where to X. We demand your full attention even if things sit outside your personal comfort zone in sleeping, etc.” But I guess it’s easier to just kick people out of the program than to be delicate and upfront with wording and seriousness.