
My One Day at Recurse Center - reikonomusha
http://cadlag.org/posts/on-showing-up-to-school-in-your-underwear.html
======
reikonomusha
My opinion on the matter is that RC was unfairly heavy handed. The cost (to
everyone) of booting the individual out was greater than the cost of the RC
buddy saying “hey, pay attention, these meetings are required; this is what
you missed...” I don’t know the author’s disposition but I can imagine many
personalities and circumstances where getting kicked out of this program would
be devastating, emotionally or otherwise, especially if one planned for such a
long “retreat” away from ordinary life.

When I asked my friends about the article, I was surprised to find opinions
ranging from matching my own, to the opposite (“minimal tolerance for rule-
breaking is justified in university environments to deal with unruly”). I
never really investigated RC’s values and mission too deeply, but I always
imagined they wanted to attract participants from truly diverse walks of
life—intellectual, emotional, and economic. While it’s clear the author missed
the 7am meeting because he goofed, I could imagine other individuals who would
have missed because (for example) they have children and didn’t sleep, or they
have depression and slept too much. It seems to me that zero-tolerance
negatively affects such individuals, and pushes them out of programs like
these.

~~~
Mirioron
This single anecdote would make me reconsider taking part in something like
that. If you have to quit your job to reasonably participate in it and they
run it this way, then why would you take the risk of joining?

I'm quite surprised the author still had a positive view of them after that.

~~~
lukevp
Agreed, this drastically changed my opinion of Recurse.

------
nkrisc
> It turns out there was a “Welcome Event” held on the morning of the first
> day that I was supposed to attend. It was mentioned in one of the emails I
> had received (my fault for not reading this carefully enough), but not
> mentioned in the “Remote RC Orientation guide”, nor in 1-1 with the
> “onboarding buddy”.

It seems like poor design that a meeting with such severe consequences for
missing it isn't repeatedly mentioned and cautioned about, or at least
participants warned about the consequences.

~~~
nikisweeting
iirc when I attended there were at least 2 separate communications after
acceptance that stated missing the orientation meant you'd have to defer and
do a different batch instead.

They make extremely rare exceptions for delayed flights, family emergencies,
etc but it means they basically have to hand-hold you through a 1:1
orientation to get you caught up, which would be unsustainable if more people
missed the first day. A big part of day #1 (and the first orientation in
particular) is learning the social rules and seeing example of them in use,
and they have a hardline policy against allowing people into the chat system,
physical space, and forums until they've learned the social rules thoroughly.

If I had to guess I'd say this policy is mostly for the protection of other
attendees and discourse in the internal communication streams. They don't want
people going all loose-cannon on the internal Zulip until they're made aware
of the rules and their responsibilities to abide by them.

~~~
PragmaticPulp
> They make extremely rare exceptions for delayed flights, family emergencies,
> etc but it means they basically have to hand-hold you through a 1:1
> orientation to get you caught up, which would be unsustainable if more
> people missed the first day.

It's hard to understand the impact of granting exceptions and cutting people
slack until you've been on the organizers' side of this situation.

It sounds harsh, but drawing a strict line in the sand results in a better
situation for everyone. Once you go down the path of catering to everyone's
exceptions or oversights, you start allocating disproportionately large
amounts of time to the people who can't follow schedules or manage their time.
A 1:1 catchup meeting is far less efficient than a 1:20 orientation meeting.
Do just one of these 1:1 meetings and you've doubled your time commitment.

Ironically, the person who didn't read their e-mail gets individual 1:1
attention and has more flexibility on the scheduling. It's almost like
rewarding those who fail to follow the rules.

When I handled onboarding/orientations, I thought cutting people slack for
missed meetings and deadlines would build rapport and encourage them to be
more considerate next time around. Instead, it has the opposite effect. Once
you start signaling that meeting obligations are semi-optional and that
deadlines are more suggestions than cutoffs, a lot of people start taking
advantage of the situation. Sort of a broken windows theory for time
management.

On the other hand, if the rules are strict and the consequences are clear,
people start paying attention, prioritizing organizational order, and reading
their e-mails. You do a lot less hand-holding, and you can spend your time
focusing on catering to those who follow the rules instead of doing 1:1
meetings with the people who can't or won't read their e-mail.

Don't let the tail wag the dog. Set clear expectations and stick to them.
Grant exceptions when people communicate in advance (e.g. can't get a flight,
flight delayed) or have truly unpredictable exceptions (car accident), but
don't set the precedent that reading e-mail is optional because you can count
on someone else to fix it for you later.

~~~
gpm
If you value your time so highly that you can't take 30 minutes to save a
participant weeks of their life, I probably don't want to be a participant in
your organization. My time as a participant is worth more than that.

Your claim that a single 1:1 meeting doubles their time commitment is
incorrect considering the number of other time commitments involved. Indeed,
it seems that they already organized 1:1 meetings that occurred before this.
And they had multiple 1:1 (or worse, n:1) interviews. And so on.

~~~
nikisweeting
I think as the parent comment says, it's hard to understand the impact of such
exceptions until you've been on the other side of the fence.

I've witnessed other organizations go through this process in the past, where
a new policy was initially lax with many exceptions granted, then as the
consequences of the exceptions become more apparent over time (claims of
unfairness, uneven enforcement, lower attendance, etc.), they eventually make
the policy stricter and draw explicit lines in the sand, even if it makes a
small minority of cases more painful when exceptions aren't granted.

~~~
sbisker
I’ve also seen organizations realize in that situation that they can change or
automate things as to reduce the consequences of the exceptions, or to make
rules simpler to follow, in justifying drawing that firm line. Trust is won
when people see you as being fair, and part of being fair is knowing your
perspective has been heard and considered.

------
hackerschoolwas
I attended RC when it was Hacker School, years ago. I quit my job, dropped out
of University, and moved nearly a thousand miles to attend. If they had done
this to me on my first day, I would have been destitute and devastated. That
is all I have to say about that.

~~~
tptacek
Does RC fund students, or provide room and board? If not, how would you have
been made "destitute"?

~~~
rcthrowaway
RC has grants for everybody that comes from a historically underrepresented
background.

~~~
dandellion
What does constitute a historically underrepresented background to get a
grant? Does that mean that grandparent might have been poor but not had access
to a grant because they're not considered underrepresented according to RC
criteria?

~~~
barry-cotter
Don’t be obtuse. You know it’s either race or sex based. If they were open to
poor Indian or Appalachian men they’d mention that kind of thing explicitly.

------
rendall
"... and missing the first day for this reason hasn’t happened to anyone else
since we’ve been running RC online"

In my opinion this is an incredibly unfriendly and immature thing to say. The
count of people it happens to is irrelevant. It happened to one person. "No
one else had that problem" is _not_ inclusive. I cannot imagine a good intent.
If the story is accurate, this is shameful behavior on RC's part. I would like
to hear a response from someone over there

~~~
PragmaticPulp
Your quote was taken out of context. The author was trying to blame RC's lack
of communication for his absence. The quote is a response from RC explaining
that this is the first incidence of someone missing the orientation.

The author even admits that RC put the event on his calendar, but he simply
ignored it because it was at 7:15AM:

> It was on the calendar, but at 7:15am in my local time zone, so by merit of
> that alone I had simply ignored the event

The author also admits that RC tried to contact him as soon as they noticed he
wasn't in the meeting, but he also missed that communication.

> Hi Erik! I sent you an email this morning, but never heard back – we didn’t
> see you during the welcome flow or talks this morning, and we wanted to
> check in to see what happened.

It wasn't until the afternoon and a second e-mail that the OP started
communicating with them about the issue.

~~~
reikonomusha
RC’s online experience just sounds poorly designed. Everything you’re saying
about staff being overbooked, exceptions being intolerable, etc. isn’t
indicative of an efficient and inclusive organization. It sounds like
everybody is overworked, and policies like these are simply because RC can’t
cope with its resources, not because RC has some great management theory in
efficiency.

------
gpm
The message that they sent him to explain kicking him out is... really odd.

> The Remote RC Orientation Guide was written as a software guide for anyone
> in the RC community who was new to Virtual RC rather than as a full guide to
> the first week for new folks. We will add a note to the top of it to remind
> folks to check Community for the schedule of their first day, and we’ll add
> a link to the thread with the schedule to the ‘Tools for participating in
> Remote RC’ email.

So they are acknowledging that their communication was inadequate

> We only make exceptions to missing the first day when someone has an
> emergency

And they acknowledge that they have the ability to fix this at this point in
time.

Yet they still kicked him out.

~~~
256lie
More like deferring to a later batch than kicked out entirely.

~~~
helicalspiral
That's still 6 weeks of salary the author misses out on

------
verytrivial
This really does not reflect well upon RC administration. At all. A cautionary
tale for anyone considering getting involved. Even without getting booted out
it sounds like RC play the aggressive pseudo-friendliness card pretty hard.
Not everyone wants or needs that in their life. I've noped-out of a couple of
orgs because of it.

------
bigcorp-slave
Wow, this is remarkably shitty of RC. It’s one meeting - If the organization
was set up correctly, the new recruit should be able to read notes, or watch a
recording.

Definitely will recommend people stay far away from this organization.

~~~
rcthrowaway
There is a lot more that goes on during orientation, and treating it as
another optional video to sit through harms the sort of community that are
trying to form.

~~~
reikonomusha
Do you know if RC communicates to future participants: “Join this meeting, or
you _will_ be removed from the program.” ? Maybe all this theory about weeding
non-serious people out is true, but I’d hope each prospective student
understands the stakes.

~~~
nikisweeting
Here's their official communications on it:

> Q: Can I miss X days/weeks of my batch?

> A: It’s okay to miss one or two days of your batch because of prior
> engagements, however, it’s not okay to miss more than that (e.g., a full
> week). If you would need to miss more than a couple of days of a batch, you
> should attend another batch. A large part of the educational value of RC
> comes from your interactions with your batchmates and alumni, and being
> around consistently during your batch is an important part of that.

> Q: I only need to miss one day, but it’s the first day of the batch. Is that
> okay?

> A: No, unfortunately. The first day of a batch is different from the rest,
> and it’s essential that everyone is there for it. If you can’t make it, you
> should choose another batch that fits your schedule better.

[https://www.recurse.com/faq#section-
logistics](https://www.recurse.com/faq#section-logistics)

~~~
gpm
Notably that _doesn 't_ call out this meeting. The poster was generally
present on the first day... they just didn't attend a 7:15am meeting that they
weren't even aware was a thing.

~~~
PragmaticPulp
> Notably that doesn't call out this meeting. The poster was generally present
> on the first day

If the first day is marked mandatory, then any scheduled events on that day
should be assumed to be mandatory unless stated otherwise.

It's not reasonable to read that a day is mandatory and assume that you can
show up for only part of the day and get credit for attending the full day.

> they just didn't attend a 7:15am meeting that they weren't even aware was a
> thing.

Toward the end of the article, the author admits that he simply ignored the
calendar invite without reading the details because it was at 7:15AM his time:

> It was on the calendar, but at 7:15am in my local time zone, so by merit of
> that alone I had simply ignored the event (e.g. did not click it and read
> the description).

~~~
gpm
> If the first day is marked mandatory, then any scheduled events on that day
> should be assumed to be mandatory unless stated otherwise.

This is OPs description of the calendar

> The last thing I remember from onboarding was a link to a shared calendar,
> to which anyone could create a new event. There were already quite a few on
> there, such as a weely meeting for people trying to learn more mathematics,
> another weekly meeting for a ML reading group, a daily leetcode practice
> time, “office hours” held by various RC staffers, some fun stuff, like a
> streamed cello practice on saturdays, music / book clubs, and many more.

Certainly not every event on the first day was actually mandatory. Not
clicking on the event at 7:15am in the morning just in case doesn't seem to be
an offense that deserves this level of punishment.

~~~
PragmaticPulp
If you join a new organization, they send you a calendar, and the first event
on the calendar is marked as an all-hands orientation meeting, would you
really assume that it's somehow optional?

> Not clicking on the event at 7:15am in the morning just in case doesn't seem
> to be an offense that deserves this level of punishment.

I understand that you disagree with the consequences for the authors' actions,
but I'm struggling to comprehend all of the people trying to place the blame
on Recurse Center when the author clearly admits that he didn't read the
communications and chose to ignore the calendar invite.

If someone failed to attend the orientation, failed to respond to an e-mail
asking why they missed the orientation (the first e-mail), and admitted that
they weren't actually reading the e-mail communications or even reading their
own calendar, I would have to assume that they weren't all that interested in
taking their participation seriously in the first place.

Reading the details, participating, and showing up on time are basic
prerequisites for any organization. It's not realistic to expect the staff to
go out of their way to divert effort and attention to those who can't follow
through with the basics. It's not fair to the staff, and it's not fair to the
rest of the members who are putting in proper effort to follow the rules.

The Recurse Center gave him a second chance to participate in the next
session. Given that he missed most of the first day and the orientation and he
couldn't engage in a timely manner with follow-up e-mails asking about his
absence, I think that's reasonable.

~~~
gpm
> and the first event on the calendar is marked as an all-hands orientation
> meeting, would you really assume that it's somehow optional?

If I saw it, of course not. But, if the calendar is filled with community
fluff events I would absolutely expect to be told about any mandatory events
in another fashion and I might well (like the author) not notice it.

> The Recurse Center gave him a second chance to participate in the next
> session

Given that this means 6 more weeks of no pay, that's not really a second
chance. This sort of time commitment means that it can't just be rescheduled
at low cost.

> Given that he missed most of the first day

I see nothing to support this assertion.

------
AnotherGoodName
I wonder if this comes down to a personality conflict of someone with an
organized mind vs someone with a disorganized mind. I've been very successful
in life but I've had friends in my life repeatedly intervene and sort out
organization aspects because I am that bad at it. I once missed a job
interview because I didn't realize what day it was (they rescheduled me and I
got the job and the consistent feedback there was they are glad they got me).
My School and University timetables were memorized by my close friends who'd
write it all down and give me a heads up on changes to the schedule that were
happening.

Repeatedly I encounter people who witness my level of disorganization with
shock that I could possibly be of value to society. I can see here that
someone missed a meeting invite. I suspect someone organized saw this and
couldn't fathom how someone so disorganized could possibly succeed.

~~~
detaro
Given what some other commenters have said here, I'd also assume a conflict in
weight put on it. For the organizers, this is _obviously_ a very important
touchpoint that _nobody_ would miss, and if they did they _clearly_ don't care
about important things. It's obviously really important to the in-person
program, and now it's online. Where for the author it suddenly was _just
another online meeting_ that he missed the pointers to. (EDIT: if I understand
the author correctly, not even the first thing in the calendar?)

~~~
AnotherGoodName
Even the idea of an absolutely non missable meeting must have come from
someone with a very different perspective than myself. I don't get offended at
this and it's ok to have a program for a certain group of people only (I'm too
old anyway) but I wonder if they've thought about this themselves. There's a
set of people, quite a large set in the tech community, who'd do poorly in RC
based on this discussion.

~~~
nikisweeting
Overall it's still one of the more lax orgs in this regard though, and it
caters well to those who aren't great at following rigid schedules. Out of a
1-3 month batch, literally everything else is missable. There is no
attendance, no grades, etc. nothing to otherwise force students to comply with
some strict schedule.

~~~
LegitShady
That sounds like there is a serious design issue with their system if this one
thing only is unmissable yet everything else is totally different. If this is
critical it's the piece that should be recorded and distributed so no one can
miss it.

------
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.

~~~
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.

------
detaro
Guess that answers which word is the priority in the

> _rigorous, supportive, and friendly environment_

RC claims to provide.

------
maximp
RC alum here: I read most of the thread, and don't have much to add to the
great points raised, other than to second that "missing the first day for this
reason hasn’t happened to anyone else since we’ve been running RC online"
seems pretty counter to the inclusive spirit of RC. I think better wording
should have been used here.

The thing that struck me is that RC is 99.9% unstructured. Orientation day is
the _one_ mandatory day. I kept thinking - what a shame for the author to miss
the _one_ day in a 6-12 week program that they need to be there for.

------
lrobinovitch
To be clear, RC _is_ run by friendly people that encourage learning (i did it
last year). This situation isn’t great, but it can’t really be mapped to a
universal RC experience.

With the new remote setup, I’m sure there’s a balance between the staff
letting anyone limp through virtual engagement with the “programming” (of
which there is very little — edit: I think this is a great thing about RC,
very few mandatory events) and kicking people out based on a strict set of
rules. On the one hand, you have less of an engaged community. On the other,
you might make harsh seeming decisions sometimes to try to ensure all
attending are “all in”.

~~~
krisoft
They might be very friendly, but they sure seem to pull the trigger very
quickly. That's the problem here. I understand that they don't want less
engaged members in their program.

It sounds like there is a misunderstanding on expectations.

The school expected people to be all present for that meeting. I don't know
how well they communicated that expectation, but if it's a fireable offence to
miss it without recourse or chance of pardon then they should have made that
abundantly clear.

The other missed expectation is that probably the school officials don't see
this as a firing. After all they just moved his batch back by one. What's the
big deal? Lot's of new people come in, some joins now, some joins 6 weeks
later. That's perfectly sensible from the schools perspective. But from an
individual's perspective, who just put their life on hold to do stuff with
them for that specific 6 month, the next batch might very well not be a viable
option.

So these very friendly people sure seems to be also either lacking in empathy,
or not really big on second chances. I will make sure to do my best to avoid
them, less them be friendly with me too by accident.

~~~
maximp
Another RC alum, and I'm surprised by this. When I was in batch, there was a
different sensitive situation regarding another alum, and it was handled
slowly, methodically, transparently, and with all the values RC espouses.

------
tarkin2
RC is new to me. They force you to quit your job, connect you with other
programmers, and take a recruiter's cut by getting you a new job?

Kicking someone out for accidentally missing a meeting when you know they quit
their job to join seems rather... unfeeling, and would make me question their
culture.

~~~
maximp
You should check out the website!

1\. They don't force you to do anything; people choose to attend RC for 6-12
weeks, generally in transitionary points in their life/career, or when they
want you to start such transitions. You come to RC to take charge of your
education and focus on exploring problems that are genuinely interesting to
you, in a community of curious, kind-hearted people.

2\. You have no obligation to conduct your job search through RC, but they are
happy to connect you with their partner companies, and yes, that is how they
fund this whole experience.

3\. OP wasn't "kicked out", they were asked to defer to a later batch, where
they would hopefully complete the mandatory orientation

I might sound biased here, because I had a fantastic experience as a Recurse
alum, and I do think that this misunderstanding could have been communicated
better. But, I wanted to make sure I answered your questions/clarify the facts
around RC!

~~~
reikonomusha
Deferral and being kicked out mostly feel like the same thing for all
practical purposes, in that they both end up with the same bad consequences.
(In fact, I’d even say deferral could have potentially far worse consequences
for a person of average means!)

------
scythe
So this seems like a failure of communication on RC's part in the beginning.
If you _need_ someone to show up in an online meeting at 7:15 AM on the first
day, you should discuss that. It's just not normal for many people to be
working by then.

The aftermath, you know, there are arguments — but if you solve the first
problem, you don't have to have them.

~~~
LegitShady
Communication failure was just the first issue. The lack of flexibility means
I would never take a risk in this org and assume they have no interest in
supporting people who made it through their screening process. You don't
matter to them because the first meeting is more important than you.

It's an institutional failure on multiple levels.

------
PragmaticPulp
A lot of people are jumping to conclusions based on the first half of the
article. The author provides more details toward the end.

He admits that RC put the event on his calendar, but he chose to ignore it
because it was too early. RC also apparently tried to get in touch with him
when they realized he wasn't in the orientation, but he somehow missed that
e-mail as well. It wasn't until later in the afternoon that he started
responding to their communications:

> It was on the calendar, but at 7:15am in my local time zone, so by merit of
> that alone I had simply ignored the event (e.g. did not click it and read
> the description). By the time I was online on my first day it was over

And from the RC's second e-mail attempt to reach him:

> At 1pm, I was informed via Zulip that

> Hi Erik! I sent you an email this morning, but never heard back – we didn’t
> see you during the welcome flow or talks this morning, and we wanted to
> check in to see what happened.

RC also inquired if there was an emergency so they could accommodate him, but
he admitted that he simply ignored the calendar invite, didn't read the
original e-mail, and and didn't see/read the first follow-up e-mail.

Regardless of what you think about their response, it's important to keep in
mind that the OP admittedly chose to ignore the calendar invite because it was
too early and also missed the follow-up e-mail where they tried to get in
touch with him for missing the meeting. This wasn't a cut-and-dry case of the
RC not communicating the meeting to everyone.

~~~
detaro
I don't see a lot of people claiming that this was "a cut-and-dry case of the
RC not communicating the meeting to everyone", but rather about the
proportionality of the response/the proportionality to the previous
communication - and which you seem to have the biggest disagreement about with
them.

~~~
PragmaticPulp
> but rather about the proportionality of the response/the proportionality to
> the previous communication

Many of the comments are assuming that the event was not properly
communicated, whereas the author admits that it was communicated in the
orientation e-mail as well as placed on his calendar. The author admits to not
reading the e-mail, not reading the calendar invite, and not reading the
follow-up e-mail where they attempt to get in touch with him to understand why
he missed the meeting.

Other commenters have also shared the exact wording from the RC's
communications, which makes it clear that the first day is mandatory.

If I had just read the comments or just read the first 1/2 of the article, I
would have assumed RC was to blame. However, after reading the details it
seems that RC did all the right things, including trying to contact the author
during the missed meeting for clarification.

Once someone missed a meeting and the follow-up e-mail about the missed
meeting without explanation and admits to simply ignoring the communications
and the calendar invite, it's not a positive sign that they're taking the
program seriously. This wasn't the case of a single missed communication.

------
david422
I missed a sign up deadline for a yearly event by 24 hours. For two reasons-
1\. Because I didn't organize properly 2\. They sent out a reminder email that
did not get to me (through no fault of my own)

I reached out. It would have been trivial for them to make an exception for
me, but they didn't.

Lesson learned: you are at the mercy of the organizer. Humans make mistakes,
exceptions can be made. However, they are deadlines for a reason, and if you
didn't make it, do better next time.

------
malisper
Summary: The Recurse Center is a six week retreat by programmers. The first
day of RC is mandatory. That's the day they go over how the community works,
and their community guidelines which they consider to be one of the most
important parts of RC. Since OP missed the first day, RC told them they would
have to defer to the next batch.

IMO, it does seem like the consequences of missing the first day are a bit
harsh. To be fair to RC, they do mention this is the only person to miss the
first day since they've been doing RC remotely. This person is the only person
out of hundreds to not know they were supposed to be there the first day.

When I went through the Recurse Center several years ago, I recall them
mandating you are there for the first day. My high school graduation was the
same week as the first day of Recurse Center. I wound up flying from Chicago
to New York over the weekend to attend the first day of RC on Monday. Flying
back to Chicago on Wednesday to attend high school graduation on Thursday.
Then flying back to New York over the weekend to finish RC.

For more context, the RC team is understaffed. It's ran full time by 7 people.
Notably the staff are doing this largely out of good will. RC makes enough
money to sustain the community, but does not make a lot. I know they are
having a hard time during COVID. I can understand why they wouldn't want to
have one of their staff go through the orientation again as it would create a
large burden on them.

tl;dr The penalty RC gave is harsh although they likely did communicate the
fact the first day is mandatory properly and performing orientation a second
time would create a burden on them.

~~~
gpm
> Since OP missed the first day,

OP was present on the first day, they just missed one 7:15am meeting...

------
andybak
Might be just me but a 7:15am meeting alone would be enough to make me run
screaming in the other direction.

I thought it was generally accepted that geeks are frequently night-owls?

~~~
nkrisc
Well considering the organization is apparently based on the East coast, it's
a 10:15am meeting. Sounds like this is their first time doing it remotely.

~~~
andybak
Exactly. First time. Mistakes were made on all sides.

And yet - no flexibility was shown.

------
rcthrowaway
Throwaway account because reasons.

Having attended RC, this actually makes sense if you understand the scene.
First, RC intro is key to getting everybody on the same page, and has been
done in-person until recently. If an early-morning meeting seems weird, chalk
it up to timezones...the in-person intro is at a much more humane hour for the
East Coast and has catered breakfast and everything.

Also, as part of the whole hard-line thing...RC is in NYC and is in large
parts reflective of that. They need to filter out the large quantity of
dabbles and dilettantes and people who would attend just as another social
status thing or adventure in finding themselves. They want people who are
committed to their craft, and if you've set aside six weeks or twelve weeks of
your life but can't stay on top of reading emails and double-checking that
you've done everything right, maybe you shouldn't be complaining.

~~~
verytrivial
If they're expecting all condidates to attend and non-attendance to be fatal,
it seems ... diskish? ... to not atune candidates regarding the consequences
of missing the very first meeting. They might not be made of the right stuff,
or perhaps they were about to make an incredible contribution to programme and
culture? Who knows! They missed that one meeting. Oh well!

------
256lie
To be fair, the orientation is the only mandatory meeting you have to go to
and the remote transition probably makes these logistics harder.

~~~
krisoft
> "remote transition probably makes these logistics harder"

I'm not sure if you are stating that as a reason for or against summarily
kicking one out on the first misunderstanding?

Yes, it's harder to communicate in a remote setting and easier to cross wires
and miss expectations. That's why you need to exercise more compassion and
communicate more clearly. Sending a deluge of emails before the program start
is not clear communication, and kicking someone out at the first miss-step is
not compassionate.

------
esoterae
Am I the only person that finds it odd that a self-professed throwaway account
is anonymously attempting to speak for RC?

~~~
wonder_er
For a few years, I've thought that attending the Recurse Center could be a
great thing to do.

Now I'm reading this story, and the story itself destroyed about 50% of my
interest in the Recurse Center.

I'd expect an institution like the Recurse Center to be able to see what
happened here, make a graceful accommodation in this instance, and try to
improve it in the future. This story is about a systems-level failure, not an
individual-level failure.

So, RC acting as if this is an individual-level failure is extremely off-
putting to me.

I don't think I have an unreasonable take on the situation. So now this
/u/rcthrowaway account shows up... and it's odd to me.

If it represents Recurse Center, I'm baffled at how tone-deaf the account is,
and it's _rapidly_ destroying the other 50% of my interest in RC.

If I found out, conclusively, that this anonymous account speaks for RC, I
will never again consider attending RC.

Which makes me think - how might I speak, if _I_ created an anonymous account,
and wanted to destroy the reputation of an institution? I'd say exactly the
kinds of things that the anonymous account is saying.

So it's either 1) tonedeaf and revealing of deep institutional ill-health, or
2) a false-flag operation trying to attack the Recurse Center.

If option 2 is true, my interest and curiosity is sparked, and maybe I _would_
attend RC.

I'm in the middle of a long sabbatical from work. I could do it right now if I
wanted to, but this story strikes it completely from my list.

If you're out there and reading this, Recurse Center, I would recommend
adopting a perspective that your side of this story looks _really bad_.

Edit: Spelling. For years I thought it was the "Recourse" center, not
"Recurse" center. TIL!

~~~
EE84M3i
Is "recourse center" a typo or a play on words?

~~~
wonder_er
Hah. I wish it were a play on words, but alas, just a long-lived
misunderstanding in my own head. I fixed the spelling, thanks for pointing it
out.

------
mwhite
"spirit of the times" /stopped reading

------
ghthor
If someone sends you an email that you need to attend a mandatory orientation
for your first day of work and ignored it and didnt show, you're probably just
going to have wait till the next cycle, if you even have a job still.

------
RandomBacon
Does the author want to continue with RC? Calling them hostile and criticising
them seems to be a good way to get their invitation revoked. Isn't that what a
hostile organization would do?

Edit: Can anyone please answer this: Do people not like RC, so they don't
appreciate my comments on the possibility of the author self-sababoging? (I'm
not a programmer, and today is the first I've heard of RC.)

~~~
reikonomusha
I read the quote a bit more charitably than you. FTA:

> This all felt quite abrupt and hostile, and I’m still not sure what to make
> of it.

That’s not an unreasonable _feeling_ to have, and I also don’t think such a
statement is in and of itself offensive to RC, especially recognizing the guy
quit his job in a pandemic to do this thing, and was kicked out for missing an
intro meeting.

~~~
RandomBacon
I which case I would apologize, say it won't happen again, thank them for
making the changes they said they would so it doesn't happen to someone else,
and say I look forward to joining again in the next batch.

> especially recognizing the guy quit his job in a pandemic to do this thing,
> and was kicked out for missing an intro meeting.

Exactly, that's why I would post anything that could remotely be considered a
criticism.

~~~
lexicality
> I look forward to joining again in the next batch.

I don't know how your personal money situation is, but if I'd quit my job
expecting to take a 2 month break and then suddenly being told "actually it's
4 months" now I'd be pretty angry. My budgets would be completely out of
whack. Do I need to contract for 2 months? Find a very short job? What are the
tax implications? How do I explain the suddenly much bigger gap on my resume?

~~~
rcthrowaway
If it's that big a deal maybe more work should've been done to make sure they
knew what they had to do.

