Microsoft may not be the best example. True, the company is hierarchical,
however the employees own a large percentage of the company's stock,
and every employee owns some stock. So it's not true that they are motivated
only by their bosses's orders. This is typical of high-tech companies and
tends to work well as long as the stock keeps going up. (When it goes
down, people bail out, e.g. Apple).
The analogy isn't entirely fair. Microsoft isn't a school and doesn't exist
to educate it's employees or stockholders. On the other hand, Sudbury
Valley doesn't pay its students, or compete in for-profit worldwide software
The real question is, does a school such a Sudbury Valley prepare a
person for working at a company like Microsoft?
I say the answer to this really depends on the question of who decides.
Does the child decide they want a career in software development?
Or does some adult decide that that's appropriate? In traditional school,
you're foced to learn what someone else thinks will prepare you for a job.
Sudbury Valley is a school where the child makes the decision, and decide
how they will prepare themselves. If a child decided they wanted to work in
software, would Sudbury Valley prepare them for the job?
I can't comment on any of the other companies.