Why should education’s fundamental unpredictability be celebrated rather than eliminated? This chapter explores one of Biesta’s most counterintuitive claims: that education’s weakness, its inability to guarantee predetermined outcomes, constitutes its most essential educational characteristic. It looks at how Biesta contrasts two competing educational paradigms. Strong education seeks total control over learning outcomes, treating students as objects to be produced according to specifications. Weak education embraces the beautiful risk of creation, acknowledging that genuine educational encounters cannot be predetermined or programmed. Of Biesta’s three purposes of education, qualification, socialisation, and subjectification, it is argued that subjectification is the one which most relies on the weak model of education. To demonstrate this, the chapter shows how Biesta develops a sophisticated account of radical intersubjectivity, drawing on the architectural theory of Bernard Tschumi, Hannah Arendt’s concept of action, and Emmanuel Levinas’s ethics of uniqueness. Rather than emerging from essential human nature, subjects come into presence through disjunctive encounters with others, moments of non-coincidence that create the conditions for genuine agency. This theoretical framework directly challenges humanistic assumptions about rational autonomy while avoiding both ‘egological’ solipsism and totalizing intersubjectivity. The chapter concludes by advancing Biesta’s claim that educators can create conditions where the event of subjectification might occur but cannot manufacture or control such events.