On September 29 2012 06:54 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, for schools I think a major problem is our culture that absolutely disrespects teachers all the time. That stupid crap about "if you can't do, teach" and such is just idiotic and shameful. Teachers work damn hard and good teachers work really damn hard. And for some reason America has an incredibly dismissive attitude toward teachers. Of course we're going to have a terrible education system. IMO this is the biggest problem, and it's one of the reasons why I really get pissed at Chris Christie.
Religion is another problem. We have a huge anti-intellectual branch in the US, and that doesn't help our education. Especially as kids are now completely confused about evolution.
Another issue is that there is a ton of money flowing into private schools. It just makes a lot of wealthier communities not care about public education (and it's heavily tied to Religion in schools). Personally, I think it we should try banning private schools. That may raise some eyebrows, but it definitely worked for Norway. Think about it.
I have to disagree with you on several points, but I do agree with you on some.
I think the whole "If you can't do, teach" applies in many cases in college. The reason is because a lot of professors are so caught up in the nice little bubble that academia is, that they have no idea how to get things done in the real world (AKA a job outside of a university). In high school how does that even apply?
The university is a critical part of the 'real world'... In fact, the things that are done in the university are far more 'real' than the things being done outside of it. This denigration of the academy is absurd.
No, the "real world" is where you work at a job and if your company is not able to turn a net profit, your company doesn't exist. The real world is where your results matter; there is no government funding to help keep you afloat. Do you know how many universities are in debt right now?
One of the 'real world' functions of the university is to challenge such small minded ideological conceptions of what the 'real world' is.
Burn. Realizing that your argument is flawless, I changed my mind. ^^
Go read Nicomachean Ethics and report back to me.
edit: better, go read _The Human Condition_ by Hannah Arendt and write me a paper on the good life.
Man, you are over-educated
By American standards, I guess. I barely know anything. That's a book that everybody should have read. That fact that it makes me seem overeducated is embarrassing for our civilization.
also: "In 2005 graduates with a Master's in Business Administration (MBA) who accepted job offers were expected to earn a base salary of $88,626. They were also expected to receive an "average signing bonus of $17,428." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Since any blockhead with a pulse can get an MBA, why would anyone with half a brain want to be a teacher?
Moral reasons. My best teachers in school were the ones who could do far better elsewhere, but instead chose to take on the task of educating the next generation. Pretty good reason if you ask me, and I think it tells a lot about their character too.
Sure, I understand, and I'm doing that myself. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for society. (and before anyone accuses me of self-interest in this discussion, I'm a fucking ascetic and 78k seems like a ludicrous amount of money to me. I'd be happy to be making that much)
On September 29 2012 06:54 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, for schools I think a major problem is our culture that absolutely disrespects teachers all the time. That stupid crap about "if you can't do, teach" and such is just idiotic and shameful. Teachers work damn hard and good teachers work really damn hard. And for some reason America has an incredibly dismissive attitude toward teachers. Of course we're going to have a terrible education system. IMO this is the biggest problem, and it's one of the reasons why I really get pissed at Chris Christie.
Religion is another problem. We have a huge anti-intellectual branch in the US, and that doesn't help our education. Especially as kids are now completely confused about evolution.
Another issue is that the flowing into private schools. It just makes a lot of wealthier communities not care about public education (and it's heavily tied to Religion in schools). Personally, I think it we should try banning private schools. That may raise some eyebrows, but it definitely worked for Norway. Think about it.
I have to disagree with you on several points, but I do agree with you on some.
I think the whole "If you can't do, teach" applies in many cases in college. The reason is because a lot of professors are so caught up in the nice little bubble that academia is, that they have no idea how to get things done in the real world (AKA a job outside of a university). In high school how does that even apply?
The university is a critical part of the 'real world'... In fact, the things that are done in the university are far more 'real' than the things being done outside of it. This denigration of the academy is absurd.
No, the "real world" is where you work at a job and if your company is not able to turn a net profit, your company doesn't exist. The real world is where your results matter; there is no government funding to help keep you afloat. Do you know how many universities are in debt right now?
I could see some of the things done in the humanities and arts as important in academia, but in science, let's be honest, private industry is the pinnacle of innovation and efficiency.
wot.
Actually, it's when government, universities and the private industry come together that the pinnacle of innovation is achieved.
For example, where I live (San Diego), our local government is working alongside my university, UCSD, and Qualcomm Inc. and other companies in human genome research of which we've become the center of. Let's not even list the numerous projects that private companies hire our university and other universities to embark on. We're all in this together, folks.
No, I agree with you completely there is a tremendous amount of knowledge that is gained from working together from all ends of the spectrum, but I don't think anyone matches the efficiency of private industry at innovating. Like I would say that industry has a higher innovation per cost ratio... or something like that.
wtf is your unit of 'innovation'
(how I have grown to loathe that word)
Okay, I will only use innovation once then.
I would say that the "unit of ___" is anything that takes a simpler material and makes (or makes it possible) for it to be made into something more complex...
On September 29 2012 06:54 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, for schools I think a major problem is our culture that absolutely disrespects teachers all the time. That stupid crap about "if you can't do, teach" and such is just idiotic and shameful. Teachers work damn hard and good teachers work really damn hard. And for some reason America has an incredibly dismissive attitude toward teachers. Of course we're going to have a terrible education system. IMO this is the biggest problem, and it's one of the reasons why I really get pissed at Chris Christie.
Religion is another problem. We have a huge anti-intellectual branch in the US, and that doesn't help our education. Especially as kids are now completely confused about evolution.
Another issue is that the flowing into private schools. It just makes a lot of wealthier communities not care about public education (and it's heavily tied to Religion in schools). Personally, I think it we should try banning private schools. That may raise some eyebrows, but it definitely worked for Norway. Think about it.
I have to disagree with you on several points, but I do agree with you on some.
I think the whole "If you can't do, teach" applies in many cases in college. The reason is because a lot of professors are so caught up in the nice little bubble that academia is, that they have no idea how to get things done in the real world (AKA a job outside of a university). In high school how does that even apply?
The university is a critical part of the 'real world'... In fact, the things that are done in the university are far more 'real' than the things being done outside of it. This denigration of the academy is absurd.
No, the "real world" is where you work at a job and if your company is not able to turn a net profit, your company doesn't exist. The real world is where your results matter; there is no government funding to help keep you afloat. Do you know how many universities are in debt right now?
I could see some of the things done in the humanities and arts as important in academia, but in science, let's be honest, private industry is the pinnacle of innovation and efficiency.
wot.
Actually, it's when government, universities and the private industry come together that the pinnacle of innovation is achieved.
For example, where I live (San Diego), our local government is working alongside my university, UCSD, and Qualcomm Inc. and other companies in human genome research of which we've become the center of. Let's not even list the numerous projects that private companies hire our university and other universities to embark on. We're all in this together, folks.
No, I agree with you completely there is a tremendous amount of knowledge that is gained from working together from all ends of the spectrum, but I don't think anyone matches the efficiency of private industry at innovating. Like I would say that industry has a higher innovation per cost ratio... or something like that.
wtf is your unit of 'innovation'
(how I have grown to loathe that word)
Okay, I will only use innovation once then.
I would say that the "unit of ___" is anything that takes a simpler material and makes (or makes it possible) for it to be made into something more complex...
Any further explanation needed?
Yeah, you need someone to explain to you what a unit is. Maybe the school system could do that.
edit: here's some examples of units. pounds. ounces. years. hertz. ohms. volts.
On September 29 2012 06:54 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, for schools I think a major problem is our culture that absolutely disrespects teachers all the time. That stupid crap about "if you can't do, teach" and such is just idiotic and shameful. Teachers work damn hard and good teachers work really damn hard. And for some reason America has an incredibly dismissive attitude toward teachers. Of course we're going to have a terrible education system. IMO this is the biggest problem, and it's one of the reasons why I really get pissed at Chris Christie.
Religion is another problem. We have a huge anti-intellectual branch in the US, and that doesn't help our education. Especially as kids are now completely confused about evolution.
Another issue is that there is a ton of money flowing into private schools. It just makes a lot of wealthier communities not care about public education (and it's heavily tied to Religion in schools). Personally, I think it we should try banning private schools. That may raise some eyebrows, but it definitely worked for Norway. Think about it.
I have to disagree with you on several points, but I do agree with you on some.
I think the whole "If you can't do, teach" applies in many cases in college. The reason is because a lot of professors are so caught up in the nice little bubble that academia is, that they have no idea how to get things done in the real world (AKA a job outside of a university). In high school how does that even apply?
The university is a critical part of the 'real world'... In fact, the things that are done in the university are far more 'real' than the things being done outside of it. This denigration of the academy is absurd.
No, the "real world" is where you work at a job and if your company is not able to turn a net profit, your company doesn't exist. The real world is where your results matter; there is no government funding to help keep you afloat. Do you know how many universities are in debt right now?
One of the 'real world' functions of the university is to challenge such small minded ideological conceptions of what the 'real world' is.
Burn. Realizing that your argument is flawless, I changed my mind. ^^
Go read Nicomachean Ethics and report back to me.
edit: better, go read _The Human Condition_ by Hannah Arendt and write me a paper on the good life.
Man, you are over-educated
By American standards, I guess. I barely know anything. That's a book that everybody should have read. That fact that it makes me seem overeducated is embarrassing for our civilization.
also: "In 2005 graduates with a Master's in Business Administration (MBA) who accepted job offers were expected to earn a base salary of $88,626. They were also expected to receive an "average signing bonus of $17,428." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Since any blockhead with a pulse can get an MBA, why would anyone with half a brain want to be a teacher?
Moral reasons. My best teachers in school were the ones who could do far better elsewhere, but instead chose to take on the task of educating the next generation. Pretty good reason if you ask me, and I think it tells a lot about their character too.
And doesn't that seem like the system is taking advantage of teachers? If you have to hope that the best and the brightest work as teachers simply because they feel the calling, and that means it's ok to undervalue them, then surely something is wrong with education as a whole.
Why would it be a bad thing to pay teachers a salary that is competitive with private sector master's graduates? Other countries seem to pay a decent amount for teachers, value them as a profession - hell, Finland pays people to study for Education masters.
On September 29 2012 07:15 dannystarcraft wrote: [quote]
I have to disagree with you on several points, but I do agree with you on some.
I think the whole "If you can't do, teach" applies in many cases in college. The reason is because a lot of professors are so caught up in the nice little bubble that academia is, that they have no idea how to get things done in the real world (AKA a job outside of a university). In high school how does that even apply?
The university is a critical part of the 'real world'... In fact, the things that are done in the university are far more 'real' than the things being done outside of it. This denigration of the academy is absurd.
No, the "real world" is where you work at a job and if your company is not able to turn a net profit, your company doesn't exist. The real world is where your results matter; there is no government funding to help keep you afloat. Do you know how many universities are in debt right now?
One of the 'real world' functions of the university is to challenge such small minded ideological conceptions of what the 'real world' is.
Burn. Realizing that your argument is flawless, I changed my mind. ^^
Go read Nicomachean Ethics and report back to me.
edit: better, go read _The Human Condition_ by Hannah Arendt and write me a paper on the good life.
Man, you are over-educated
By American standards, I guess. I barely know anything. That's a book that everybody should have read. That fact that it makes me seem overeducated is embarrassing for our civilization.
also: "In 2005 graduates with a Master's in Business Administration (MBA) who accepted job offers were expected to earn a base salary of $88,626. They were also expected to receive an "average signing bonus of $17,428." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Since any blockhead with a pulse can get an MBA, why would anyone with half a brain want to be a teacher?
Moral reasons. My best teachers in school were the ones who could do far better elsewhere, but instead chose to take on the task of educating the next generation. Pretty good reason if you ask me, and I think it tells a lot about their character too.
And doesn't that seem like the system is taking advantage of teachers? If you have to hope that the best and the brightest work as teachers simply because they feel the calling, and that means it's ok to undervalue them, then surely something is wrong with education as a whole.
Why would it be a bad thing to pay teachers a salary that is competitive with private sector master's graduates? Other countries seem to pay a decent amount for teachers, value them as a profession - hell, Finland pays people to study for Education masters.
Yeah, exactly. Isn't what he's saying the old Ayn Randian saw about communism, that it expects people to work hard out of the goodness of their heart and not out of self interest? Some hilarious irony there.
On September 29 2012 07:15 dannystarcraft wrote: [quote]
I have to disagree with you on several points, but I do agree with you on some.
I think the whole "If you can't do, teach" applies in many cases in college. The reason is because a lot of professors are so caught up in the nice little bubble that academia is, that they have no idea how to get things done in the real world (AKA a job outside of a university). In high school how does that even apply?
The university is a critical part of the 'real world'... In fact, the things that are done in the university are far more 'real' than the things being done outside of it. This denigration of the academy is absurd.
No, the "real world" is where you work at a job and if your company is not able to turn a net profit, your company doesn't exist. The real world is where your results matter; there is no government funding to help keep you afloat. Do you know how many universities are in debt right now?
One of the 'real world' functions of the university is to challenge such small minded ideological conceptions of what the 'real world' is.
Burn. Realizing that your argument is flawless, I changed my mind. ^^
Go read Nicomachean Ethics and report back to me.
edit: better, go read _The Human Condition_ by Hannah Arendt and write me a paper on the good life.
Man, you are over-educated
By American standards, I guess. I barely know anything. That's a book that everybody should have read. That fact that it makes me seem overeducated is embarrassing for our civilization.
also: "In 2005 graduates with a Master's in Business Administration (MBA) who accepted job offers were expected to earn a base salary of $88,626. They were also expected to receive an "average signing bonus of $17,428." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Since any blockhead with a pulse can get an MBA, why would anyone with half a brain want to be a teacher?
Moral reasons. My best teachers in school were the ones who could do far better elsewhere, but instead chose to take on the task of educating the next generation. Pretty good reason if you ask me, and I think it tells a lot about their character too.
Sure, I understand, and I'm doing that myself. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for society. (and before anyone accuses me of self-interest in this discussion, I'm a fucking ascetic and 78k seems like a ludicrous amount of money to me. I'd be happy to be making that much)
It might not be a good idea for teaching to be a really non-financially motivated career, but until society changes its definitions of what is important and what isn't, it is the only solution in sight.
On September 29 2012 06:54 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, for schools I think a major problem is our culture that absolutely disrespects teachers all the time. That stupid crap about "if you can't do, teach" and such is just idiotic and shameful. Teachers work damn hard and good teachers work really damn hard. And for some reason America has an incredibly dismissive attitude toward teachers. Of course we're going to have a terrible education system. IMO this is the biggest problem, and it's one of the reasons why I really get pissed at Chris Christie.
Religion is another problem. We have a huge anti-intellectual branch in the US, and that doesn't help our education. Especially as kids are now completely confused about evolution.
Another issue is that there is a ton of money flowing into private schools. It just makes a lot of wealthier communities not care about public education (and it's heavily tied to Religion in schools). Personally, I think it we should try banning private schools. That may raise some eyebrows, but it definitely worked for Norway. Think about it.
I have to disagree with you on several points, but I do agree with you on some.
I think the whole "If you can't do, teach" applies in many cases in college. The reason is because a lot of professors are so caught up in the nice little bubble that academia is, that they have no idea how to get things done in the real world (AKA a job outside of a university). In high school how does that even apply?
I do however agree completely with you on how our culture disrespects teachers in a more general sense. Teachers work very hard and have virtually no support from students, parents, or the administration. This is what needs to be changed. Parents need to quit babying their children (99% of the time the child is in the wrong), and the administration in schools needs to get tough and let teachers do their job.
Religion is not a problem towards education..... I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you are speaking specifically in regards to science (and more specifically biological evolution). There are other important subjects besides science and biology. Literature... Foreign Languages... History... all those benefit culturally from religion. Unless you want to be one of those guys who says "science is the best, everything else sucks..." which is fine, but realize that you are basing your whole opinion on an objective non-factual statement.
On top of that being religious does not equate to being a "bad scientist." Could you explain to me how a religious Mechanical Engineer cannot be as effective as one who does not ascribe to religion? How about a religious chemist? Or even a religious physicist observing particles at the LHC. There are many many jobs at which religion is irrelevant, and does not influence how good someone is at their job.
You miss my point. Teaching is a 'doing.' "If you can't do, teach" implies that being a teacher does not require any skill or talent. Which is bullshit.
I have no idea why you think I am denigrating other fields. Other fields are irrelevant to my point. And science is a incredibly important field as we're moving forward in the 21st century. Do you think it is 'okay' that America be weak in fields like biology? Absolutely not. I am not satisfied with being noncompetitive. We want the best biologists and biological research possible. Religion has no place in schools, except as kids expressing themselves.
On September 29 2012 06:54 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, for schools I think a major problem is our culture that absolutely disrespects teachers all the time. That stupid crap about "if you can't do, teach" and such is just idiotic and shameful. Teachers work damn hard and good teachers work really damn hard. And for some reason America has an incredibly dismissive attitude toward teachers. Of course we're going to have a terrible education system. IMO this is the biggest problem, and it's one of the reasons why I really get pissed at Chris Christie.
Religion is another problem. We have a huge anti-intellectual branch in the US, and that doesn't help our education. Especially as kids are now completely confused about evolution.
Another issue is that the flowing into private schools. It just makes a lot of wealthier communities not care about public education (and it's heavily tied to Religion in schools). Personally, I think it we should try banning private schools. That may raise some eyebrows, but it definitely worked for Norway. Think about it.
I have to disagree with you on several points, but I do agree with you on some.
I think the whole "If you can't do, teach" applies in many cases in college. The reason is because a lot of professors are so caught up in the nice little bubble that academia is, that they have no idea how to get things done in the real world (AKA a job outside of a university). In high school how does that even apply?
The university is a critical part of the 'real world'... In fact, the things that are done in the university are far more 'real' than the things being done outside of it. This denigration of the academy is absurd.
No, the "real world" is where you work at a job and if your company is not able to turn a net profit, your company doesn't exist. The real world is where your results matter; there is no government funding to help keep you afloat. Do you know how many universities are in debt right now?
I could see some of the things done in the humanities and arts as important in academia, but in science, let's be honest, private industry is the pinnacle of innovation and efficiency.
wot.
Actually, it's when government, universities and the private industry come together that the pinnacle of innovation is achieved.
For example, where I live (San Diego), our local government is working alongside my university, UCSD, and Qualcomm Inc. and other companies in human genome research of which we've become the center of. Let's not even list the numerous projects that private companies hire our university and other universities to embark on. We're all in this together, folks.
No, I agree with you completely there is a tremendous amount of knowledge that is gained from working together from all ends of the spectrum, but I don't think anyone matches the efficiency of private industry at innovating. Like I would say that industry has a higher innovation per cost ratio... or something like that.
Do you have pretty graphs, charts, or statistics of any kind to back up your claim? I would love to see what the "innovation per cost ratio" is for these different sectors. Not that I agree with you that university research is not the "real world," but I'm curious all the same.
That was an interesting video of Chris Christie, I've never actually heard him talk before. Has politics and education really devolved to the school-ground taunts level now?
Strange how he was talking about the billion dollars being gone yet he still increased funding for education (he didn't, he contradicts himself there but what the hey). If there was more money available for education, why are more teachers finding less supplies and equipment for their students and having to buy it out of pocket? Where exactly is that money going?
On September 29 2012 06:54 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, for schools I think a major problem is our culture that absolutely disrespects teachers all the time. That stupid crap about "if you can't do, teach" and such is just idiotic and shameful. Teachers work damn hard and good teachers work really damn hard. And for some reason America has an incredibly dismissive attitude toward teachers. Of course we're going to have a terrible education system. IMO this is the biggest problem, and it's one of the reasons why I really get pissed at Chris Christie.
Religion is another problem. We have a huge anti-intellectual branch in the US, and that doesn't help our education. Especially as kids are now completely confused about evolution.
Another issue is that there is a ton of money flowing into private schools. It just makes a lot of wealthier communities not care about public education (and it's heavily tied to Religion in schools). Personally, I think it we should try banning private schools. That may raise some eyebrows, but it definitely worked for Norway. Think about it.
I have to disagree with you on several points, but I do agree with you on some.
I think the whole "If you can't do, teach" applies in many cases in college. The reason is because a lot of professors are so caught up in the nice little bubble that academia is, that they have no idea how to get things done in the real world (AKA a job outside of a university). In high school how does that even apply?
I do however agree completely with you on how our culture disrespects teachers in a more general sense. Teachers work very hard and have virtually no support from students, parents, or the administration. This is what needs to be changed. Parents need to quit babying their children (99% of the time the child is in the wrong), and the administration in schools needs to get tough and let teachers do their job.
Religion is not a problem towards education..... I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you are speaking specifically in regards to science (and more specifically biological evolution). There are other important subjects besides science and biology. Literature... Foreign Languages... History... all those benefit culturally from religion. Unless you want to be one of those guys who says "science is the best, everything else sucks..." which is fine, but realize that you are basing your whole opinion on an objective non-factual statement.
On top of that being religious does not equate to being a "bad scientist." Could you explain to me how a religious Mechanical Engineer cannot be as effective as one who does not ascribe to religion? How about a religious chemist? Or even a religious physicist observing particles at the LHC. There are many many jobs at which religion is irrelevant, and does not influence how good someone is at their job.
You miss my point. Teaching is a 'doing.' "If you can't do, teach" implies that being a teacher does not require any skill or talent. Which is bullshit.
I have no idea why you think I am denigrating other fields. Other fields are irrelevant to my point. And science is a incredibly important field as we're moving forward in the 21st century. Do you think it is 'okay' that America be weak in fields like biology? Absolutely not. I am not satisfied with being noncompetitive. We want the best biologists and biological research possible. Religion has no place in schools, except as kids expressing themselves.
Of course teaching takes skill and talent, but there are bad teachers. And of course these bad teachers are going to give the good ones a bad name. That is why the whole statement came along in the first place.
You don't want our schools to be non-competitive. Neither do I, I just don't see religion (outside of a few crazy exceptions) as a hindrance in this day and age to scientific progress.
On September 29 2012 06:54 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, for schools I think a major problem is our culture that absolutely disrespects teachers all the time. That stupid crap about "if you can't do, teach" and such is just idiotic and shameful. Teachers work damn hard and good teachers work really damn hard. And for some reason America has an incredibly dismissive attitude toward teachers. Of course we're going to have a terrible education system. IMO this is the biggest problem, and it's one of the reasons why I really get pissed at Chris Christie.
Religion is another problem. We have a huge anti-intellectual branch in the US, and that doesn't help our education. Especially as kids are now completely confused about evolution.
Another issue is that the flowing into private schools. It just makes a lot of wealthier communities not care about public education (and it's heavily tied to Religion in schools). Personally, I think it we should try banning private schools. That may raise some eyebrows, but it definitely worked for Norway. Think about it.
I have to disagree with you on several points, but I do agree with you on some.
I think the whole "If you can't do, teach" applies in many cases in college. The reason is because a lot of professors are so caught up in the nice little bubble that academia is, that they have no idea how to get things done in the real world (AKA a job outside of a university). In high school how does that even apply?
The university is a critical part of the 'real world'... In fact, the things that are done in the university are far more 'real' than the things being done outside of it. This denigration of the academy is absurd.
No, the "real world" is where you work at a job and if your company is not able to turn a net profit, your company doesn't exist. The real world is where your results matter; there is no government funding to help keep you afloat. Do you know how many universities are in debt right now?
I could see some of the things done in the humanities and arts as important in academia, but in science, let's be honest, private industry is the pinnacle of innovation and efficiency.
wot.
Actually, it's when government, universities and the private industry come together that the pinnacle of innovation is achieved.
For example, where I live (San Diego), our local government is working alongside my university, UCSD, and Qualcomm Inc. and other companies in human genome research of which we've become the center of. Let's not even list the numerous projects that private companies hire our university and other universities to embark on. We're all in this together, folks.
No, I agree with you completely there is a tremendous amount of knowledge that is gained from working together from all ends of the spectrum, but I don't think anyone matches the efficiency of private industry at innovating. Like I would say that industry has a higher innovation per cost ratio... or something like that.
Do you have pretty graphs, charts, or statistics of any kind to back up your claim? I would love to see what the "innovation per cost ratio" is for these different sectors. Not that I agree with you that university research is not the "real world," but I'm curious all the same.
No pretty graphs. Sorry! I will try to find you some.
I only know from experience in government work, where the agency contracted out everything into private industry because it was more efficient at getting the required job done in the specified amount of time than anything that we could produce at the government level. A lot of government work gets contracted out... a lot. Also, there seems to be a general political focus on improving the private sector and this equating to economic improvement. I guess that is where I was drawing the overarching performance of the private sector as important.
On education, teachers are compensated well but in return, relative to how much work they have to do for the money and the education they have, it's pretty shitty.
Where I live it goes something like:
Get bachelor's. Get Master's and take teaching/education course on side. Spend a year or two as a substitute teacher for experience. Get a full-time teaching job when openings come.
It's a long arduous path and even though you're making 80k a year, you could go out in many industries and make that working 40 hours a week without batting an eye. Teachers spend 40+ hours a week at school (7-4) in many cases and also have to spend many hours beyond that grading homework and planning classes.
If anyone's even worked as a tutor, you should know just how much time you have to put in to prepare for your hour or two session with your pupil. Now figure that you have to do that for every class. Ever handed in an assignment or taken a test in highschool and had the teacher not give it back for a few weeks? Well that's because grading 240 students worth of assignments on various topics is time consuming. Sure scantrons are easy but all courses require some semblance of written work.
Also, religion has turned from a benign tumor to a malignant cancer in the USA it seems. There's ever increasing amounts of pressure to put stuff in schools that has no place in the classroom, from creationism to removal of evolution. I don't even understand how you could not believe in evolution if you've taken a biology course at any level in highschool.
On September 29 2012 08:32 DoubleReed wrote: God, I can't stand Chris Christie.
On September 29 2012 07:15 dannystarcraft wrote:
On September 29 2012 06:54 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, for schools I think a major problem is our culture that absolutely disrespects teachers all the time. That stupid crap about "if you can't do, teach" and such is just idiotic and shameful. Teachers work damn hard and good teachers work really damn hard. And for some reason America has an incredibly dismissive attitude toward teachers. Of course we're going to have a terrible education system. IMO this is the biggest problem, and it's one of the reasons why I really get pissed at Chris Christie.
Religion is another problem. We have a huge anti-intellectual branch in the US, and that doesn't help our education. Especially as kids are now completely confused about evolution.
Another issue is that there is a ton of money flowing into private schools. It just makes a lot of wealthier communities not care about public education (and it's heavily tied to Religion in schools). Personally, I think it we should try banning private schools. That may raise some eyebrows, but it definitely worked for Norway. Think about it.
I have to disagree with you on several points, but I do agree with you on some.
I think the whole "If you can't do, teach" applies in many cases in college. The reason is because a lot of professors are so caught up in the nice little bubble that academia is, that they have no idea how to get things done in the real world (AKA a job outside of a university). In high school how does that even apply?
I do however agree completely with you on how our culture disrespects teachers in a more general sense. Teachers work very hard and have virtually no support from students, parents, or the administration. This is what needs to be changed. Parents need to quit babying their children (99% of the time the child is in the wrong), and the administration in schools needs to get tough and let teachers do their job.
Religion is not a problem towards education..... I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you are speaking specifically in regards to science (and more specifically biological evolution). There are other important subjects besides science and biology. Literature... Foreign Languages... History... all those benefit culturally from religion. Unless you want to be one of those guys who says "science is the best, everything else sucks..." which is fine, but realize that you are basing your whole opinion on an objective non-factual statement.
On top of that being religious does not equate to being a "bad scientist." Could you explain to me how a religious Mechanical Engineer cannot be as effective as one who does not ascribe to religion? How about a religious chemist? Or even a religious physicist observing particles at the LHC. There are many many jobs at which religion is irrelevant, and does not influence how good someone is at their job.
You miss my point. Teaching is a 'doing.' "If you can't do, teach" implies that being a teacher does not require any skill or talent. Which is bullshit.
I have no idea why you think I am denigrating other fields. Other fields are irrelevant to my point. And science is a incredibly important field as we're moving forward in the 21st century. Do you think it is 'okay' that America be weak in fields like biology? Absolutely not. I am not satisfied with being noncompetitive. We want the best biologists and biological research possible. Religion has no place in schools, except as kids expressing themselves.
Of course teaching takes skill and talent, but there are bad teachers. And of course these bad teachers are going to give the good ones a bad name. That is why the whole statement came along in the first place.
You don't want our schools to be non-competitive. Neither do I, I just don't see religion (outside of a few crazy exceptions) as a hindrance in this day and age to scientific progress.
Well it is. Religion is still heavily in school even today (mostly in certain states...). I think you may be surprised on how common those 'few crazy exceptions' actually are. But yea, I'm only referring to those.
On September 29 2012 06:54 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, for schools I think a major problem is our culture that absolutely disrespects teachers all the time. That stupid crap about "if you can't do, teach" and such is just idiotic and shameful. Teachers work damn hard and good teachers work really damn hard. And for some reason America has an incredibly dismissive attitude toward teachers. Of course we're going to have a terrible education system. IMO this is the biggest problem, and it's one of the reasons why I really get pissed at Chris Christie.
Religion is another problem. We have a huge anti-intellectual branch in the US, and that doesn't help our education. Especially as kids are now completely confused about evolution.
Another issue is that there is a ton of money flowing into private schools. It just makes a lot of wealthier communities not care about public education (and it's heavily tied to Religion in schools). Personally, I think it we should try banning private schools. That may raise some eyebrows, but it definitely worked for Norway. Think about it.
I'm not sure how private schools are an issue. As far as I know they don't take money from public schools.
They siphon off unconscionable amounts of bourgeois give-a-shit from public schools. (I say this as the product of the american private school system, an education for which my parents paid upwards of 20k per year)
They siphon off 'give a shit?' That must be a technical term I am unfamiliar with.
Do you seriously not catch my point? I was rather pleased with that turn of phrase.
On September 29 2012 07:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If you want to make money then banker, if you want to be loved then teacher.
Erm.. why don't we show them our love by giving them the only standard of value our society recognizes, viz. money?
and of course bankers, whom we hate, get that value. very silly, american civilization, very silly
edit: not to mention attracting more talented teachers. What if you're like every human being ever, and you want both love and money? Can't complain about bad teachers if you don't fucking pay them well.
edit edit: I don't know why you are so blind on this point. When corporations want to have better employees than the other corporations, what do they do??
Your attitude is a sure recipe for terrible schools
"if you want to be loved" my overeducated ass
Teachers are paid well.
There ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
(edit: but yeah, flippancy aside, I don't think the fundamental problem with schools is teacher salaries, although I do think teachers are ludicrously underpaid relative to their social importance.)
From Salary.com
HS teacher median compensation: $78,929 Accountant I median compensation: $65,946
As far as private schools, I was saying that it can essentially make wealthier families absolutely not care about supporting public education. It's more about community involvement than money.
That's salary, I was using compensation (salary + bonus + benefits). Public sector workers generally get better benefits / lower salary so I use compensation that way its apples to apples.
On September 29 2012 08:44 Sanctimonius wrote: That was an interesting video of Chris Christie, I've never actually heard him talk before. Has politics and education really devolved to the school-ground taunts level now?
Strange how he was talking about the billion dollars being gone yet he still increased funding for education (he didn't, he contradicts himself there but what the hey). If there was more money available for education, why are more teachers finding less supplies and equipment for their students and having to buy it out of pocket? Where exactly is that money going?
I felt like he was hitting good points about money and pay increases... 4.9 percent annually? With that economy? I don't see how that is a viable thing to do.
What he was implying when he spoke about increasing money is that there was A LARGE budget the year before, it was blown (completely) leaving him with 2 options, take money away from other areas of social to fill the gap as best he could OR let it completely collapse and he managed to pop in some 200+ million dollars from other services to keep it floating. It didn't seem that confusing to me, did I get that wrong? That's how it came off.
No it wasn't confusing, he was just claiming that he increased funding for schools by 280 mil when funding actually fell by 720 mil - it was out of his control but he claimed he increased it at the same time as saying it fell. Poor choice of words by him.
The pay increases...maybe he has a point, maybe they are unsustainable and teachers are just being greedy. Or maybe they were agreed upon after many years of negotiations to try and raise the real pay of teachers to be relatively competitive with the private sector, and he reneged on the promise simply to try and make the books balance as a whole. We just don't know without the context.
On September 29 2012 08:56 Sanctimonius wrote: No it wasn't confusing, he was just claiming that he increased funding for schools by 280 mil when funding actually fell by 720 mil - it was out of his control but he claimed he increased it at the same time as saying it fell. Poor choice of words by him.
The pay increases...maybe he has a point, maybe they are unsustainable and teachers are just being greedy. Or maybe they were agreed upon after many years of negotiations to try and raise the real pay of teachers to be relatively competitive with the private sector, and he reneged on the promise simply to try and make the books balance as a whole. We just don't know without the context.
no no, he was saying they had 1billion dollars. That billion was gone before he got there and he had to try and fill that GAP with as much funding from other places so he put IN 280mil that was non-existent and not given by obama from other funding. The 1 billion wasn't real in the sense of yearly funding, it was an artificial inflation to the economy to try and jump start (sort of like a bailout) the education and was poorly spent before he was there so when he gets there he has to try and somehow fill the gap.
His claim was basically this, we had something, we lost something not because of me, I tried my best to flood in as much as I could from other places, I offered a reasonable compromise of 750 a year which would have brought in enough money to save almost all the jobs, I was stone walled, the jobs were lost.
The ending was probably my favorite part though, the idea that a group of people are praying for the death of the governor ? What an absurdity.
On September 29 2012 08:45 dannystarcraft wrote: No pretty graphs. Sorry! I will try to find you some.
I only know from experience in government work, where the agency contracted out everything into private industry because it was more efficient at getting the required job done in the specified amount of time than anything that we could produce at the government level. A lot of government work gets contracted out... a lot. Also, there seems to be a general political focus on improving the private sector and this equating to economic improvement. I guess that is where I was drawing the overarching performance of the private sector as important.
Oh, no doubt the private sector does a better, more efficient job than the government in many aspects. I was just wondering how universities compared to the private sector in terms of science research on a cost-per-innovation/valuable discovery aspect.
On September 29 2012 08:56 Sanctimonius wrote: No it wasn't confusing, he was just claiming that he increased funding for schools by 280 mil when funding actually fell by 720 mil - it was out of his control but he claimed he increased it at the same time as saying it fell. Poor choice of words by him.
The pay increases...maybe he has a point, maybe they are unsustainable and teachers are just being greedy. Or maybe they were agreed upon after many years of negotiations to try and raise the real pay of teachers to be relatively competitive with the private sector, and he reneged on the promise simply to try and make the books balance as a whole. We just don't know without the context.
no no, he was saying they had 1billion dollars. That billion was gone before he got there and he had to try and fill that GAP with as much funding from other places so he put IN 280mil that was non-existent and not given by obama from other funding. The 1 billion wasn't real in the sense of yearly funding, it was an artificial inflation to the economy to try and jump start (sort of like a bailout) the education and was poorly spent before he was there so when he gets there he has to try and somehow fill the gap.
His claim was basically this, we had something, we lost something not because of me, I tried my best to flood in as much as I could from other places, I offered a reasonable compromise of 750 a year which would have brought in enough money to save almost all the jobs, I was stone walled, the jobs were lost.
The ending was probably my favorite part though, the idea that a group of people are praying for the death of the governor ? What an absurdity.
I understood what he was saying, it's just that I find it strange he claims to have less of a budget but increased it at the same time.
Put it this way. The State of New Jersey has a budget, which changes a little over time but more or less is constant. They received a billion one year, and spent it all. This was extra-budgetary, a one time thing that could be spent on education needs. The next year, they are back to the normal budget, which he says he increased. Now which is it? Did they lose money in their budget (no, they didn't) or did he increase it? He can't claim it both ways, and I'm not sure why he is, unless he's claiming that the budget was re-calculated to assume they had a billion more to spend despite knowing it was a one-time payment...
EPT
