I was on vacation, otherwise I would have been very verbal in this discussion. Thanks for speaking loud/clear enough that I don't feel like i need to jump in now.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How hard could it be? You show up and communicate information within your field of expertise. The students take it all in. Job done.

It's not that simple...

....

PS: I like when you share stories from your life with me. I find it much more moving and persuasive than being called a statist idiot.

first Matt Damon hits the nail on the head when addressing the problems of Sarah Pailin, now he completely destroys these libertarian ideologues while supporting teachers at the same time, Bravo Matt your are sorely needed for more social commentary.

>> ^heropsycho:

Idiotic ideologue is idiotic...
>> ^blankfist:
Successful troll is successful.


Idiot is such a strong word. You're being hard on yourself. Personally I think you come off as a fairly intelligent guy. Like most public school teachers - you know, not brilliant, just okay.

Idiotic ideologue is idiotic...

>> ^blankfist:

Successful troll is successful.

Was your Anthropology class a graduate level class? Did you have to take five of them? If you want to compare the intro class you took to taking five classes, many of them graduate level, be my guest.

BTW, wtf does Anthropology have to do with astronomy? Are you seriously suggesting psychology has no relation to teaching? You do understand that in order to help teach, you should know how the human mind works, right? It's not the ESPN Decathlon jump where you're sprinting, and suddenly have to fish. You're argument is like saying a scientist doesn't know math well because they're a scientist. Uhh, math and science are heavily related.

Nobody said teachers are dedicated expert psychologists. But to pretend that a teacher doesn't need any or even just a cursory "Intro to Psych" level knowledge to teach is silly. I've taught, I have the degree, I've proven to you just how much psychology is involved in getting degree alone, nevermind what's involved in the actual job; you pretend the only thing in the coursework was an Intro to Psych class, and pretend you're an expert in what is involved in teaching because you went to school as a student. I guess I'm an expert in architecture because I've lived in buildings all my life. I also know all about what it must be like to be a professional cook, since I've eaten food all my life.

But I get it though, you're just trying to troll, not have an honest discussion.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
He did claim the job is easy. I'm sorry, but that's what it implied.
He's not saying teacher's are all Einstein's. He's saying the swath of skill a teacher must possess is very wide, and it's not a cursory level of knowledge and skill. And his description is absolutely correct. He never said teachers are full time experts in every single one of those fields.
Before you say something idiotic like teachers don't need or are not required to have in depth knowledge of psychology, you could do a few common sense things like, oh I don't know, check college requirements for education degrees.
I must have imagined all those undergrad & graduate level psychology and education classes that were REQUIREMENTS to getting an education degree, which I had to have to get a teaching license! You know, classes that couldn't have a thing to do with psychology. Let's whip out that transcript and take a look:
101 Introduction to Psychology
300 Foundations of Education (heavy doses of educational psychology)
301 Human Development and Learning
607 (That's a graduate level class) Advanced Educational PSYCHOLOGY
605 Theory and Practice of Education/Special Needs Students
There were also Practicum classes with heavy doses of psychology.
Does your job require you to take five semesters of psychology in college to get licensed to do your job?
And that's my point with both of you. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the teaching profession, and yet you insist over and over and over you somehow do because you attended school. You clearly don't have a clue, so how about you go learn about these specific areas before you speak to them instead of trying to prove an ignorant point of view.


Ah, got it. So I guess the Anthropology course I took at my Liberal Arts school makes me a scientist. I'm also now qualified to operate the Hubble Telescope because I took a general studies course called 'Stars & Galaxies'.

>> ^heropsycho:

He did claim the job is easy. I'm sorry, but that's what it implied.
He's not saying teacher's are all Einstein's. He's saying the swath of skill a teacher must possess is very wide, and it's not a cursory level of knowledge and skill. And his description is absolutely correct. He never said teachers are full time experts in every single one of those fields.
Before you say something idiotic like teachers don't need or are not required to have in depth knowledge of psychology, you could do a few common sense things like, oh I don't know, check college requirements for education degrees.
I must have imagined all those undergrad & graduate level psychology and education classes that were REQUIREMENTS to getting an education degree, which I had to have to get a teaching license! You know, classes that couldn't have a thing to do with psychology. Let's whip out that transcript and take a look:
101 Introduction to Psychology
300 Foundations of Education (heavy doses of educational psychology)
301 Human Development and Learning
607 (That's a graduate level class) Advanced Educational PSYCHOLOGY
605 Theory and Practice of Education/Special Needs Students
There were also Practicum classes with heavy doses of psychology.
Does your job require you to take five semesters of psychology in college to get licensed to do your job?
And that's my point with both of you. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the teaching profession, and yet you insist over and over and over you somehow do because you attended school. You clearly don't have a clue, so how about you go learn about these specific areas before you speak to them instead of trying to prove an ignorant point of view.



Ah, got it. So I guess the Anthropology course I took at my Liberal Arts school makes me a scientist. I'm also now qualified to operate the Hubble Telescope because I took a general studies course called 'Stars & Galaxies'.

Your description of a teacher's job is like me describing my current IT job as such: "Really, all I do is work with the same technology products. I just Read The F'ing Manual and install the stuff."

That would be a pretty ignorant way of looking at my current job.

You have never taught in a public school. First off, a teacher who reads directly out of the textbook day in and day out is a crappy teacher. Even the crappy teachers I worked with didn't just pick up the book and read what was in there, and assign the exercises at the end of the chapter. You also live in this wonderful fantasy world where the students arrive in your classroom, like perfect brain sponges, and they'll just magically hear what you say, or read the textbook, and magically, they overcome their various learning disabilities, weaknesses in various types of intelligence, distractions in life, and just ...

POOF! THEY LEARN AUTOMAGICALLY!

Not to mention a teacher's role is not simply to teach facts and information. A teacher's role is also to help inspire students to want to learn and do more well beyond the classroom. Those are the teachers students remember for the rest of their lives. I can still name you my favorite teachers from elementary, middle, high school, and college. I remember specific lessons from each one that really spoke to me. I became a history teacher because of my high school history teacher, Claire Tilton, who still teaches to this day, and she's still unbelievable at her job, but she's "just a high school teacher" I guess to you.

I wouldn't be where I am today without those teachers. And those teachers did more than just inspire me; I knew probably a dozen or so people who did 180's and loved history after being in Ms. Tilton's class.

It's one thing to know the subject matter; it's a whole other thing to be able to help another human being who is struggling to understand it learn it, or motivate a completely disinterested human into wanting to learn about it. If you think that people who can do this are a dime a dozen, I don't know what to tell you. I think we end up losing a lot of talented teachers who do inspire because society doesn't value education as it should.

>> ^chilaxe:

@heropsycho
You're certainly right on some elements, but I think there are a number of facets to this issue.
We can probably test the difficult of a job by looking at who can and who can't do that job. Most teachers, like Matt Damon's mom standing next to him, probably can't do particularly cognitively complex jobs like that of a $125k per year software engineer. I took a class in the education & child development department of my college, and I was surprised by how easy the subject matter was relative to classes in e.g. the sciences.
She probably teaches the same (or at least similar) middle school or high school subjects every year, and her primary job (AFAIK) is to follow the instructions in the teacher's edition textbook on a relatively simple subject matter that can be understood by teenagers. Her primary job is not to innovate technologically or come up with a new business strategy to outsmart ruthless competitors; it's to follow instructions.
That's a really different job from something like writing 50 page technical specifications documents, and salaries tend to be proportional to the cognitive complexity required, since anyone can do cognitively simple jobs, but only a limited number of people can do cognitively complex jobs.

He did claim the job is easy. I'm sorry, but that's what it implied.

He's not saying teacher's are all Einstein's. He's saying the swath of skill a teacher must possess is very wide, and it's not a cursory level of knowledge and skill. And his description is absolutely correct. He never said teachers are full time experts in every single one of those fields.

Before you say something idiotic like teachers don't need or are not required to have in depth knowledge of psychology, you could do a few common sense things like, oh I don't know, check college requirements for education degrees.

I must have imagined all those undergrad & graduate level psychology and education classes that were REQUIREMENTS to getting an education degree, which I had to have to get a teaching license! You know, classes that couldn't have a thing to do with psychology. Let's whip out that transcript and take a look:

101 Introduction to Psychology
300 Foundations of Education (heavy doses of educational psychology)
301 Human Development and Learning
607 (That's a graduate level class) Advanced Educational *PSYCHOLOGY*
605 Theory and Practice of Education/Special Needs Students

There were also Practicum classes with heavy doses of psychology.

Does your job require you to take five semesters of psychology in college to get licensed to do your job?

And that's my point with both of you. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the teaching profession, and yet you insist over and over and over you somehow do because you attended school. You clearly don't have a clue, so how about you go learn about these specific areas before you speak to them instead of trying to prove an ignorant point of view.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
That's what he said. You don't think he was saying the job is easy?! So what did he mean by "low-human-potential"?!

Obviously he was inferring you.
I kid. I kid. But no one is claiming the job is "easy". I'm sure it has it's difficulties. @chilaxe didn't even infer that it was. He was responding to this ludicrous notion that being a teacher is as difficult as you guys are alluding. I mean, have you read dft's summation of the job? You'd think the teachers were fucking Einsteins wearing every hat imaginable.
I mean, you guys are laying it on thick. I've had jobs where I was hired because of a specific skill, but also had to do things unrelated to that skill set. But you don't hear me over here claiming I'm a file clerk because I had to file the occasional paperwork. Or that I'm a receptionist because I answered my own phones. Or that I'm a disciplinarian because I was the lead on a team. Or, and this is my personal favorite, a psychologist! A fucking psychologist! Seriously, dft claimed that being a teacher is akin to having eight years medical school! I mean fuck me in the face! lol
Whatever, you guys have become parodies of yourselves by this point. I'm done with this discussion. Haha. Fucking psychologists teaching at our public schools! This is phenomenal! Our kids should be geniuses! lol.

@heropsycho

You're certainly right on some elements, but I think there are a number of facets to this issue.

We can probably test the difficult of a job by looking at who can and who can't do that job. Most teachers, like Matt Damon's mom standing next to him, probably can't do particularly cognitively complex jobs like that of a $125k per year software engineer. I took a class in the education & child development department of my college, and I was surprised by how easy the subject matter was relative to classes in e.g. the sciences.

She probably teaches the same (or at least similar) middle school or high school subjects every year, and her primary job (AFAIK) is to follow the instructions in the teacher's edition textbook on a relatively simple subject matter that can be understood by teenagers. Her primary job is not to innovate technologically or come up with a new business strategy to outsmart ruthless competitors; it's to follow instructions.

That's a really different job from something like writing 50 page technical specifications documents, and salaries tend to be proportional to the cognitive complexity required, since anyone can do cognitively simple jobs, but only a limited number of people can do cognitively complex jobs.

>> ^heropsycho:

That's what he said. You don't think he was saying the job is easy?! So what did he mean by "low-human-potential"?!


Obviously he was inferring you.

I kid. I kid. But no one is claiming the job is "easy". I'm sure it has it's difficulties. @chilaxe didn't even infer that it was. He was responding to this ludicrous notion that being a teacher is as difficult as you guys are alluding. I mean, have you read dft's summation of the job? You'd think the teachers were fucking Einsteins wearing every hat imaginable.

I mean, you guys are laying it on thick. I've had jobs where I was hired because of a specific skill, but also had to do things unrelated to that skill set. But you don't hear me over here claiming I'm a file clerk because I had to file the occasional paperwork. Or that I'm a receptionist because I answered my own phones. Or that I'm a disciplinarian because I was the lead on a team. Or, and this is my personal favorite, a psychologist! A fucking psychologist! Seriously, dft claimed that being a teacher is akin to having eight years medical school! I mean fuck me in the face! lol

Whatever, you guys have become parodies of yourselves by this point. I'm done with this discussion. Haha. Fucking psychologists teaching at our public schools! This is phenomenal! Our kids should be geniuses! lol.

"You've got to be kidding to me. How low-human-potential do you have to be to find STUDENTS, hapless school administrators, and idiot parents with a fraction of your intelligence intimidating?"

That's what he said. You don't think he was saying the job is easy?! So what did he mean by "low-human-potential"?! On what planet is that not an outright insult?! Ask any teacher if dealing with difficult students and idiot parents is difficult. If they say it is, saying that about those teachers is okay?! So I'm "low-human-potential" then?!

He doesn't have a point. He's being ignorant and idiotic, and there is no justification possible for that kind of crap.

No, I don't teach, as I mentioned above, I went into IT because of abysmal pay, but I did eventually realize I hated the job anyway because I wasn't actually teaching anymore.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
Apparently you can't read particularly well.
The original comment I was responding to said basically it can't be that difficult dealing with students, administrators, and idiotic parents.
I said until he actually has to do it, he has no idea wtf he's talking about.
There's no double standard, here. I have no problems with people being critical of the education system. But idiotic comments describing a teacher's job as easy when they have no personal experience whatsoever is out of line. Do the job before you talk as if it's an easy job. Anyone can sit on their butts and say someone else's job is easy without any factual basis.
I'm guessing it must have been difficult for your reading teachers when you went to school...

I don't think he wrote that the job was easy. I'm pretty sure he questioned what kind of person you'd have to be to be easily intimidated by students, administrators or parents. He has a point.
Question. Do you still teach? If not why'd you leave? Or were you let go? Cheers.

>> ^heropsycho:

Apparently you can't read particularly well.
The original comment I was responding to said basically it can't be that difficult dealing with students, administrators, and idiotic parents.
I said until he actually has to do it, he has no idea wtf he's talking about.
There's no double standard, here. I have no problems with people being critical of the education system. But idiotic comments describing a teacher's job as easy when they have no personal experience whatsoever is out of line. Do the job before you talk as if it's an easy job. Anyone can sit on their butts and say someone else's job is easy without any factual basis.
I'm guessing it must have been difficult for your reading teachers when you went to school...


I don't think he wrote that the job was easy. I'm pretty sure he questioned what kind of person you'd have to be to be easily intimidated by students, administrators or parents. He has a point.

Question. Do you still teach? If not why'd you leave? Or were you let go? Cheers.

Apparently you can't read particularly well.

The original comment I was responding to said basically it can't be that difficult dealing with students, administrators, and idiotic parents.

I said until he actually has to do it, he has no idea wtf he's talking about.

There's no double standard, here. I have no problems with people being critical of the education system. But idiotic comments describing a teacher's job as easy when they have no personal experience whatsoever is out of line. Do the job before you talk as if it's an easy job. Anyone can sit on their butts and say someone else's job is easy without any factual basis.

I'm guessing it must have been difficult for your reading teachers when you went to school...

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
Excuse me, I never said people can't be critical of the system. I said that someone who sits there and judges how difficult it is to be a teacher without actually teaching is a completely unqualified judge on the matter.
That's the rules - you don't talk out of your butt about things you have no idea about if you actually are looking for truth instead of what you want to be true.

Mmmm, I feel like you're changing your meaning. And maybe contradicting yourself? So you're saying we can be critical but we're not qualified to be critical? What does that mean exactly?
The truth is if you pay for a service you maintain the right to scrutinize that service. Let me give you an example. You got to a restaurant for dinner, but your waiter gives you bad service (doesn't take your order for half an hour, doesn't refill your drinks, brings food out late and cold, etc.).
When you complain he asks if you've ever waited tables. Let's assume you haven't. Does that negate your right to evaluate the waiter's performance? Should you instead just hand over your money graciously and leave because you're unqualified to judge him?

>> ^heropsycho:

Excuse me, I never said people can't be critical of the system. I said that someone who sits there and judges how difficult it is to be a teacher without actually teaching is a completely unqualified judge on the matter.
That's the rules - you don't talk out of your butt about things you have no idea about if you actually are looking for truth instead of what you want to be true.


Mmmm, I feel like you're changing your meaning. And maybe contradicting yourself? So you're saying we can be critical but we're not qualified to be critical? What does that mean exactly?

The truth is if you pay for a service you maintain the right to scrutinize that service. Let me give you an example. You got to a restaurant for dinner, but your waiter gives you bad service (doesn't take your order for half an hour, doesn't refill your drinks, brings food out late and cold, etc.).

When you complain he asks if you've ever waited tables. Let's assume you haven't. Does that negate your right to evaluate the waiter's performance? Should you instead just hand over your money graciously and leave because you're unqualified to judge him?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

In addition to 'teaching', an educator also needs to be a leader, a negotiator, a salesman, a disciplinarian, a politician, an administrator, a motivator, a receptionist, an advocate, a librarian, a manager, a public relations agent, a psychologist, an entertainer, an accountant, and for some students, a parent. If you are a music teacher, you get even more hats - arranger, copyist, bus scheduler, event planner, fund raiser, critic, graphic designer, contractor etc. (Running a high school band is like running a business, complete with a board, fundraiser income, expenses, employees, audits, etc.)


And yet I wonder why these super geniuses settle for teaching instead of using just some of the myriad of skills you listed and become the next big inventor, or the next great physicist, or the next big whatever. Yet instead, even with those over-qualifications (if we're to take your word for it), they choose to work so much harder for fewer rewards (again if we're to take your word).

Sounds totally legit.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I know you grew up in a region of the country that does not have high educational standards (and cruel stereotypes that reinforce these low standards), so I don't doubt that you've had more than your fair share of bad teachers.


Emphasis mine. Trolololo. Actually this is classic elitism. To you my geographical location, specifically that I grew up in the South, makes me inferior in every respect to people like you who grew up near richer Metropolitan areas. I know you're trying to goad me, but I also think you really believe some of that. It's the priggish nature of the elitist.

You can try to disassociate yourself from the Southern school system because of how people like you look down on them, but at the end of the day that system is still a product of your ideal one-size-fits-all Prussian school model no matter the location. To mock any part of it is to mock all of it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I grew up in middle class Southern California, with teachers that were paid fairly, schools that were well funded and parents that involved themselves in the academic lives of their children. (3 of the biggest factors in student achievement). Out of the 40+ teachers I had from K-12, I can think of two that were bad.


Still, here in Los Angeles the charter schools and/or private schools tend to perform the best. Even with all the unions and heavy spending that goes on, the public schools just cannot outperform the charters/private schools. That's got to sting a bit for those in support of public schools and teacher unions.