3 ms·

From the OP: "The lower pay of fire fighters and school teachers simply reflects the happy reality that we’re blessed with a much larger supply of superb first-

by cs702 10y ago

From the OP: "The lower pay of fire fighters and school teachers simply reflects the happy reality that we’re blessed with a much larger supply of superb first-responders and educators than we are of superb jocks and thespians." Wait, what? Who says we are blessed with a large supply of "superb" school teachers in the US? According to McKinsey, nationwide, public school teachers in the US come from the bottom third of college graduates.[1] What's more, compared to the public school systems of other developed countries, the US one is far from the best and one of the worst in math.[2] That's not exactly "superb." There are countries blessed with a large supply of superb teachers, for example, Finland, where teachers come from the top 10% of college graduates. However, government intervention has apparently played a large role[3], and income inequality there is among the lowest in the EU.[4] [1] http://www.mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Closing_the_talent_gap.pdf http://www.mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education... [2] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=1 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=1 [3] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-sc... [4] http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/10727-finland-has-lowest-income-inequality-in-eu.html http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/10...

SilasX 10y ago
You're equating a ranking with an absolute scale on a dimension that's only loosely correlated. The last-ranked shot-putter on the Olympic awards pedestal (bronze) is still a really good shot-putter. It would be one level removed, then, to judge someone to be a bad log-bearer because they're only the 5000th-best shot-putter. IOW: low ranked in school does not imply "bad teacher". I means, among the people rated as having sufficient mastery of the material, they were the lowest; that's not the same as "poor at achieving educational objectives", and it's not the same as "unqualified in absolute terms". Edit: Though, in fairness, he probably should have said "good-enough" rather than "superb".
Confusion 10y ago
Yeah, I think that line is a pretty clear indication of why such arguments and the economic theory that prompts them are out of touch with reality. I would say that in reality, there certainly is a much larger supply of people that are considered to be suitable for performing these jobs. However, that they are considered to be 'suitable' for performing these jobs does not mean they are actually capable of performing these jobs well, let alone that those selected are the most 'superb' of the candidates. I can think of at least the following reasons: * those determining whether someone is suitable for a job take into account how much they are going to (have to) pay someone. If there is a large supply of people that consider themselves suitable, then those selling themselves cheaper have a better change of getting the job, even if they are less capable. Pay is easy to measure, skill is hard to measure, so pay becomes the easy yardstick to use. * those doing the hiring do not usually have sufficient knowledge of the skills necessary to perform a job. You underestimate work you're not actually doing, used if you used to do the work just a few years ago. * related to the first: when hiring people, their job-related skills are not as important as how well you like them, the impression they make on you, etc. People are irrational and most interviews are decided based on things entirely separate from someone's capabilities. So of course teachers are not as good as they could be: many people more capable would only become teachers if teachers earned more, if they would be recognized as capable or if they were better at interviewing. Corollary: jobs are generally performed by those only just capable of performing them or by those underselling themselves relative to their capabilities. The latter possibly because they have some sort of passion or appreciation for the job independent of monetary reward or because some form of inertia keeps them there. In some sense a version of The Peter principle. I think such reasoning explains our observations much better than what the OP offers. Another corollary: if you like your job or are good at it, you can earn more somewhere in a job you don't like and are just capable of performing.
Houshalter 10y ago
Well here is a very interesting analysis that concludes better teachers show very little if any statistical differences in the outcomes of their students: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/19/teachers-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/19/teachers-much-more-than... It really doesn't matter that the teachers in the US are slightly worse, because teachers don't really matter. >What's more, compared to the public school systems of other developed countries, the US one is far from the best and one of the worst in math. These are based on average scores and don't control for race or income. If I recall correctly, if you do control for other factors, similar looking students tend to do about the same between the US and Europe.
- nwah1 10y ago
  You're right to point this out, although cs702's point still stands that the letter erroneously implies that the prices in the labor market for education indicates something about the quality of the supply.

by cs702 10y ago

SilasX 10y ago

You're equating a ranking with an absolute scale on a dimension that's only loosely correlated. The last-ranked shot-putter on the Olympic awards pedestal (bronze) is still a really good shot-putter. It would be one level removed, then, to judge someone to be a bad log-bearer because they're only the 5000th-best shot-putter. IOW: low ranked in school does not imply "bad teacher". I means, among the people rated as having sufficient mastery of the material, they were the lowest; that's not the same as "poor at achieving educational objectives", and it's not the same as "unqualified in absolute terms". Edit: Though, in fairness, he probably should have said "good-enough" rather than "superb".

Confusion 10y ago

Yeah, I think that line is a pretty clear indication of why such arguments and the economic theory that prompts them are out of touch with reality. I would say that in reality, there certainly is a much larger supply of people that are considered to be suitable for performing these jobs. However, that they are considered to be 'suitable' for performing these jobs does not mean they are actually capable of performing these jobs well, let alone that those selected are the most 'superb' of the candidates. I can think of at least the following reasons: * those determining whether someone is suitable for a job take into account how much they are going to (have to) pay someone. If there is a large supply of people that consider themselves suitable, then those selling themselves cheaper have a better change of getting the job, even if they are less capable. Pay is easy to measure, skill is hard to measure, so pay becomes the easy yardstick to use. * those doing the hiring do not usually have sufficient knowledge of the skills necessary to perform a job. You underestimate work you're not actually doing, used if you used to do the work just a few years ago. * related to the first: when hiring people, their job-related skills are not as important as how well you like them, the impression they make on you, etc. People are irrational and most interviews are decided based on things entirely separate from someone's capabilities. So of course teachers are not as good as they could be: many people more capable would only become teachers if teachers earned more, if they would be recognized as capable or if they were better at interviewing. Corollary: jobs are generally performed by those only just capable of performing them or by those underselling themselves relative to their capabilities. The latter possibly because they have some sort of passion or appreciation for the job independent of monetary reward or because some form of inertia keeps them there. In some sense a version of The Peter principle. I think such reasoning explains our observations much better than what the OP offers. Another corollary: if you like your job or are good at it, you can earn more somewhere in a job you don't like and are just capable of performing.

Houshalter 10y ago

Well here is a very interesting analysis that concludes better teachers show very little if any statistical differences in the outcomes of their students: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/19/teachers-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/19/teachers-much-more-than... It really doesn't matter that the teachers in the US are slightly worse, because teachers don't really matter. >What's more, compared to the public school systems of other developed countries, the US one is far from the best and one of the worst in math. These are based on average scores and don't control for race or income. If I recall correctly, if you do control for other factors, similar looking students tend to do about the same between the US and Europe.

nwah1 10y ago
You're right to point this out, although cs702's point still stands that the letter erroneously implies that the prices in the labor market for education indicates something about the quality of the supply.