4 ms·

> That's essentially true for most sales people and traders as well. It's definitely not true in most sales positions, particularly the ones that are highly co

> That's essentially true for most sales people and traders as well. It's definitely not true in most sales positions, particularly the ones that are highly commissions-based. > But imagine how the teaching profession would change if 1) the gains could be accurately measured and 2) we assigned payment or prestige to teachers based on (1). We can, and we do. The fact is: the gains just aren't that large. If you want to improve student performance, the best place to spend the money isn't by raising teacher salaries.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago
> We can, and we do. Unless you can provide a link, I'm pretty sure whatever you're measuring is very different than what OP was talking about. And stories abound of the very successful engineer, entrepreneur or scientist whose entire life was changed by one teacher.
imron 9y ago
That's right, we need more administrative staff, and laptops and iPads for all children. That should fix the problems in education.
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  > Public education by state rankings show that New York spent the most per pupil at $20,610. The next top five are District of Columbia ($18,485), Alaska ($18,416), New Jersey ($17,907), Connecticut ($17,745) and Vermont ($16,988). http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/public-education-costs-per-pupil-by-state-rankings/ http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/pu... https://archive.fo/DeBGH https://archive.fo/DeBGH A teacher's salary in New York isn't good enough but you can at least afford rent if you're smart. The reason why I tolerate laptop and iPad spending is because I don't know if/how we can cut costs and still get better results. Thus, when I see something that lets students learn without a one on one with a teacher, I imagine it saves money. From the same page, we see that total expense is 617B or about (617 billion/18 trillion) three percent of GDP. I'll be honest. I have no earthly idea whether this number is too big or too small or if that's even the right question.
  - imron 9y ago
    > Thus, when I see something that lets students learn without a one on one with a teacher, I imagine it saves money. There is growing evidence to suggest that having laptops and ipads in class decrease learning outcomes. So you could be paying more for worse results.
  - jimbokun 9y ago
    A documentary I watched claimed giving laptops or iPads to students is correlated with worse academic performance for those students. Sorry, don't remember enough for a citation, but the suggested causal effect was students just spending even more time on social media, games, and web surfing instead of school work.
    - posterboy 9y ago
      i'd oppose that. For one that's disingenious given the parent argument, that about scandinavian countries leading (by some measure) in school education and them using computers in class. And on the other hand, what if the test subjects you mentioned just didn't learn to use the technology responsibly? I'd argue, teachers and professors need to be given computers, in a metaphorical sense, first.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

> We can, and we do. Unless you can provide a link, I'm pretty sure whatever you're measuring is very different than what OP was talking about. And stories abound of the very successful engineer, entrepreneur or scientist whose entire life was changed by one teacher.

imron 9y ago

That's right, we need more administrative staff, and laptops and iPads for all children. That should fix the problems in education.

thanksgiving 9y ago
> Public education by state rankings show that New York spent the most per pupil at $20,610. The next top five are District of Columbia ($18,485), Alaska ($18,416), New Jersey ($17,907), Connecticut ($17,745) and Vermont ($16,988). http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/public-education-costs-per-pupil-by-state-rankings/ http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/pu... https://archive.fo/DeBGH https://archive.fo/DeBGH A teacher's salary in New York isn't good enough but you can at least afford rent if you're smart. The reason why I tolerate laptop and iPad spending is because I don't know if/how we can cut costs and still get better results. Thus, when I see something that lets students learn without a one on one with a teacher, I imagine it saves money. From the same page, we see that total expense is 617B or about (617 billion/18 trillion) three percent of GDP. I'll be honest. I have no earthly idea whether this number is too big or too small or if that's even the right question.
- imron 9y ago
  > Thus, when I see something that lets students learn without a one on one with a teacher, I imagine it saves money. There is growing evidence to suggest that having laptops and ipads in class decrease learning outcomes. So you could be paying more for worse results.
- jimbokun 9y ago
  A documentary I watched claimed giving laptops or iPads to students is correlated with worse academic performance for those students. Sorry, don't remember enough for a citation, but the suggested causal effect was students just spending even more time on social media, games, and web surfing instead of school work.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    i'd oppose that. For one that's disingenious given the parent argument, that about scandinavian countries leading (by some measure) in school education and them using computers in class. And on the other hand, what if the test subjects you mentioned just didn't learn to use the technology responsibly? I'd argue, teachers and professors need to be given computers, in a metaphorical sense, first.