4 ms·

From the same report, the bullet point above your first quote: > The wage gap between teachers and non-teachers disappears when both groups are matched on an o

From the same report, the bullet point above your first quote: > The wage gap between teachers and non-teachers disappears when both groups are matched on an objective measure of cognitive ability rather than on years of education. That “objective measure” is based on human capital model of wages, and it seems to me pretty biased to apply to such a specialized profession. Being wonderful at making a group of 6 years old engaged in your teaching and making them progress seems pretty hard to directly transfer to any other non teaching job. I feel it’s like asking a pro sax player to transfer skills in another domain and ponder they lose a lot of market value. Which is also part of the other quote you bring in. If I were to move to a teaching position, I’d look damn hard to be better paid or I wouldn’t move. And it’s not like an Amazon factory worker could just move into teaching tomorrow when he can’t take it anymore. So the pool going into teaching is extremely self selected and also biased.

rcpt 5y ago
heritage really isn't going to be a good source on this kind of thing fwiw
- N1H1L 5y ago
  Yes as soon as I saw Heritage I knew that they would be pushing a agenda that would make Ayn Rand blush.
- mhuffman 5y ago
  >heritage really isn't going to be a good source on this kind of thing fwiw There is no good source on "this kind of thing"! This is a type of "Wicked Problem"[1] and also a political darling of every political group. And since every social scientist is just a person, with political, personal, and moral beliefs, any papers that they are willing to release typically reflect that. Further, any "peers" that review those papers will have similar beliefs because they know which places they would like that info published. If you have pretty progressive beliefs, you will "know" that more money, in combination with identity awareness and additional help to those that match historically oppressed identities, is the answer. If you have pretty conservative beliefs, you will "know" that it is the environment, "brainwashed" and "lazy" teachers and students (but not your kids, of course!) that are the blame. Vouchers and private schools (letting the market work) are the answer. And there are people with beliefs everywhere on that spectrum. And not matter your beliefs, you can find research to back it up. Education is just something that will forever be argued about and there is no clear-cut solution, even though nearly everyone thinks that there is, if only everyone else could just understand their point of view!. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    True. I guess it is worth watching what people are doing regardless of their political beliefs. Have you noticed for example that in US people target specific locations for their kids? Hell, my wife was pushing hard to get a house in a 'good' district and we didn't even have kids yet. Social proof and all that, but there is a reason it exists to begin with.
- jl2718 5y ago
  Is there a rule against this? If you have better facts, please provide them. Disparaging a source of information adds nothing to the conversation.
rbetts 5y ago
In my experience, teachers are strong communicators, highly self-organized, aware of organizations, able to work with others, and able to create and follow a plan. They have a demonstrated history of continued learning - and know a lot about how to learn. Teachers, when I've been lucky enough to hire them, have been excellent additions.
Amezarak 5y ago
> specialized profession. Color me skeptical that it's a specialized profession. It does not appear to me that decades of education majors have done any better than those who didn't possess such a degree, or that there are any special skills involved beyond knowing the subject and good interpersonal skills. When I think back to my best teachers, none of them had any special skills. They were just passionate. It doesn't help that when you delve into it, all this 'specialized knowledge' about how to learn turns out to be junk science: cf. 'learning styles' or 'three cueing', which destroyed the ability of millions of kids to actually read. [1] Let's try a model where yes, we pay teachers more - much more. But instead of hiring "teachers", we hire experts who are passionate about their subject and want others to learn about it. Let's do this from middle school onward. In elementary school, we can focus on getting kids to read and do basic arithmetic, and otherwise let it basically be daycare. A lot of underperformance at that age goes away if you simply give the kid more time to mature - for some mad reason at least in my school district, kindergarteners are expected to already know their letters and numbers and be able to read a few words. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20790600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20790600
- sseagull 5y ago
  I believe teaching is a somewhat specialized profession, or at least a very separate skill from knowing the subject. I am just getting into teaching now, at a college level, and finding it is a completely different beast than everything else, even though I know the subject very well. I mean, we've all had teachers that sucked, or professors who cared more about research than teaching; it's not something that people can 'just do'. > none of them had any special skills Great teachers make it look easy. What you don't see is the preparation and the previous iterations of their ideas. It's like acting - good actors make it look like an easy profession. But try "acting naturally" in front of a camera sometime. For most people, even walking becomes awkward. Or programming. Behind most great programmers is a trail of terrible code that they have written over the years. >They were just passionate. It doesn't help that when you delve into it, all this 'specialized knowledge' about how to learn turns out to be junk science: cf. 'learning styles' or 'three cueing', which destroyed the ability of millions of kids to actually read. There are quite a few people who can read, even at a high level. But how do you teach it, and teach it in a scalable way? It's not as easy as you think. Also, what field doesn't have fashion and missteps? Doesn't HN regularly complain about how various programming paradigms and languages were terrible ideas? What makes you think that anyone can do something complex by going from zero to the best implementation in one iteration?

rcpt 5y ago

heritage really isn't going to be a good source on this kind of thing fwiw

N1H1L 5y ago
Yes as soon as I saw Heritage I knew that they would be pushing a agenda that would make Ayn Rand blush.
mhuffman 5y ago
>heritage really isn't going to be a good source on this kind of thing fwiw There is no good source on "this kind of thing"! This is a type of "Wicked Problem"[1] and also a political darling of every political group. And since every social scientist is just a person, with political, personal, and moral beliefs, any papers that they are willing to release typically reflect that. Further, any "peers" that review those papers will have similar beliefs because they know which places they would like that info published. If you have pretty progressive beliefs, you will "know" that more money, in combination with identity awareness and additional help to those that match historically oppressed identities, is the answer. If you have pretty conservative beliefs, you will "know" that it is the environment, "brainwashed" and "lazy" teachers and students (but not your kids, of course!) that are the blame. Vouchers and private schools (letting the market work) are the answer. And there are people with beliefs everywhere on that spectrum. And not matter your beliefs, you can find research to back it up. Education is just something that will forever be argued about and there is no clear-cut solution, even though nearly everyone thinks that there is, if only everyone else could just understand their point of view!. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  True. I guess it is worth watching what people are doing regardless of their political beliefs. Have you noticed for example that in US people target specific locations for their kids? Hell, my wife was pushing hard to get a house in a 'good' district and we didn't even have kids yet. Social proof and all that, but there is a reason it exists to begin with.
jl2718 5y ago
Is there a rule against this? If you have better facts, please provide them. Disparaging a source of information adds nothing to the conversation.

rbetts 5y ago

In my experience, teachers are strong communicators, highly self-organized, aware of organizations, able to work with others, and able to create and follow a plan. They have a demonstrated history of continued learning - and know a lot about how to learn. Teachers, when I've been lucky enough to hire them, have been excellent additions.

Amezarak 5y ago

> specialized profession. Color me skeptical that it's a specialized profession. It does not appear to me that decades of education majors have done any better than those who didn't possess such a degree, or that there are any special skills involved beyond knowing the subject and good interpersonal skills. When I think back to my best teachers, none of them had any special skills. They were just passionate. It doesn't help that when you delve into it, all this 'specialized knowledge' about how to learn turns out to be junk science: cf. 'learning styles' or 'three cueing', which destroyed the ability of millions of kids to actually read. [1] Let's try a model where yes, we pay teachers more - much more. But instead of hiring "teachers", we hire experts who are passionate about their subject and want others to learn about it. Let's do this from middle school onward. In elementary school, we can focus on getting kids to read and do basic arithmetic, and otherwise let it basically be daycare. A lot of underperformance at that age goes away if you simply give the kid more time to mature - for some mad reason at least in my school district, kindergarteners are expected to already know their letters and numbers and be able to read a few words. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20790600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20790600

sseagull 5y ago
I believe teaching is a somewhat specialized profession, or at least a very separate skill from knowing the subject. I am just getting into teaching now, at a college level, and finding it is a completely different beast than everything else, even though I know the subject very well. I mean, we've all had teachers that sucked, or professors who cared more about research than teaching; it's not something that people can 'just do'. > none of them had any special skills Great teachers make it look easy. What you don't see is the preparation and the previous iterations of their ideas. It's like acting - good actors make it look like an easy profession. But try "acting naturally" in front of a camera sometime. For most people, even walking becomes awkward. Or programming. Behind most great programmers is a trail of terrible code that they have written over the years. >They were just passionate. It doesn't help that when you delve into it, all this 'specialized knowledge' about how to learn turns out to be junk science: cf. 'learning styles' or 'three cueing', which destroyed the ability of millions of kids to actually read. There are quite a few people who can read, even at a high level. But how do you teach it, and teach it in a scalable way? It's not as easy as you think. Also, what field doesn't have fashion and missteps? Doesn't HN regularly complain about how various programming paradigms and languages were terrible ideas? What makes you think that anyone can do something complex by going from zero to the best implementation in one iteration?