4 ms·
I could be mistaken, but part of the assumption here seems to be that everyone is equally good at their job. It seems far better to have the incredible teacher
by robfig 14y ago
I could be mistaken, but part of the assumption here seems to be that everyone is equally good at their job. It seems far better to have the incredible teachers leveraged as far as possible (to teach the most number of students while still remaining effective) rather than having everyone chip in their 21 hours and go home. Since this applies in every industry, it seems to explain why businesses prefer to have fewer (but more highly paid) employees.
In short, this would have happened if it was in anyone's interest. The employee wants to work more to earn more. The employer gets value out of consolidating production to the most productive.
- CookWithMe 14y ago> It seems far better to have the incredible teachers leveraged as far as possible And your assumption is that the potential leverage is quite big. I doubt it: I've seen many students profit a lot from 1 on 1 private lessons - from students 2 or 3 years ahead of them (or even from the same class). They are arguably nowhere near as good as a teacher who has studied teaching and has years of experience. Yet they can help the student a lot more because they can focus 100% of their time on the single student and his individual needs.
- heliodor 14y agoHe was talking about hours worked, not class size. And he has a very good point. All the talk in the tech community about the 10x programmer comes to mind.