3 ms·

>This is flawed logic. You're selecting for status-seeking personalities, not competence Huh? So anyone who wants autonomy and to be well paid is a status seek

>This is flawed logic. You're selecting for status-seeking personalities, not competence Huh? So anyone who wants autonomy and to be well paid is a status seeker? Sounds more to me like they're a typical human being. > You don't even seem to consider the possibility that you've already managed to recruit as many competent teachers as can exist, and that you have so many incompetent ones because your demand outstrips supply. I think that idea is so implausible that it's not worth considering. You seriously think you couldn't lure some bright creative minds who would have done an excellent job teaching by making the profession better compensated? Not just those currently on the market but the 18 year olds who are choosing their fields of study? You don't think there have been plenty of people who have kind of wanted to be teachers, then turned on the news and decided "I don't want to put up with that" and then go choose something else? > They're being rewarded commensurate with their results. Wow. Way to grossly oversimplify one of the most important public policy issues of our time. You can't ignore externalities that affect student performance and place all the blame on teachers. There are way way too many factors to try to pin blame on any one segment. >Your tests and qualifications can't weed them out because they will attempt to game any tests you present. No more than any other profession considered prestigious is "gamed" today. You do realize teachers need to go through a degree program, background checks and professional testing per subject they teach, don't you? And that's today let alone if we further incentivize the profession. > This is not just an ineffective strategy for a large nation-state, it's an economically and educationally disastrous one. Hiring bright people to do a job that's vitally important to our society at a fair market price? The government spends enough money on nonsense that paying teachers well would be a drop in the bucket.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> Wow. Way to grossly oversimplify one of the most important public policy issues of our time. You can't ignore externalities that affect student performance a I can. If I hire a contractor to build a house in the shape of a giant ice cream cone, then I expect that result. At the very most, he should shortly conclude that it is not possible (I'd still be liable to pay him for some reasonable hours that it took to come to that realization). But if he can't do it, he can't just keep billing hours not doing it. They're paid commensurate with their results. > I think that idea is so implausible that it's not worth considering. You seriously think you couldn't lure some bright creative minds who would have done an excellent job teaching by making the profession better compensated? No. See, you're probably a bright and creative guy yourself (at least within some narrow scope). So your ego gets in the way and you assume that this means that you'd be a great teacher, if only they had signaled to you early on that you'd've been paid well to go into it (and you can't switch now, it'd mean going back to college). But you're wrong. I don't need someone who is above average in creativity to teach my children. I need someone who feels highly motivated to teach them. This is the single most important criteria to being a good teacher. And the fact that you didn't go into teaching means you've failed this test miserably. You failed it because you are very unmotivated... low pay, or maybe lack of respect, these things discouraged you. People are somewhat fungible, in that we could maybe squeeze out a few thousand more good teachers. Maybe. But at that point we're spending far more to get those last few thousand than we were to get the first few thousand good teachers. Just like anything else, we start running into diminishing returns. We'd double education spending to get even 20,000 more good teachers nationwide. Is our good teacher deficit only 20,000? I've heard numbers more like 500,000. If we have to double it for an extra 20,000, how much will the real number cost? You're just not thinking about this clearly, and if I must be downvoted then I must... it's more important that you people hear, however briefly, some sense on the matter. > No more than any other profession considered prestigious is "gamed" today. Yes, and that level of gaming is bizarre and culturally-suicidal. Let's talk about those "gamed" professions: politicians. Do you want those kind of people molding your young children (supposing you have any)? Too stupid to teach the kids anything other than manipulation and deceit, filling their heads with crackpot ideas, or just toying with them for their own amusement, and able to shrug off any scandal that malfeasance and abuse sends their way? The few other prestigious professions, they're not quite as bad as politics, but they have insanely prohibitive constraints. You can't usually game becoming an astronaut, but a nation of 300 million only comes up with dozens that make the cut. > You do realize teachers need to go through a degree program, I work as a university, and every term I have to prepare a program that sends out end of term letters (probation and suspension). Which college do you think gets the most of those, per capita? But perhaps the college of education is just tougher than the college of engineering. Maybe it's a more rigorous program. And the truth is, they don't need to go through a degree program. When I lived in Atlanta, I saw a newspaper article where they were hiring anyone with a GED to be a teacher, age 18 and up. Seriously. Don't remember the details, and I'm sure some part of it was that they'd put you through a degree program eventually (on your own dime or their? don't remember), but you don't ned a degree. You just need a pulse, a blank felony record (or not?), and a birth certificate proving you were born 18 or more years ago. > The government spends enough money This is a child's view of budgeting. Just because money is wasted elsewhere doesn't mean all should be invited to waste even more money. > Huh? So anyone who wants autonomy and to be well paid is a status seeker? You lost track of the conversation. Though people often argue that they should be paid more, the original comment was that they should be better respected. That's status. I concede that I added arguments to my own comment that addressed both status and pay. I'm merely clarifying: if you raise the status of the job, you get status-seekers, if you raise the pay, you get money-seekers. Neither of these is anything that will improve educational outcomes. They both do however improve election results for political parties that cater to teacher's unions.
- JediWing 12y ago
  > I work as a university, and every term I have to prepare a program that sends out end of term letters (probation and suspension). Which college do you think gets the most of those, per capita? Sounds like the system is weeding out the "gamers" pretty well in that case. > Just because money is wasted elsewhere doesn't mean all should be invited to waste even more money. No but it does mean there's plenty of low priority things to cut to go towards education. > if you raise the status of the job, you get status-seekers, if you raise the pay, you get money-seekers. This is categorically false. Taken to the extreme it means we should pay teachers NOTHING. Then we would get only the really good ones! Funny thing though, those people. It's almost as if they weren't simply optimizing for a single factor like money or status. It's almost as if they consider a wide variety of factors from pleasure, intellectual challenge, concern for legacy and leaving a mark, and yes gasp whether or not they can support themselves and their family and to what degree of comfort.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    > Sounds like the system is weeding out the "gamers" pretty well in that case. For now. You're proposing changes to the same system that will undermine that. > This is categorically false. Taken to the extreme it means we should pay teachers NOTHING. Argumentum ad absurdum. > It's almost as if they weren't simply optimizing for a single factor like money or status. The people you want to be teachers never gave a shit about pay anyway. I fully admit this. They will actually do it regardless. When you say "pay them more" you're not going to improve education that way. If you could be honest and confess that you simply think they deserve more and that we should pay them more I'd have no way to argue against that... But such a point doesn't belong in a conversation about improving educational outcomes.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

> Wow. Way to grossly oversimplify one of the most important public policy issues of our time. You can't ignore externalities that affect student performance a I can. If I hire a contractor to build a house in the shape of a giant ice cream cone, then I expect that result. At the very most, he should shortly conclude that it is not possible (I'd still be liable to pay him for some reasonable hours that it took to come to that realization). But if he can't do it, he can't just keep billing hours not doing it. They're paid commensurate with their results. > I think that idea is so implausible that it's not worth considering. You seriously think you couldn't lure some bright creative minds who would have done an excellent job teaching by making the profession better compensated? No. See, you're probably a bright and creative guy yourself (at least within some narrow scope). So your ego gets in the way and you assume that this means that you'd be a great teacher, if only they had signaled to you early on that you'd've been paid well to go into it (and you can't switch now, it'd mean going back to college). But you're wrong. I don't need someone who is above average in creativity to teach my children. I need someone who feels highly motivated to teach them. This is the single most important criteria to being a good teacher. And the fact that you didn't go into teaching means you've failed this test miserably. You failed it because you are very unmotivated... low pay, or maybe lack of respect, these things discouraged you. People are somewhat fungible, in that we could maybe squeeze out a few thousand more good teachers. Maybe. But at that point we're spending far more to get those last few thousand than we were to get the first few thousand good teachers. Just like anything else, we start running into diminishing returns. We'd double education spending to get even 20,000 more good teachers nationwide. Is our good teacher deficit only 20,000? I've heard numbers more like 500,000. If we have to double it for an extra 20,000, how much will the real number cost? You're just not thinking about this clearly, and if I must be downvoted then I must... it's more important that you people hear, however briefly, some sense on the matter. > No more than any other profession considered prestigious is "gamed" today. Yes, and that level of gaming is bizarre and culturally-suicidal. Let's talk about those "gamed" professions: politicians. Do you want those kind of people molding your young children (supposing you have any)? Too stupid to teach the kids anything other than manipulation and deceit, filling their heads with crackpot ideas, or just toying with them for their own amusement, and able to shrug off any scandal that malfeasance and abuse sends their way? The few other prestigious professions, they're not quite as bad as politics, but they have insanely prohibitive constraints. You can't usually game becoming an astronaut, but a nation of 300 million only comes up with dozens that make the cut. > You do realize teachers need to go through a degree program, I work as a university, and every term I have to prepare a program that sends out end of term letters (probation and suspension). Which college do you think gets the most of those, per capita? But perhaps the college of education is just tougher than the college of engineering. Maybe it's a more rigorous program. And the truth is, they don't need to go through a degree program. When I lived in Atlanta, I saw a newspaper article where they were hiring anyone with a GED to be a teacher, age 18 and up. Seriously. Don't remember the details, and I'm sure some part of it was that they'd put you through a degree program eventually (on your own dime or their? don't remember), but you don't ned a degree. You just need a pulse, a blank felony record (or not?), and a birth certificate proving you were born 18 or more years ago. > The government spends enough money This is a child's view of budgeting. Just because money is wasted elsewhere doesn't mean all should be invited to waste even more money. > Huh? So anyone who wants autonomy and to be well paid is a status seeker? You lost track of the conversation. Though people often argue that they should be paid more, the original comment was that they should be better respected. That's status. I concede that I added arguments to my own comment that addressed both status and pay. I'm merely clarifying: if you raise the status of the job, you get status-seekers, if you raise the pay, you get money-seekers. Neither of these is anything that will improve educational outcomes. They both do however improve election results for political parties that cater to teacher's unions.

JediWing 12y ago
> I work as a university, and every term I have to prepare a program that sends out end of term letters (probation and suspension). Which college do you think gets the most of those, per capita? Sounds like the system is weeding out the "gamers" pretty well in that case. > Just because money is wasted elsewhere doesn't mean all should be invited to waste even more money. No but it does mean there's plenty of low priority things to cut to go towards education. > if you raise the status of the job, you get status-seekers, if you raise the pay, you get money-seekers. This is categorically false. Taken to the extreme it means we should pay teachers NOTHING. Then we would get only the really good ones! Funny thing though, those people. It's almost as if they weren't simply optimizing for a single factor like money or status. It's almost as if they consider a wide variety of factors from pleasure, intellectual challenge, concern for legacy and leaving a mark, and yes gasp whether or not they can support themselves and their family and to what degree of comfort.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > Sounds like the system is weeding out the "gamers" pretty well in that case. For now. You're proposing changes to the same system that will undermine that. > This is categorically false. Taken to the extreme it means we should pay teachers NOTHING. Argumentum ad absurdum. > It's almost as if they weren't simply optimizing for a single factor like money or status. The people you want to be teachers never gave a shit about pay anyway. I fully admit this. They will actually do it regardless. When you say "pay them more" you're not going to improve education that way. If you could be honest and confess that you simply think they deserve more and that we should pay them more I'd have no way to argue against that... But such a point doesn't belong in a conversation about improving educational outcomes.