The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2016, 01:08:04 AM
-
For my entire life I've heard teachers complain that they get paid far too little for teaching. They are defended by many as heroes who are educating our children, who gave us our own education, and should be paid highly for this.
But what are teachers, really? At the lowest levels, preschool and kindergarten, teachers are little more than babysitters who read children stories. At the elementary, middle, high school, and college level the job role is essentially the same. Teachers remain babysitters who merely read children different books, whether it's a story about Martin Luther King, or about the periodic table. Other authors wrote those books, and did the research behind it. The teacher didn't do any of those things. The teacher is simply repeating the teachings of others. Most of the time they have their students do homework from the book and use exam handouts from the publisher (who graciously does not watermark the handouts). So why do they deserve large amounts of money for what is essentially a babysitting job?
In addition, teachers are frankly the losers of academia. Rather than contributing to an academic profession like their respected counterparts, they are reading stories to children. It's pathetic. Why should they be paid highly for that?
-
You're quite right, Tom. Teachers are lazy, entitled, and paid far too much already. We should probably just abolish the profession altogether and put them all to work building Trump's wall.
-
yeah, take THAT, teachers
good one haha
-
I don't agree at all. Of course there are people who are good and bad at their jobs in all professions. But a good teacher is more than a baby sitter. A good teacher lives to see the light bulb turn on over your head. A good teacher wants you to do more than regurgitate information, they want you to understand the information. A good teacher encourages critical thought and creates a discussion rather than an indoctrination.
They may have had academic goals once, other than teaching. They might not have panned out. But many understand the importance of passing the torch, because you never know who the next Nikola Tesla will be. It is truly a selfless profession, and they fact they do it for such low pay and for incredibly long hours attests to that.
Maybe if we reward the good teachers with better pay and benefits, it might encourage the average or bad teacher to try harder to reach some kids that might otherwise never have known what it means to use reason and logic to solve a problem.
-
I don't think Tom fully appreciates how awful working with children is
-
Many teachers are actually paid pretty well. Most of the "teachers make very little" idea comes from the sphere of teaching public school. Being what is basically a government job, the pay is really low, but the job security is very high. Some find the tradeoff worth it.
-
I don't think Tom fully appreciates how awful working with children is
He did refer to teachers as the losers of the academic world, and this is undoubtedly part of the reason why, kind of like how the jizz mopper is like the loser of the porn industry (it's hard to quantify which is worse, working with jizz or working with children...)
-
(it's hard to quantify which is worse, working with jizz or working with children...)
Same thing, just at a different stage of development.
-
(it's hard to quantify which is worse, working with jizz or working with children...)
If you try to work with both at once, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.
-
Th*rk'd!
-
(it's hard to quantify which is worse, working with jizz or working with children...)
If you try to work with both at once, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.
Not where you live. Working with both at once gets you a parliament position.
-
(it's hard to quantify which is worse, working with jizz or working with children...)
If you try to work with both at once, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.
Not where you live. Working with both at once gets you a parliament position.
Speaking of which, could you ask your President to come home. He's come over here talking all kinds of shite and now the British public would like to return your gobshite lame duck.
-
(it's hard to quantify which is worse, working with jizz or working with children...)
If you try to work with both at once, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.
Not where you live. Working with both at once gets you a parliament position.
Speaking of which, could you ask your President to come home. He's come over here talking all kinds of shite and now the British public would like to return your gobshite lame duck.
No thanks, you keep him.
-
He's not really a lame duck until after his election. Wait, why are we even talking about this? Thork is terrible.
-
So Tom had a shitty education; this is all starting to make sense.
-
Putting aside the debate on whether or not the job is difficult, one could argue that it should be a highly paid position just because of how necessary it is. Even if all a teacher does is regurgitate textbooks (I've seen that happen but it's definitely not the norm, at least not in my experience), people need to be educated some way or another in order for society to work. And even if they were just babysitters, y'know, those kids do need someone to supervise them all day. If we make the parents do it we'd have a catastrophic cutback on the workforce.
-
Putting aside the debate on whether or not the job is difficult, one could argue that it should be a highly paid position just because of how necessary it is. Even if all a teacher does is regurgitate textbooks (I've seen that happen but it's definitely not the norm, at least not in my experience), people need to be educated some way or another in order for society to work. And even if they were just babysitters, y'know, those kids do need someone to supervise them all day. If we make the parents do it we'd have a catastrophic cutback on the workforce.
Jobs aren't paid by necessity. In fact, I would say the opposite is true. We need garbage persons, construction crews, truck drivers, etc to make society function. Yet, these people aren't paid that great. Conversely, do we need another programmer at Google? Do we need an all-star quarterback for our home team?
Teachers are people who wanted an easy job with tons of off time. However, once they start it, they realize they are actually working a shitty job with shitty hours for shitty pay. There is a reason why the teaching profession has a ridiculously high abandon rate. It's tough to justify staying when the person waiting tables down the street makes double your pay for half the work.
This is why many colleges are offering online programs now. They eliminate the uselessness of the teacher and require that the student self-teach their courses -- as any good student would have done in the first place. All the teacher does in these classes is grade assignments and tests.
-
Putting aside the debate on whether or not the job is difficult, one could argue that it should be a highly paid position just because of how necessary it is.
Jobs aren't paid by necessity. In fact, I would say the opposite is true. We need garbage persons, construction crews, truck drivers, etc to make society function. Yet, these people aren't paid that great. Conversely, do we need another programmer at Google? Do we need an all-star quarterback for our home team?
Oh, I know they aren't. I'm saying they should be :P Garbage persons, construction crews, truck drivers, and teachers all deserve higher pay than entertainers. Although that can't really be helped since oftentimes entertainers' income is at least in part determined by people choosing to pay for their entertainment.
-
i learned something fine on my own once
therefore teachers are literally worthless
-
No, wages aren't necessarily driven by necessity (although blue collar work is much better paying than people generally think), but they are driven by qualifications - and clearly the US has a massive problem with lowly qualified teachers. They don't require master's degree education and studies in child psychology like many top ranking countries in public education do. Instead they get by with little to no qualifications, get paid accordingly, and is seen by the public to be a shitty profession when they don't get good results. There's no mystery in why the US time and time again ranks as one of the worst first world countries in education and why certain countries retain their top positions. It's because you don't hire teachers that are actually qualified for the position and then you treat them like shit.
If you think teachers deserve low pay, you are essentially tacitly admitting that your children deserve poor education.
-
Tom is right. All the computer science professors at University were too incompetent to be coding monkeys after they got their degrees, so they had no choice but to get their doctorates so they could make something of themselves.
-
I think he is talking about elementary and secondary school teachers.
-
Yeah, he was explicitly not talking about university professors.
-
So this horseshit (http://www.dose.com/news/28328/Unemployed-People-Hawaii-Is-Literally-Begging-You-To-Go-Work-There) came up in my fb newsfeed this morning.
-
Yeah, he was explicitly not talking about university professors.
For my entire life I've heard teachers complain that they get paid far too little for teaching. They are defended by many as heroes who are educating our children, who gave us our own education, and should be paid highly for this.
But what are teachers, really? At the lowest levels, preschool and kindergarten, teachers are little more than babysitters who read children stories. At the elementary, middle, high school, and college level the job role is essentially the same. Teachers remain babysitters who merely read children different books, whether it's a story about Martin Luther King, or about the periodic table. Other authors wrote those books, and did the research behind it. The teacher didn't do any of those things. The teacher is simply repeating the teachings of others. Most of the time they have their students do homework from the book and use exam handouts from the publisher (who graciously does not watermark the handouts). So why do they deserve large amounts of money for what is essentially a babysitting job?
In addition, teachers are frankly the losers of academia. Rather than contributing to an academic profession like their respected counterparts, they are reading stories to children. It's pathetic. Why should they be paid highly for that?
And yet he includes College professors in his opening post.
-
Yeah, he was explicitly not talking about university professors.
For my entire life I've heard teachers complain that they get paid far too little for teaching. They are defended by many as heroes who are educating our children, who gave us our own education, and should be paid highly for this.
But what are teachers, really? At the lowest levels, preschool and kindergarten, teachers are little more than babysitters who read children stories. At the elementary, middle, high school, and college level the job role is essentially the same. Teachers remain babysitters who merely read children different books, whether it's a story about Martin Luther King, or about the periodic table. Other authors wrote those books, and did the research behind it. The teacher didn't do any of those things. The teacher is simply repeating the teachings of others. Most of the time they have their students do homework from the book and use exam handouts from the publisher (who graciously does not watermark the handouts). So why do they deserve large amounts of money for what is essentially a babysitting job?
In addition, teachers are frankly the losers of academia. Rather than contributing to an academic profession like their respected counterparts, they are reading stories to children. It's pathetic. Why should they be paid highly for that?
And yet he includes College professors in his opening post.
Right because of course colleges and universities are exactly the same thing.
-
Jobs aren't paid by necessity. In fact, I would say the opposite is true. We need garbage persons, construction crews, truck drivers, etc to make society function. Yet, these people aren't paid that great. Conversely, do we need another programmer at Google? Do we need an all-star quarterback for our home team?
Well you've kind of hit on the answer there. Jobs are paid on their productivity. A garbage man doesn't offer the economy very much. A programmer at Google does. Divide the number of Google programmers by the amount of money google rakes in ... they bring in a lot each. A quarterback even more. How many shirts does that guy sell? How many people tune in and watch the game + adverts because he's there. He brings in more for the club than developers do for google ... and gets paid a shit load more too.
And then we come to teachers. You teach a bunch of 10 years olds long division. How much GDP are those kids going to subsequently add this quarter because of those efforts? School teachers contribute absolutely zero to the economy. Less so than a McDonalds worker, and yet they still get paid more. If anything teachers are paid too much.
Now you could take the view that without teachers there would be no google developers nor quarterbacks from colleges nor McDonalds workers who can count money to use a till, and that all wealth is derived from teachers ... but that is just stupid talk.
The truth is some teachers add to GDP, the ones who train foreign students and those who pay tuition fees to colleges. Its not a huge amount, but its why they get a bit more than McDonlads workers and less than Google developers. Teachers get what they deserve.
-
I didn't realize that so many people were so well-versed in the profession of teaching. These are truly some thoughtful and original opinions.
-
I didn't realize that so many people were so well-versed in the profession of teaching. These are truly some thoughtful and original opinions.
Those who can't, teach ... and you just got schooled. :-B
-
I didn't realize that so many people were so well-versed in the profession of teaching. These are truly some thoughtful and original opinions.
Those who can't, teach ... and you just got schooled. :-B
What about the ones that did, and then started teaching when they got done doing? I just don't get it. Perhaps you have a few more proverbs that I can learn from.
-
And then we come to teachers. You teach a bunch of 10 years olds long division. How much GDP are those kids going to subsequently add this quarter because of those efforts? School teachers contribute absolutely zero to the economy. Less so than a McDonalds worker, and yet they still get paid more. If anything teachers are paid too much.
You have never heard of future value? A 10 year old kid, with a good education and once an adult, will likely add close to a million dollars or more to the economy, over their life. In fact, if your google programmer did not learn long division in school, there might not be google programmers.
Sorry everyone, I fell for the troll.
-
And then we come to teachers. You teach a bunch of 10 years olds long division. How much GDP are those kids going to subsequently add this quarter because of those efforts? School teachers contribute absolutely zero to the economy. Less so than a McDonalds worker, and yet they still get paid more. If anything teachers are paid too much.
You have never heard of future value? A 10 year old kid, with a good education and once an adult, will likely add close to a million dollars or more to the economy, over their life. In fact, if your google programmer did not learn long division in school, there might not be google programmers.
Sorry everyone, I fell for the troll.
Why do you need to educate the child? If the child is not educated to become a google programmer, you can import an immigrant from another country to do it. Therefore any effort to educate in America is a waste of time and money. Children have become a massive waste to the economy. It is why higher education for women, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality and every single other anti-baby policy are enforced by the government. They are outsourcing birth to the 3rd world. Why have an expensive American child, when you can import a Mexican one that cost nothing to raise to fill the hole in the economy? American teachers are part of the waste. Cutting their wages and providing a terrible education for Americans has no draw backs. Americans can wait the tables and wash the cars of the rich immigrant workers for a lower national education budget + fight the wars as poorly paid soldiers to protect those well paid immigrant jobs.
-
And then we come to teachers. You teach a bunch of 10 years olds long division. How much GDP are those kids going to subsequently add this quarter because of those efforts? School teachers contribute absolutely zero to the economy. Less so than a McDonalds worker, and yet they still get paid more. If anything teachers are paid too much.
You have never heard of future value? A 10 year old kid, with a good education and once an adult, will likely add close to a million dollars or more to the economy, over their life. In fact, if your google programmer did not learn long division in school, there might not be google programmers.
Sorry everyone, I fell for the troll.
Why do you need to educate the child? If the child is not educated to become a google programmer, you can import an immigrant from another country to do it. Therefore any effort to educate in America is a waste of time and money. Children have become a massive waste to the economy. It is why higher education for women, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality and every single other anti-baby policy are enforced by the government. They are outsourcing birth to the 3rd world. Why have an expensive American child, when you can import a Mexican one that cost nothing to raise to fill the hole in the economy? American teachers are part of the waste. Cutting their wages and providing a terrible education for Americans has no draw backs. Americans can wait the tables and wash the cars of the rich immigrant workers for a lower national education budget + fight the wars as poorly paid soldiers to protect those well paid immigrant jobs.
These are truly some thoughtful and original opinions.
-
Why do you need to educate the child? If the child is not educated to become a google programmer, you can import an immigrant from another country to do it. Therefore any effort to educate in America is a waste of time and money. Children have become a massive waste to the economy. It is why higher education for women, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality and every single other anti-baby policy are enforced by the government. They are outsourcing birth to the 3rd world. Why have an expensive American child, when you can import a Mexican one that cost nothing to raise to fill the hole in the economy? American teachers are part of the waste. Cutting their wages and providing a terrible education for Americans has no draw backs. Americans can wait the tables and wash the cars of the rich immigrant workers for a lower national education budget + fight the wars as poorly paid soldiers to protect those well paid immigrant jobs.
Oh man that was a wild ride from start to finish.
-
Yeah, he was explicitly not talking about university professors.
For my entire life I've heard teachers complain that they get paid far too little for teaching. They are defended by many as heroes who are educating our children, who gave us our own education, and should be paid highly for this.
But what are teachers, really? At the lowest levels, preschool and kindergarten, teachers are little more than babysitters who read children stories. At the elementary, middle, high school, and college level the job role is essentially the same. Teachers remain babysitters who merely read children different books, whether it's a story about Martin Luther King, or about the periodic table. Other authors wrote those books, and did the research behind it. The teacher didn't do any of those things. The teacher is simply repeating the teachings of others. Most of the time they have their students do homework from the book and use exam handouts from the publisher (who graciously does not watermark the handouts). So why do they deserve large amounts of money for what is essentially a babysitting job?
In addition, teachers are frankly the losers of academia. Rather than contributing to an academic profession like their respected counterparts, they are reading stories to children. It's pathetic. Why should they be paid highly for that?
And yet he includes College professors in his opening post.
Right because of course colleges and universities are exactly the same thing.
So when a high school student opts to take a college level course offered by their school (for example Calculus), it's not applicable as course credit at university?
-
Right because of course colleges and universities are exactly the same thing.
I thought Americans referred to university as college.
-
Right because of course colleges and universities are exactly the same thing.
I thought Americans referred to university as college.
The terms are frequently used synonymously. However, we still make a distinction between universities and colleges. Universities tend to be research institutions as well as offering undergraduate and graduate degrees. Colleges tend to focus on undergrad degrees and don't have the research capacity of universities. Colleges tend to be smaller campuses with smaller class sizes. There's probably a few other distinctions as well, but you get the idea.
-
Right because of course colleges and universities are exactly the same thing.
I thought Americans referred to university as college.
The terms are frequently used synonymously. However, we still make a distinction between universities and colleges. Universities tend to be research institutions as well as offering undergraduate and graduate degrees. Colleges tend to focus on undergrad degrees and don't have the research capacity of universities. Colleges tend to be smaller campuses with smaller class sizes. There's probably a few other distinctions as well, but you get the idea.
Also, universities are comprised of colleges. That's why you can say "I go to college" when you actually go to university and still be technically correct (in America). Usually the colleges are just a way of categorizing majors.
The university I go to actually only just got its university status a few years ago. It used to only be a college.
-
And then we come to teachers. You teach a bunch of 10 years olds long division. How much GDP are those kids going to subsequently add this quarter because of those efforts? School teachers contribute absolutely zero to the economy. Less so than a McDonalds worker, and yet they still get paid more. If anything teachers are paid too much.
You have never heard of future value? A 10 year old kid, with a good education and once an adult, will likely add close to a million dollars or more to the economy, over their life. In fact, if your google programmer did not learn long division in school, there might not be google programmers.
Sorry everyone, I fell for the troll.
Why do you need to educate the child? If the child is not educated to become a google programmer, you can import an immigrant from another country to do it. Therefore any effort to educate in America is a waste of time and money. Children have become a massive waste to the economy. It is why higher education for women, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality and every single other anti-baby policy are enforced by the government. They are outsourcing birth to the 3rd world. Why have an expensive American child, when you can import a Mexican one that cost nothing to raise to fill the hole in the economy? American teachers are part of the waste. Cutting their wages and providing a terrible education for Americans has no draw backs. Americans can wait the tables and wash the cars of the rich immigrant workers for a lower national education budget + fight the wars as poorly paid soldiers to protect those well paid immigrant jobs.
Stop worrying about the state of education and start preparing for the crash of 2015. It's going to be much worse.
-
And then we come to teachers. You teach a bunch of 10 years olds long division. How much GDP are those kids going to subsequently add this quarter because of those efforts? School teachers contribute absolutely zero to the economy. Less so than a McDonalds worker, and yet they still get paid more. If anything teachers are paid too much.
You have never heard of future value? A 10 year old kid, with a good education and once an adult, will likely add close to a million dollars or more to the economy, over their life. In fact, if your google programmer did not learn long division in school, there might not be google programmers.
Sorry everyone, I fell for the troll.
Why do you need to educate the child? If the child is not educated to become a google programmer, you can import an immigrant from another country to do it. Therefore any effort to educate in America is a waste of time and money. Children have become a massive waste to the economy. It is why higher education for women, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality and every single other anti-baby policy are enforced by the government. They are outsourcing birth to the 3rd world. Why have an expensive American child, when you can import a Mexican one that cost nothing to raise to fill the hole in the economy? American teachers are part of the waste. Cutting their wages and providing a terrible education for Americans has no draw backs. Americans can wait the tables and wash the cars of the rich immigrant workers for a lower national education budget + fight the wars as poorly paid soldiers to protect those well paid immigrant jobs.
Stop worrying about the state of education and start preparing for the crash of 2015. It's going to be much worse.
Worse by a landslide
-
Tom is right. All the computer science professors at University were too incompetent to be coding monkeys after they got their degrees, so they had no choice but to get their doctorates so they could make something of themselves.
A doctorate merely means that you continued through school to get your doctorate. That alone doesn't make you smart or special. For example, apparently those losers at your university were so stupid that all they could do in life after their profound accomplishment was repeat what was told to them to children.
-
all they could do in life after their profound accomplishment was repeat what was told to them to children.
I'm not sure you're aware, but most professors are researchers first and foremost, and educators second. I would recommend familiarising yourself with academia before passing judgement on it. Avoiding elementary errors like that will make you look less silly, and you may even find it will increase the persuasive power of your arguments (albeit at the consequence of their content changing).
-
all they could do in life after their profound accomplishment was repeat what was told to them to children.
I'm not sure you're aware, but most professors are researchers first and foremost, and educators second. I would recommend familiarising yourself with academia before passing judgement on it. Avoiding elementary errors like that will make you look less silly, and you may even find it will increase the persuasive power of your arguments (albeit at the consequence of their content changing).
Professors take jobs at universities primarily to teach, not do research. The University forces them to do research for their own profit, and emphasizes that role as it can be very profitable for the institution, but that is besides the point. No one goes into professorship because of the research.
See http://www.nea.org/home/33067.htm
Full-time, tenured faculty must serve on academic committees and, at most four-year colleges and universities, conduct research as well. In spite of these requirements, faculty responding to surveys overwhelmingly report that teaching is their favorite responsibility and that they do more teaching than anything else. According to a government survey, even faculty at research universities spend considerably more time teaching than conducting research.
Professors don't want their careers to live or die depending on how well they do their research. They don't want to do the art of bringing new things into the world. They just want the easy job of repeating the same things over and over to endless classes of students. If they wanted to create new and wonderful things for the world they would have gone to work for a research lab or a tech startup, or they would have created one of their own.
They are afraid of failure, and would much prefer the comfort and security of an easy position of repeating themselves to children.
-
Can you explain why teaching children is bad?
-
hey check it out tom found a website that talks about teaching and research
CASE CLOSED, LOSERS
-
Can you explain why teaching children is bad?
It's not bad. It's just not all that deserving of high pay like many teachers want. You probably took algebra in school. Do you deserve a high salary just because you are repeating what you know to some children and having them do some homework from the book and an exam from the publisher?
-
Can you explain why teaching children is bad?
It's not bad. It's just not all that deserving of high pay like many teachers want. You probably took algebra in school. Do you deserve a high salary just because you are repeating what you know to some children and having them do some homework from the book and an exam from the publisher?
What is a "high salary"?
-
What is considered "high-salary?"
EDIT: Rama gets it...
-
Can you explain why teaching children is bad?
It's not bad. It's just not all that deserving of high pay like many teachers want. You probably took algebra in school. Do you deserve a high salary just because you are repeating what you know to some children and having them do some homework from the book and an exam from the publisher?
What is a "high salary"?
That question is location specific.
-
Can you explain why teaching children is bad?
It's not bad. It's just not all that deserving of high pay like many teachers want. You probably took algebra in school. Do you deserve a high salary just because you are repeating what you know to some children and having them do some homework from the book and an exam from the publisher?
What is a "high salary"?
That question is location specific.
Why did you bring it up then? I can tell you I looked at the starting salary and the average salary for a teacher with 15 years experience in the USA in 2012 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/teacher-pay-canada-near-the-top-of-the-oecd-class/article4541629/) and I can tell you that there are very places in the USA where the salary would be considered "high". Decent is a more apt word I think.
-
Can you explain why teaching children is bad?
It's not bad. It's just not all that deserving of high pay like many teachers want. You probably took algebra in school. Do you deserve a high salary just because you are repeating what you know to some children and having them do some homework from the book and an exam from the publisher?
What is a "high salary"?
That question is location specific.
Why did you bring it up then? I can tell you I looked at the starting salary and the average salary for a teacher with 15 years experience in the USA in 2012 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/teacher-pay-canada-near-the-top-of-the-oecd-class/article4541629/) and I can tell you that there are very places in the USA where the salary would be considered "high". Decent is a more apt word I think.
I didn't mean to suggest that they are getting high salaries, only that they do not deserve one for such menial work.
-
Menial? What do you actually know about the skills that are required to be a good teacher?
-
Professors take jobs at universities primarily to teach, not do research. [...] No one goes into professorship because of the research.
I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect on that matter. A false premise spawns untestable conclusions.
-
Menial? What do you actually know about the skills that are required to be a good teacher?
If it was such a desirable skill, why aren't teachers getting high salaries?
Professors take jobs at universities primarily to teach, not do research. [...] No one goes into professorship because of the research.
I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect on that matter. A false premise spawns untestable conclusions.
My position was backed up with a source. They go into it for the teaching. Where is your source that the professors are going into professorship so they can make money for their universities with the research?
-
Menial? What do you actually know about the skills that are required to be a good teacher?
If it was such a desirable skill, why aren't teachers getting high salaries?
Because of reductionists like you?
-
Menial? What do you actually know about the skills that are required to be a good teacher?
If it was such a desirable skill, why aren't teachers getting high salaries?
Because of reductionists like you?
I'm not going to pay you a high salary if all you can do is repeat the works of others to children.
Maybe if you were a professor-researcher juggling your time between teaching and making money for me with research, or if you were a pioneer in a new emerging field, you would get a little more. No other teachers are getting a high salary for repeating the work of others. Why should you?
-
Maybe if you were a professor-researcher juggling your time between teaching and making money for me with research, or if you were a pioneer in a new emerging field, you would get a little more. No other teachers are getting a high salary for repeating the work of others. Why should you?
You are attempting to apply free market principles to a debate which cannot take place within the context of a free market.
If education were a truly free market, then teachers would get paid what they are worth, which would be determined by what parents are willing to pay for their children's education. What they "should" be paid would be immaterial.
On the other hand, if we are paying teachers based on what they "should" be paid, then we have already left the free market behind and started investing in children's education for reasons other than profit. You cannot judge a fair salary based on a profit motive in that scenario.
-
Maybe if you were a professor-researcher juggling your time between teaching and making money for me with research, or if you were a pioneer in a new emerging field, you would get a little more. No other teachers are getting a high salary for repeating the work of others. Why should you?
You are attempting to apply free market principles to a debate which cannot take place within the context of a free market.
If education were a truly free market, then teachers would get paid what they are worth, which would be determined by what parents are willing to pay for their children's education. What they "should" be paid would be immaterial.
On the other hand, if we are paying teachers based on what they "should" be paid, then we have already left the free market behind and started investing in children's education for reasons other than profit. You cannot judge a fair salary based on a profit motive in that scenario.
There are such a thing as private schools. Teachers still aren't highly paid. In fact, they often get paid less at a private school.
-
Menial? What do you actually know about the skills that are required to be a good teacher?
If it was such a desirable skill, why aren't teachers getting high salaries?
Because of reductionists like you?
I'm not going to pay you a high salary if all you can do is repeat the works of others to children.
Maybe if you were a professor-researcher juggling your time between teaching and making money for me with research, or if you were a pioneer in a new emerging field, you would get a little more. No other teachers are getting a high salary for repeating the work of others. Why should you?
What is this red herring you are sabotaging your own debate with? Teachers by and large are not highly paid, and it is not particularly relevant to the OP, yet you keep bringing it up like it is relevant. What point are you trying to make?
-
Teachers deserve low pay because they make low pay.
-
My position was backed up with a source.
No, it wasn't. Once you're done researching what it is that professors do, try looking up what "quote mining" is.
Where is your source that the professors are going into professorship so they can make money for their universities with the research?
Eliminating the strawman from your request and substantiating my actual claim (referenced below for your convenience)
I'm not sure you're aware, but most professors are researchers first and foremost, and educators second.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/09/research-shows-professors-work-long-hours-and-spend-much-day-meetings#sthash.O22MjpQ4.dpbs (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/09/research-shows-professors-work-long-hours-and-spend-much-day-meetings#sthash.O22MjpQ4.dpbs)
(https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/media/academic%20tasks%20weekday%20averages.png)
Teaching-related activities are simply less prominent than those stemming from research. I'm sorry that you spoiled your devil's advocate argument by invoking university professors, but it is what it is. You can still salvage it by pretending that by "professors" you meant "not professors", but you need to hurry. You could also bring up academic career pathways and suggest that obviously you weren't referring to the research or "balanced" pathways.
-
(https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/media/academic%20tasks%20weekday%20averages.png)
Teaching-related activities are simply less prominent than those stemming from research. I'm sorry that you spoiled your devil's advocate argument by invoking university professors, but it is what it is. You can still salvage it by pretending that by "professors" you meant "not professors", but you need to hurry. You could also bring up academic career pathways and suggest that obviously you weren't referring to the research or "balanced" pathways.
I only see the word "research" three times in that chart, and they appear to add up to about 5% of the professor's time.
-
I only see the word "research" three times in that chart, and they appear to add up to about 5% of the professor's time.
I see the word "teaching" zero times in the chart, therefore research is infinity times more important!!!1!
Silly Tom, that's not how things work.
-
I only see the word "research" three times in that chart, and they appear to add up to about 5% of the professor's time.
I see the word "teaching" zero times in the chart, therefore research is infinity times more important!!!1!
Silly Tom, that's not how things work.
It appears that you provided an invalid source, then. How are we supposed to know what percentage of those emails are research related and which are teaching related?
I do see that teaching related activities, such as Instruction and Class Preparation vastly overshadow the research related activities in that chart. That seems to support the surveys referenced at http://www.nea.org/home/33067.htm
Full-time, tenured faculty must serve on academic committees and, at most four-year colleges and universities, conduct research as well. In spite of these requirements, faculty responding to surveys overwhelmingly report that teaching is their favorite responsibility and that they do more teaching than anything else. According to a government survey, even faculty at research universities spend considerably more time teaching than conducting research.
Once you provide a source that better supports your position, we may proceed with the discussion.
-
It appears that you provided an invalid source, then.
Nope. Try applying the same masterful lexing and parsing to both sides of the equation (not just teaching).
How are we supposed to know what percentage of those emails are research related and which are teaching related?
Entirely irrelevant.
I do see that teaching related activities, such as Instruction and Class Preparation vastly overshadow the research related activities.
No, you don't.
-
If you can't tell me which of those activities are research related and by which percentage then I am afraid we will have to go with the surveys which say that the professors do (and enjoy) much more teaching than researching.
-
If you can't tell me which of those activities are research related and by which percentage
I can. So can you. I believe in you, Tom.
I am afraid we will have to go with the surveys which say that the professors do (and enjoy) much more teaching than researching.
"I don't like your thorough source, so I'm afraid we'll have to go with my quote mine instead". You've lost your edge, Tom. You used to be fun, now you're just stale. I even tried helping you by showing you potential outs :(
-
The article you linked just says that professors are spending too much time doing administrative duties, but neglects to break down whether those are teaching or research related administrative duties. The accompanying chart that you linked is not broken down between research and teaching. None of it supports your position that professors first and foremost researchers at all.
In order for your evidence to matter you need to be able to defend it.
-
Even if you neglect to read the surrounding text and decide to go with the chart alone, and even if you approach it from a point of no knowledge about academia, you can simply dismiss the parts which you consider ambiguous. You'll still arrive at a clear conclusion.
But here, have some additional sources:
http://engineerblogs.org/2011/07/academic-breakdown-the-other-stuff/
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/21/universities-research-teaching-minister
In order for your evidence to matter you need to be able to defend it.
Interesting that this only goes one way. Or are you planning to defend your "evidence" against the issue of it being a quote mine?
-
I know that anecdotal evidence is less valuable than actual data, but since you seem to be disagreeing about the data anyway, I'll go ahead: A number of my professors have explicitly told me that their classes are almost a side-job compared to their research. Some of them occasionally miss classes because they're off at some conference talking about their research with other researchers. I'm sure this isn't the case for everyone, but the types of professors that SexWarrior is describing definitely exist.
-
I know that anecdotal evidence is less valuable than actual data, but since you seem to be disagreeing about the data anyway, I'll go ahead: A number of my professors have explicitly told me that their classes are almost a side-job compared to their research. Some of them occasionally miss classes because they're off at some conference talking about their research with other researchers. I'm sure this isn't the case for everyone, but the types of professors that SexWarrior is describing definitely exist.
There are, broadly speaking, 3 career pathways for academics: Few of them focus on teaching, most go with the "balanced" pathway (roughly 50% research 30% teaching), and then some go for the research pathway, in which they rarely see any students/daylight.
-
It should also be noted that I'm in what I imagine is a relatively research-light field. If English professors can spend a fair chunk of their time researching the life of Mary Shelley or the history of vampire fiction I'm sure that professors in STEM fields keep pretty busy with their research.
-
Even if you neglect to read the surrounding text and decide to go with the chart alone, and even if you approach it from a point of no knowledge about academia, you can simply dismiss the parts which you consider ambiguous. You'll still arrive at a clear conclusion.
But here, have some additional sources:
http://engineerblogs.org/2011/07/academic-breakdown-the-other-stuff/
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/21/universities-research-teaching-minister
Your first link is someone's blog (as opposed to government surveys). On the first source I find the following text on the page:
The balance of research and teaching varies enormously from place to place. Some schools go as far as nearly 80% of time spent on research, and some tilt the balance in the opposite direction.
On the next link you presented I find the following:
The Conservative minister's treatise, Robbins Revisited, published by the Social Market Foundation thinktank, notes a significant shift in emphasis away from teaching in favour of research, particularly in the older institutions. Willetts cites figures showing that in 1963 academics devoted 55% of their time on average to teaching and 45% to research.
For pre-Robbins universities the split is now 40% to 60%, and for institutions created between 1963 and the next huge expansion in universities in 1992 the ratio is 43% to 57%.
In contrast, Willetts notes, the former polytechnics and FE colleges that were made universities after 1992 are "heavily focused on teaching", with a 89% to 11% split.
It seems it's all over the place. Are these figures even based on surveys, or are they averaging the listed requirements of universities?
-
Lets go back to the very first source you provided, the insidehighered.com article (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/09/research-shows-professors-work-long-hours-and-spend-much-day-meetings#sthash.O22MjpQ4.dpbs). Looking at the source of that, we find that the article is based on this page from thebluereview.org (https://thebluereview.org/faculty-time-allocation/).
On this page we learn that the 60/40 or 40/60 teaching/research thing is really just an idealistic policy set by the university and the professors just wing it and give ball park estimates.
Faculty are commonly required by state and university policies to have a particular workload distribution with a certain percentage of time dedicated to teaching. At my university, the standard proportion of time we are expected to dedicate to teaching is 60 percent with the remaining allocated to research and service. Different arrangements have to be negotiated and approved by administrators. Then, at the beginning of each year we are required to report to our administrators the proportion of time we spent doing what, how many classes, how many students we taught, how many and quality of publications, on how many committees we served, etc. I call this the “administrative-reporting approach” to workload. One problem with this approach is that it doesn’t take into adequate consideration all that goes into succeeding in an incredibly diverse array of disciplines.
Another problem is that the administrative approach doesn’t take into consideration the absolute amount of time that faculty spend working — that is, the number of hours. We are not generally organized like lawyers or doctors who charge clients by increments of time or procedures geared for profit. A lot of our activities are multi-purposed, and we can work at all times. Most members of the Homo academicus clan have only ballpark estimates of how much they work.
We find that professors at many institutions were queried on their day-to-day life and the following was found:
The most surprising finding of our analysis of practices was that faculty spent approximately 17 percent of their workweek days in meetings. These meetings included everything from advising meetings with students (which could be considered part of teaching or service depending on the department) to committee meetings that have a clear service function. Thirteen percent of the day was spent on email (with functions ranging from teaching to research and service). Thus, 30 percent of faculty time was spent on activities that are not traditionally thought of as part of the life of an academic. Twelve percent of the day was spent on instruction (actual lectures, labs, clinicals etc.), and an equal amount of time was spent on class preparation. Eleven percent of the day was spent on course administration (grading, updating course web pages, etc.). Thus, 35 percent of workweek days was spent on activities traditionally thought of as teaching. Only three percent of our workweek day was spent on primary research and two percent on manuscript writing.
The bulk of a professor's research is fitted in where possible, mostly done during the weekend (it's almost as if it's something they are putting off), and adds up to a figure subpar to the amount of time spent on teaching related activities:
Combining workweek and weekend, our faculty subjects spent approximately 40 percent of their time on teaching-related activities, or about 24.5 hours. Interestingly, 24.5 hours per week is almost exactly 60 percent of a 40-hour workweek. So, what is happening? Are faculty shirking their teaching duties, or is workload policy geared for a time and place when success was defined largely by teaching? Research, it seems has to fit in outside normal working hours for our academicans. Only 17 percent of the workweek was focused on research and 27 percent of weekend time. However, it is research, and the external funding and recognition it brings, that makes a university a desirable destination for prospective students, particularly Ph.D. students. Our academicans definitely have an entrepreneurial spirit, a willingness to exploit their free time for work.
It certainly does not sound like, according to your source, that professors are putting their research "first and foremost" to me.
We also find a comic:
(https://thebluereview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/phd082508s.gif)
It appears that your source is a poster-child for how professors are not putting their research first and foremost.
-
Interesting that you immediately dismiss "a blog" as a bad source, but "a comic" makes someone "a poster child" for your view, especially when said comic clearly points out that it uses a source from 17 years ago.
You also have yet to present any "government surveys". All you found was an unsubstantiated claim by a trade union.
It seems it's all over the place.
No, it doesn't. The article clearly divides the breakdowns between the types of universities, thus showing a clear trend. Unless you're planning to claim that former polytechnics are the majority of universities (they aren't), or hire the majority of academics (they don't), your point is moot.
Are these figures even based on surveys, or are they averaging the listed requirements of universities?
Have you considered reading the article?
The source for the diminishing contact hours is stated as "A study of more than 17,000 UK undergraduates commissioned by the consumer group Which?" - from there on it's merely a quick Google search to find the study itself: http://www.hepi.ac.uk/2013/05/15/2013-student-academic-experience-survey-produced-jointly-by-hepi-and-which/ (http://www.hepi.ac.uk/2013/05/15/2013-student-academic-experience-survey-produced-jointly-by-hepi-and-which/).
The teaching vs. research breakdowns, on the other hand, come from "The Conservative minister's treatise, Robbins Revisited, published by the Social Market Foundation thinktank". Again, jfgi and voilà, you have your source. http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Publication-Robbins-Revisited-Bigger-and-Better-Higher-Education-David-Willetts.pdf
It certainly does not sound like, according to your source, that professors are putting their research "first and foremost" to me.
Yes, Tom, but the problem here is that reality doesn't care about what things "sound like" to you. The figures are clear, and the trend is well established.
Also, just a friendly reminder: your only source so far is a quote-mine from a labour union's argument for why tenure is good. You have yet to patch this gaping hole in your argument.
-
Interesting that you immediately dismiss "a blog" as a bad source, but "a comic" makes someone "a poster child" for your view, especially when said comic clearly points out that it uses a source from 17 years ago.
It's a comic, yes, a comic that was included with your source. The comic references another source that says the same thing. If you want something a little more up to date which says that professors don't put research "first and foremost", perhaps you should reference your thebluereview.org source article, which was written in 2014.
Have you considered reading the article?
The source for the diminishing contact hours is stated as "A study of more than 17,000 UK undergraduates commissioned by the consumer group Which?" - from there on it's merely a quick Google search to find the study itself: http://www.hepi.ac.uk/2013/05/15/2013-student-academic-experience-survey-produced-jointly-by-hepi-and-which/ (http://www.hepi.ac.uk/2013/05/15/2013-student-academic-experience-survey-produced-jointly-by-hepi-and-which/).
The teaching vs. research breakdowns, on the other hand, come from "The Conservative minister's treatise, Robbins Revisited, published by the Social Market Foundation thinktank". Again, jfgi and voilà, you have your source. http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Publication-Robbins-Revisited-Bigger-and-Better-Higher-Education-David-Willetts.pdf
If professors are doing so much research, why did you link me to a source, multiple sources it seems, which says that they are not? ???
It certainly does not sound like, according to your source, that professors are putting their research "first and foremost" to me.
Yes, Tom, but the problem here is that reality doesn't care about what things "sound like" to you. The figures are clear, and the trend is well established.
Also, just a friendly reminder: your only source so far is a quote-mine from a labour union's argument for why tenure is good. You have yet to patch this gaping hole in your argument.
If you think they are lying, please consider the sources you provided as an alternative resource.
-
Menial? What do you actually know about the skills that are required to be a good teacher?
Yet, one is not required to be a "good teacher" to get hired as a teacher and make teacher-pay.
-
Menial? What do you actually know about the skills that are required to be a good teacher?
Yet, one is not required to be a "good teacher" to get hired as a teacher and make teacher-pay.
The same is true of virtually every job, making this moot. As I already established teacher-pay is not good anyway, on average.
What is relevant is that the job is not inherently menial, although it could be performed anywhere from menially to skillfully.
-
If professors are doing so much research, why did you link me to a source, multiple sources it seems, which says that they are not? ???
That's only happening in your head, Tom. Your arguments won't be very convincing if you base them on lies.
-
Teachers remain babysitters who merely read children different books, whether it's a story about Martin Luther King, or about the periodic table. Other authors wrote those books, and did the research behind it. The teacher didn't do any of those things. The teacher is simply repeating the teachings of others. Most of the time they have their students do homework from the book and use exam handouts from the publisher (who graciously does not watermark the handouts). So why do they deserve large amounts of money for what is essentially a babysitting job?
In addition, teachers are frankly the losers of academia. Rather than contributing to an academic profession like their respected counterparts, they are reading stories to children. It's pathetic. Why should they be paid highly for that?
just out of curiosity, to what extent does a person have to contribute to an academic discipline to not be a pathetic loser?
-
Based on what Tom said, I think they'd have to write a book that gets read to children.