• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

why I think schools are worse now

tristanrobin

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
66
Reaction score
18
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
tristanrobin...California does not require this and California maintains some of the highest teacher qualification standards. You must have a B.A. with a Teacher Credential. What state do you live in because I literally find it impossible to believe that a teacher at any K-12 MUST have a Masters Degree in order to teach.
New York State - whether or not you find it impossible to believe, it's true

so, though CA may pride itself on "the highest teacher qualification standards," it's obviously not as high as New York State.

I don't believe this need be a game of one upmanship, however.
 

SFLRN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
95
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It seems as if you have a justification for your statements...and if you don't now, you will seek one.
I hear you about "weaker" peoples...as you are attempting to portray some...dude, your language pattern analysis is easy to read.
By your logic...you are calling cops and ER Surgeons and others pussies just like you are calling teachers whiners...
sorry you can't understand what stresss actually entails...
You are oversimplifying the previous post. I was critiquing the methods used to analyze stress. I never said that surgeons or cops were "pussies". If you had looked closer at the rankings you would notice that surgeons were not listed (except through a broad field), neither were soldiers. This is interesting because both of these fields have many qualities that would make them more stressful than being a waiter. Yet certain rankings claim that being a waiter is more stressful. I found this claim questionable. Therefore, I found it necessary to review the methods used to reach the conclusions on what constitutes the most stressful field. I never called anyone a "*****" and I certainly never called any teachers that. I critiqued the methods used to determine what is stressful and what is not. I did not critique police officers and surgeons. A ranking that put being a waitress as a more stressful field than being a surgeon is questionable at best. To elaborate on why there might be this discrepancy, it is likely that the differences in reported stress stem from the more thorough weeding out process to get into corporate law and I-banking. To even have a chance in either of these fields one needs to attend an extremely selective undergraduate institution or a extremely selective law school. Therefore, the people who do not handle stress well, and consequently do poorer on standardized tests and academic assignments, are more likely to be removed from entrance into the field early on. Thus, the people who can already handle stress will be let into the “feeder” universities. From there they must still prove that they can handle stress by achieving superior grades. That further limits the pool of applicants. At this point all entrants into the fields of I-banking and Corporate Law are those who have been forced to deal with many deadlines and stress in the academic realm. In short, these individuals are more conditioned to deal with stressed and more naturally inclined to be able to handle it. Simply put, the Army Rangers might perform missions that would overwhelm most people, yet they are able to perform them because they are some of the very best and brightest individuals.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
21,093
Reaction score
8,289
Location
Venice Beach, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What are the life expectancy rates of people of these professions??? I think that could offer another point of view on the stress level of jobs...
 

SFLRN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
95
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What are the life expectancy rates of people of these professions??? I think that could offer another point of view on the stress level of jobs...
From what I understand I-bankers look like they're 40 at 25.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
21,093
Reaction score
8,289
Location
Venice Beach, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I was going to post that, because in one of my first econ classes, my professor said something along the lines of stock brokers having a life expectancy rate of under 60 years during times of a recession...

I know that for boilermakers, they average 3 weeks after they retire. Welding is tough...
 

SFLRN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
95
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hot damn. I didn't know it was that bad. Luckily, I-bankers who stick with it can usually retire by the age of 40. By that point, they either A. use their contacts for setting up a Hedge Fund or B. Retirement as I mentioned earlier.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Most teachers I know live quite a long time. I think that they learn to handle the stress after a few years, either that or they quit and find less stressful work. Having stress is just part of the issue, how you handle it is another. For me, I can handle a little stress over a long time, and a lot of stress for a short time, but a lot for a long time and I get very, very down. Been on medication once or twice, but once I moved to a sunny climate, things got a lot better. Bad weather and a boring job is a bad combination.
Some schools in SLC want to go to year round attendance, but I think that it still includes some serious time off compared to regular jobs.
As for the original post, I think a good education is still possible in public schools, if the kids and their parents want to do their part. I know some who have gone on to do well, and some who were, and will always be, slackers.
You get out of it what you put into it....
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
94,573
Reaction score
20,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
tristanrobin

New York State - whether or not you find it impossible to believe, it's true

so, though CA may pride itself on "the highest teacher qualification standards," it's obviously not as high as New York State.

I don't believe this need be a game of one upmanship, however.
I believe it if you say that it is true :)

We didn't pride ourself with that, I jsut thought that I had heard that and after talking with teachers from other states for years it seemed accurate.

I will leave you with the last word on this and your one upmanship on me ;)

LOL!

Talk to you later man...gotta cook some steak
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
94,573
Reaction score
20,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
SFLRN
In short, those studies cannot be used to describe the stress levels of I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers because of faulty measuring methods and a lack of data from those specific jobs.
(In the event that what you say is true)
Apparently, teachers make one fourth of the starting salaries of corporate lawyers and I-bankers, yet they are still more stressed. Baffling.
Let me focus in on this aspect of your post then...

No study will ever be accurate, by your logic, since there are innumerable variables that are integrated into the factor of "stress". I agree. Stats are the greatest tool of manipulation available.

That being said, we go off of the studies that have been compiled in order to get a general overview of the situation.

I have worked in various fields including teaching, waiter, bartender, photographer, IT, gardening, and business owner. I handle stress extremely well and though IT is rated higher on one of my studies...I rank being a teacher as having higher stress, even over owning our own business too...

Dealing with kids and their parents in addition to meeting standards with regard to "MAinstreaming" special ed or behavior challenged students into a class of 35 students and picking up the slack of crappy parents by having to integrate behavior modification techniques and on and on not counting meetings and horrible funding that leaves us without overhead bulbs and having to go to the store and buying supplies with my own money and dealing with fighting and weapons (had to disarm a student of a knife once - stop another from throwing his desk at another a different time - breaking up drug deals to name a few) is NOTHING compared to to what IT entails or compared to what an I-Banker must have to face.

Sensitivity and being a people person instead of a numbers person...so many factors.

Hours worked is irrelevant to stress occurring during the hours worked. A guy could work 100 hours and make phone calls and evaluate numbers and have meetings and not come close to the stress that a teacher faces when an angry parent starts screaming at you and making physical threats against your life when they are in a gang (as happened to me, my mother when she taught, and others that I know). Combat zone? Get real...many teachers live in a "Combat Zone" daily. This was AFFIRMED by two Army Rangers buddies of mine and one of them said that waiting tables was WORSE than being a Ranger because you have to deal with nit-picking and criticism and all of your money depends on the guest being happy with you etc etc. Only a waiter would understand so if you havn't done it serves no purpose to continue with that analogy...

You can say, "oh yeah, but you cold actually die being a Ranger" Bro, have you driven on the Southern California freeways to and from work for years on end? My dad who is a physicist that works with NASA, JPL and the Pentagon briefing the military and such says that driving the 405 freeway daily is the most stressful thing he has ever done.

Yep, it is all relative and that is why we stick to the general studies that encapsulate all the examples for us.

I respect your opinion and I like the way that you challenge ideas...BUT

Teaching is more stressfull than being an I-Banker.

end of story :2razz:
 

OKgrannie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
4,309
Reaction score
3,292
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
I've been waiting for someone to say: This whole premise is WRONG, schools are getting BETTER. Think about the expectations for schools now as compared to the past.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3DA1431F931A35752C0A963958260

"The Schools Are Getting Better

Published: January 2, 1995
It is widely accepted that the public schools are in decline and that one major reason for poor student performance is the disintegration of families. But a recent study by the Rand Corporation suggests just the opposite. Student performance has actually improved over the last two decades, especially among minorities, thanks largely to changes within families. This startling evaluation deserves careful examination by politicians and Washington officials before they indiscriminately dismantle social programs that may actually have worked.

As households with working dads and stay-at-home moms became an increasingly smaller proportion of American families, social policy makers worried about the effects of divorce, illegitimacy and working mothers on student achievement. But the Rand study found that factors like parental education, household income, family size and the age of the mother when the child was born are more important than family structure.

The Rand researchers looked at the results of standardized math and verbal tests -- known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress -- taken by youths aged 13 to 18 in the 1970's compared to the same age group in the 1990's. The scores went up an average of 3 percentile points for white students, 11 points for Hispanic students and 19 points for black students. These tests, administered to a broad range of students, were considered better barometers of school performance than the scholastic aptitude tests, which exclude the non-college-bound students who made the greatest gains in recent decades and whose results can be skewed by changes in the mix of students going on to college."
 

SFLRN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
95
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Let me focus in on this aspect of your post then...
No study will ever be accurate, by your logic, since there are innumerable variables that are integrated into the factor of "stress". I agree. Stats are the greatest tool of manipulation available.
I never said that. I said that using reporting as a method to analyze stress is limited in how much it tells us in terms of how much more stressful one job is from another.
Teaching is more stressfull than being an I-Banker.
end of story :2razz:
Then let me revise my previous statement, teachers make less than some other fields because of 1. A larger supply of labor, there are many teachers who do not find permanent employment, 2. Easier requirements for entry (again, compared to a few other fields), 3. Has more fringe benefits (vacations, sometimes excellent pension plans) and 4. Fewer required hours, in office.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
94,573
Reaction score
20,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes...that IS what you said. :2razz:

SFLRN
In short, those studies cannot be used to describe the stress levels of I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers because of faulty measuring methods and a lack of data from those specific jobs.

Bodi
Let me focus in on this aspect of your post then...

No study will ever be accurate, by your logic, since there are innumerable variables that are integrated into the factor of "stress". I agree. Stats are the greatest tool of manipulation available.

That being said, we go off of the studies that have been compiled in order to get a general overview of the situation.
...And one VARIABLE would be the FAULTY MEASURING METHODS!

Look, studies like this interview people from ALL the fields listed. You are saying that there are faulty measuring methods due to those that report stress in particular fields and that people in some fields are more inclined to report stress since they are unable to handle stress and then you are trying to justify why people in I-Banking can handle stress over teachers and waiters because they are better at standardized testing and such...what yo uare saying is PERFECTLY clear and that is why I said, No study will ever be accurate, by your logic, since there are innumerable variables that are integrated into the factor of "stress". I agree.

You are saying that people that can't handle stress fall into such fields like waiting tables and teaching and thus belittle those in the fields in question.

To say, "the people who do not handle stress well, and consequently do poorer on standardized tests and academic assignments, are more likely to be removed from entrance into the field early on" for the reason that they can't handle the stess of the standardized tests and academic assignments is oversimplifying the issue. People don't test well for various reasons and ONE of those reasons is sometimes stess. Learning difficulties could be another perhaps? Yeah...I think so. A person could have a 140+ IQ and do extremely poor on standardized tests and be smarter than another that does well on standardized tests only because of rote memory skills. None of that has anything to do with stress. Another thing...standardized tests only test the ability to memorize and not the ability to synthesize information.

You mention Army Rangers as an example and as a retort I give you hearsay from actual Army Rangers that I know.

You are trying to pick apart this idea of stressful jobs because of what? Hey, you can banter all you like but it will not change the fact you are speculating against verifiable data from such sources as the CDC and the BBC and against data accumulated worldwide with such hard data in your collection like...your opinion? ;)

SFLRN
Then let me revise my previous statement, teachers make less than some other fields because of 1. A larger supply of labor, there are many teachers who do not find permanent employment, 2. Easier requirements for entry (again, compared to a few other fields), 3. Has more fringe benefits (vacations, sometimes excellent pension plans) and 4. Fewer required hours, in office.
1. Due to such factors as lack of available tenured positions and declining enrollment? The teachers are still hired, but for one year contracts and then let go and then re-hired so that admins can play the numbers game for budgetary reasons...There is no merit to this point.

2. Easy requirement? Mandatory BA in most states along with Teaching Credential that takes another year or two? True, it is not as much as a Masters for the I-bankers (which I think that they need) but it is equal to or more than IT but it is close to law. I contemplated going into law when a couple of my friends did but I chose Education so that I could have more time with family. (I will not argue salary since I think that teachers make good salaries for time worked and that teachers should make more but society only pays them lip-service and doesn't actually value them.) BUT...To say that gettinga BA and a teaching credential is less stressful is ludicrous though...and you know it.

3. More fringe benefits? Depends on how you look at it. More vacation time? Yes. But less money to do anything about it. Many fields have great pension plans. The auto industry has terrific plans and those guys have little to no education...so there is no merit to this point of yours either.

4. Fewer required hours in office? No relevance at all. You mention cops and Rangers in your examples of stress and they have almost no office time at all. What is "office time" anyway? What you should be looking at is "time spent working" for it to be relevant. Teachers spend many many hours at home (oh yeah, you think that grading papers or phone calls aren't important enough to warrents high salaries or stressful enough to qualify teachers as more stressed than I Bankers even though teaching is more about psychology and even though you completely overlooked my absolutely relevant and valid points regarding how stressful teaching can be that completely sunk your point).

From where I am sitting you are debating an irrelevant point with no valid sources or any first hand examples. I would say that unless you can offer more than your opinion this time the debate over stress and job value is over. :2razz:
 

SFLRN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
95
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Look, studies like this interview people from ALL the fields listed. You are saying that there are faulty measuring methods due to those that report stress in particular fields and that people in some fields are more inclined to report stress since they are unable to handle stress and then you are trying to justify why people in I-Banking can handle stress over teachers and waiters because they are better at standardized testing and such...what yo uare saying is PERFECTLY clear and that is why I said, No study will ever be accurate, by your logic, since there are innumerable variables that are integrated into the factor of "stress". I agree. :
I was talking about the means to measure stress. I was not implying that a study needs to perfect, only that it needs to rely on a measure that isn't as subjective and filled with as many confounding variables as reporting is. This specific type of measurement, reporting, is more prone to error because it is quite subjective. You could ask people how destitute they think they are and a poor person in the U.S. might feel they are very destitute. Similarly, a person in Ethiopia might be middle class by Ethiopian standards, yet still make 1/5 of the income of American and have 1/2th the purchasing power. We all know the Ethiopian has it harder once we look at objective factors, yet if we relied on reporting the two would apparently be on equal footing. Therefore, reporting is limited in what it can tell use about people's situations because people's view is relative, people can get used to certain situations. However, that does not mean all situations are relatively the same, it simply means they might be perceived as such.
You are saying that people that can't handle stress fall into such fields like waiting tables and teaching and thus belittle those in the fields in question. :
I do not belittle the fields or the people. I am simply saying that the group of people in those fields will be more varied in their intelligence and their stress tolerance. There will be those who can handle stress very well and who are very intelligent. There will also be people who can’t handle stress and who aren’t exceptionally intelligent. The reason for this is simple, there is not as much of a weeding process for waiting tables and therefore, the supply of workers for said fields will be more diverse in this respect.
To say, "the people who do not handle stress well, and consequently do poorer on standardized tests and academic assignments, are more likely to be removed from entrance into the field early on" for the reason that they can't handle the stess of the standardized tests and academic assignments is oversimplifying the issue. People don't test well for various reasons and ONE of those reasons is sometimes stess. Learning difficulties could be another perhaps? Yeah...I think so. A person could have a 140+ IQ and do extremely poor on standardized tests and be smarter than another that does well on standardized tests only because of rote memory skills. None of that has anything to do with stress. Another thing...standardized tests only test the ability to memorize and not the ability to synthesize information. :
I was not just talking about standardized tests. You do have to take standardized tests and do well to get into the high-caliber schools that feed into Investment Banking and Corporate Law. Then, you have to do well academically on things other than tests, (3.5, GPA minimum for I-banking and usually top 50% for Corporate Law). Over time the more intelligent and those who have higher stress tolerances will remain. It is possible that a few people will be able to be only above average and even have a medium stress tolerance and still get into those positions. However, there will be fewer of them because there was a more rigorous weeding process.
You mention Army Rangers as an example and as a retort I give you hearsay from actual Army Rangers that I know. :
That is anecdotal evidence. There is also anecdotal evidence from an I-Banker who says that I-Banking was more stressful than serving. Quite obviously using anecdotal evidence is not an accurate way to determine the truth of a matter.
Due to such factors as lack of available tenured positions and declining enrollment? The teachers are still hired, but for one year contracts and then let go and then re-hired so that admins can play the numbers game for budgetary reasons...There is no merit to this point.
:
That doesn’t change the fact that there is a larger supply of people who are teachers than there are people certified for Law and I-Banking. There is no data that suggests there are more people who went through top law schools and top undergraduate universities to get into Corporate Law or I-Banking than there are people who go into teaching.
Handbook of the Economics of Education - Google Book Search
“It suggests that on average pupils in the USA were taught in classes of 23 in 1965- but this hallen to classses of 16 by 2000. This represents a dramatic growth in the teacher supply over the last 35 years in the USA.” In short, there is a larger supply of teachers than there is of Corporate Lawyers and I-Bankers.
Easy requirement? Mandatory BA in most states along with Teaching Credential that takes another year or two? True, it is not as much as a Masters for the I-bankers (which I think that they need) but it is equal to or more than IT but it is close to law. BUT...To say that gettinga BA and a teaching credential is less stressful is ludicrous though...and you know it.
Easier implies that something is relatively less difficult. Running a marathon is easier than childbirth. That doesn’t mean one is implying that running a marathon is easy; it only implies that one is less difficult than the other. Getting into a top law school, getting into a top undergraduate school for I-Banking, and then getting good grades at said schools is more difficult when compared to the teacher requirements. This is not a ludicrous proposition; if one reviewed the admissions data from top law schools and elite undergraduate universities then they would see that it is quite hard to enter into the aforementioned fields. Conversely, becoming a teacher does not require that you go to a “target school” (Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania and a few others) or a law school where a 3.5 is considered low among the applicant pool.
3. More fringe benefits? Depends on how you look at it. More vacation time? Yes. But less money to do anything about it. Many fields have great pension plans. The auto industry has terrific plans and those guys have little to no education...so there is no merit to this point of yours either.
:
I was comparing teaching to other fields. When a job has more fringe benefits, like teaching does, there is usually a sacrifice in pay. When you add the fact that teachers do have much longer vacations their overall pay can be sometimes lower than auto-workers who have to work year-round. If you compared teaching to other fields teachings’ fringe benefits would be more generous than the average for most Americans.
4. Fewer required hours in office? No relevance at all. You mention cops and Rangers in your examples of stress and they have almost no office time at all. What is "office time" anyway? What you should be looking at is "time spent working" for it to be relevant. Teachers spend many many hours at home (oh yeah, you think that grading papers or phone calls aren't important enough to warrents high salaries or stressful enough to qualify teachers as more stressed than I Bankers even though teaching is more about psychology and even though you completely overlooked my absolutely relevant and valid points regarding how stressful teaching can be that completely sunk your point). :
As an astute individual I thought you had the power to discern the connotations behind a word or phrase, the implicit meanings that can be drawn from it, and not just the denotation of a word. However, hours in the office were meant to imply the time spent in an area designated by employers for their employees to work at. This is only a general outline and there are likely some possible outliers that would test this definition; however, it is sufficient for this analysis. Although hours outside of the “office,” hours spent mostly in private dwellings or work performed that is relevant to the job but not directly compensated for, are important, they are present in both I-Banking and Corporate Law. The difference is that a Corporate Lawyers and I-Bankers work 80-100 hours a week and then do their out of office work. Teachers will often work half of that time in the office and then do some out of office work. It is more likely that the I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers do more work on the whole because their “in office” hours are double that of teachers it is probable that their total hours worked are also higher than teachers. However, if you could find actual evidence on the subject such as, “Indeed, a national survey conducted by the Department of Education showed that teachers spend an average of 45 hours a week doing their jobs.” (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/Columns/?article=teacherpayhardwork). I would of course hold my contention that reporting is limited in its accuracy, however, an hour is a rather subjective thing to measure vs. stress. (What one observes to be stressful another might view to be easy. What one observes as an hour is still an hour to another.). It would seem that all the anecdotal evidence issued by the teachers (on this forum) does not hold up with a more aggregate measure. In short, teachers do indeed work fewer hours than I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers. In some cases, they work half as many hours.
From where I am sitting you are debating an irrelevant point with no valid sources or any first hand examples. I would say that unless you can offer more than your opinion this time the debate over stress and job value is over. :
Having reviewed my posts, I found a number of valid sources. First hand examples are trivial; they can be entirely fabricated and they cannot shed light on the larger conditions that lead to the current pay of teachers. Moreover, most of the teachers on this forum have offered nothing more than their opinion on teaching and how stressful it is compared to a field that only a very small group of people in the population can get an interview in. If one looked at more objective measures, like hours worked, difficulty of entry, and supply of workers they could see why teachers are paid less than I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
.

Having reviewed my posts, I found a number of valid sources. First hand examples are trivial; they can be entirely fabricated and they cannot shed light on the larger conditions that lead to the current pay of teachers. Moreover, most of the teachers on this forum have offered nothing more than their opinion on teaching and how stressful it is compared to a field that only a very small group of people in the population can get an interview in. If one looked at more objective measures, like hours worked, difficulty of entry, and supply of workers they could see why teachers are paid less than I-Bankers and Corporate Lawyers.
Let's see, your points are valid because you say so and have a few references, other's points are probably fabricated regardless of having a lot of references. Teachers have lots of fringe benefits (name them, besides lots of time off) and a relatively easy life (class size of 16? in what world?) compared to lawyers and Investment bankers. blah, blah, blah
History has shown and will continue to show that the world would be a better place with a lot less greedy bankers and crooked lawyers who make a lot of money. Like they say, tho, teachers may not make a lot of money but they do make a difference.
We could eliminate half the lawyers and most of the investment bankers tomorrow and the world would not notice nearly as quickly as if we eliminated just 5% of the teachers.
My wife is a retired teacher. When she gets asked if she misses the job, she says she misses teaching, and the kids, or most of the kids. The few brats, their parents (who don't care that they are raising a future criminal or welfare recipient), and administrators (who won't support the teachers in their efforts to have control over the classroom), those are the things she does not miss.
Instead of trying to prove to the rest of us that you have superior knowledge of the issue, why don't you give us the benefit of your intellect and tell us how to make schools better? Tell us how to deal with a jr. high age Hispanic kid who is big and mean to other kids and the parents call the school staff racist for insisting that he obey the rules and stop beating up the little kids. Tell us how to deal with kids whose parents are on drugs, in prison, or should be in prison. Tell us how to provide for the kids who show up in ragged clothes, no jacket or coat or socks in the winter time, and looking like they haven't been washed of fed for 2 days. Tell us how the teacher is supposed to provide a book for every child when administration puts too much money into the new track or football field instead of replacing damaged books. If you care, those things will be stressful to you. But I doubt the investment bankers and lawyers who are busy making money care one tiny bit about anyone other than themselves. And you can bet that nearly all of those selfish money grubbing bankers and lawyers vote Republican nearly all of the time.
Teachers may be paid less, but it certainly does not mean that they deserve the lack of respect that some posters here have for them.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
21,093
Reaction score
8,289
Location
Venice Beach, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We could eliminate half the lawyers and most of the investment bankers tomorrow and the world would not notice nearly as quickly as if we eliminated just 5% of the teachers.
Come on man, why would you even say something like that??? Of course you would notice that really fast.

Hahahaha, faster than you imagine. I really hope we wont have to go into "why"...
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
94,573
Reaction score
20,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You sound drunk :lol:
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
94,573
Reaction score
20,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I was talking about the means to measure stress. Obviously...you mentioned this multiple timesI was not implying that a study needs to perfect, nor could it be since all such studies are subjectiveonly that it needs to rely on a measure that isn't as subjective and filled with as many confounding variables as reporting is. therein lies the rubThis specific type of measurement, reporting, is more prone to error because it is quite subjective. WYou could ask people how destitute they think they are and a poor person in the U.S. might feel they are very destitute. Similarly, a person in Ethiopia might be middle class by Ethiopian standards, yet still make 1/5 of the income of American and have 1/2th the purchasing power. This analogy is more similar than different. The Ethiopian might have it tougher in your opinion but who is to say that a mom of four on welfare in Mississippi living in a poor neighborhood with gangs and poor health care, mold in the flooring and a low education etc has it any worse than an Ethiopian that is content to live in a village growing their own crops and living in a dirt floored hut? and is only subjected to something that you would constitute as horrible and that they would constitute as normal...or that they would just be cool with not realizing that there was any other way?We all know the Ethiopian has it harder once we look at objective factors, I disagreeyet if we relied on reporting the two would apparently be on equal footing. NopeTherefore, reporting is limited in what it can tell use about people's situations because people's view is relative, This is correct and this is what shot your analogy downpeople can get used to certain situations. yepHowever, that does not mean all situations are relatively the same, it simply means they might be perceived as such.

I do not belittle the fields or the people. I am simply saying that the group of people in those fields will be more varied in their intelligence and their stress tolerance. People in EVERY field are varied in Intelligence and stress toleranceThere will be those who can handle stress very well and who are very intelligent. There will also be people who can’t handle stress and who aren’t exceptionally intelligent. there are those that can handle stress well and are NOT intelligent and there are those that can't handle stress and that ARE IntelligentThe reason for this is simple, there is not as much of a weeding process Compared to some fields...yesfor waiting tables and therefore, the supply of workers for said fields will be more diverse in this respect.

I was not just talking about standardized tests. You do have to take standardized tests and do well to get into the high-caliber schools that feed into Investment Banking and Corporate Law. The point is that Standardized Tests don't measure Intelligence. This shoots down your theory that smarter people that are able to handle stress better get into fields like I-Banking as opposed to the less intelligent people that have an "easier" track that get into teaching ;) Then, you have to do well academically on things other than tests, (3.5, GPA minimum for I-banking and usually top 50% for Corporate Law). Over time the more intelligent and those who have higher stress tolerances will remain. Sorry, this is just crap that you seemingly don't get. Intelligence has NOTHING to do with stress tolerance. I happen to be quite intelligent and I handle stress extremely well. My wife has an IQ higher than mine and she does not handle stress well at all with regards to school and tests and suchIt is possible that a few people will be able to be only above average and even have a medium stress tolerance and still get into those positions. However, there will be fewer of them because there was a more rigorous weeding process. This makes ZERO sense

That is anecdotal evidence. YesThere is also anecdotal evidence from an I-Banker who says that I-Banking was more stressful than serving. This proves my point and destroys yoursQuite obviously using anecdotal evidence is not an accurate way to determine the truth of a matter. When you are lacking any evidence though, and I offer studies along with anectdotal evidence...it makes my case stronger and your weaker. You can counter with anecdotal evidence of your own, but unless yo ucan offer studies regarding how studies such as I offered being invalid, then you are just offering opinion. I will take my opinion backed by actually studies and people that I know and respect over that any time :)

That doesn’t change the fact that there is a larger supply of people who are teachers than there are people certified for Law and I-Banking. There are more resons backing why people choose to take this field rather than why people are not ABLE to go into Law or I-Banking. I know more people that I consider intelligent in teaching than people that I would consider intelligent in lawThere is no data that suggests there are more people who went through top law schools and top undergraduate universities to get into Corporate Law or I-Banking than there are people who go into teaching. Why would there be? Nobody seems to think this is relevant except you! LOL!

Handbook of the Economics of Education - Google Book Search

“It suggests that on average pupils in the USA were taught in classes of 23 in 1965- but this hallen to classses of 16 by 2000. This represents a dramatic growth in the teacher supply over the last 35 years in the USA.” In short, there is a larger supply of teachers than there is of Corporate Lawyers and I-Bankers. This is one of the most inaccurate stats I read. Why does it NOT explain why myself, and evey other teacher that I have EVER known that is not a Special Education teacher has not classes at all that have less than 22 students and this was in economics and most classes have well over 25 students and in fact, the standard class size is more like 30+ ?? eh? Why don't you talk to some teachers rather than believing some BS stats? Why don't you listen to actual understanding from me or my Army Ranger buddies? Are you a teacher? Are you an I-Banker? What the hell are you talking out of your *** for if yo uare neither? Bro, just get a grip already

Easier implies that something is relatively less difficult. And the comparison constitutes sucha a minute variance that it is not worth mentioning IMO. A BA plus teaching credential of two years ( plus M.Ed. if you are like me) versus a BA plus two-three year law degree? Running a marathon is easier than childbirth. Are you even a women? What do you know about it? Anecdotal evidence? Studies? According to you and your analogies...who is to say what is easier? This is subjective! LOL! That doesn’t mean one is implying that running a marathon is easy; it only implies that one is less difficult than the other. Getting into a top law school, getting into a top undergraduate school for I-Banking, and then getting good grades at said schools is more difficult when compared to the teacher requirements. Again...unless you have done it you don't kow. There are varying factors like understanding the psychology of kids and understanding cognitive development that no I-Banker will get. Good grades? Read up a bit on Varying levels of Intelligence and Learning Styles and ADD and Differentiated Learning and any other number of factors that might lead a person away from number crunching idiots that you are fighting for. You seemingly understand little about education and this explains why you make such rash statementsThis is not a ludicrous proposition; if one reviewed the admissions data from top law schools and elite undergraduate universities then they would see that it is quite hard to enter into the aforementioned fields. Irrelevant Conversely, becoming a teacher does not require that you go to a “target school” (Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania and a few others) Missing the pointor a law school where a 3.5 is considered low among the applicant pool. Book learners as opposed to people that innately understand people...and you want to penalize them?

I was comparing teaching to other fields. When a job has more fringe benefits, like teaching does, there is usually a sacrifice in pay. That is a subjective argument. I can name a number of CEO Multi-Million dollar jobs with more fringe benefits than any teacher on the planet would ever enjoyWhen you add the fact that teachers do have much longer vacations their overall pay can be sometimes lower than auto-workers who have to work year-round. If you compared teaching to other fields teachings’ fringe benefits would be more generous than the average for most Americans. Perhpas, and that is why I state that teachers make what they make and that is fine...given that people do not value educators properly in todays society and they misplace value on people that don't deserve it like lawyers and I-bankers that really don't contribute...they make messes of things and complicate the world and then claim that they are imprtant and needed so that they can fix the very problems that they create. You may not see this truth, and that might be the underlying issue here

As an astute individual I thought you had the power to discern the connotations behind a word or phrase, I understand them better than you realizethe implicit meanings that can be drawn from it, gee, really?and not just the denotation of a word. However, hours in the office were meant to imply the time spent in an area designated by employers for their employees to work at. umm...yeah, this is supremely obviousThis is only a general outline and there are likely some possible outliers that would test this definition; however, it is sufficient for this analysis. Although hours outside of the “office,” hours spent mostly in private dwellings or work performed that is relevant to the job but not directly compensated for, are important, they are present in both I-Banking and Corporate Law. This isn't the point though.
Skipping down...I am tired of this petty back and forth. You know, you say it over and over. Stress is subjective. What you seem to want to do is to justify your opinion based with nothing, IMO. One study of your was completely ridiculous...and this is only from first hand knowledge of mine that you will simply accept or not. If you are not in education, then you should just accept it.

I am just gonna stay with what I understand to be "common knowledge" amongst reasonable people. Knowledge that is backed by studies and backed by myself as well as people that I know.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Come on man, why would you even say something like that??? Of course you would notice that really fast.

Hahahaha, faster than you imagine. I really hope we wont have to go into "why"...
people rejoicing in the streets?:lol:
 

SFLRN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
95
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Let's see, your points are valid because you say so and have a few references, other's points are probably fabricated regardless of having a lot of references. .
I did not say people's evidence was fabricated. I said that to get a picture of the whole you need broader data than one's personal experience. My points are valid because I have presented empirical evidence on the topic. I would prefer you do the same rather than attempting to use personal experience as a means to prove your argument. Basing arguments off of just personal experience alone would negate the purpose of argumentation. One would endorsing argumentation with subjective truths that cannot possibly be applied to the overall issue at hand. Therefore, empirics are vital to determining the larger forces that determine teacher pay.
Instead of trying to prove to the rest of us that you have superior knowledge of the issue, why don't you give us the benefit of your intellect and tell us how to make schools better? Tell us how to deal with a jr. high age Hispanic kid who is big and mean to other kids and the parents call the school staff racist for insisting that he obey the rules and stop beating up the little kids. Tell us how to deal with kids whose parents are on drugs, in prison, or should be in prison. Tell us how to provide for the kids who show up in ragged clothes, no jacket or coat or socks in the winter time, and looking like they haven't been washed of fed for 2 days. Tell us how the teacher is supposed to provide a book for every child when administration puts too much money into the new track or football field instead of replacing damaged books. If you care, those things will be stressful to you. But I doubt the investment bankers and lawyers who are busy making money care one tiny bit about anyone other than themselves. And you can bet that nearly all of those selfish money grubbing bankers and lawyers vote Republican nearly all of the time.
Teachers may be paid less, but it certainly does not mean that they deserve the lack of respect that some posters here have for them.
If I attempted to tell people what the evidence says on better education policy they seem inclined to tell me that I do not understand because I myself do not teach. Telling teachers, especially on this forum, the facts of why they are paid what they are paid, or how we can make better educate children would likely be hotly contested if not outright ignored. If you yourself have actual evidence then present it. Until then my original points on Labor Supply, Easier Entry Requirements and Hours Worked have been proven by reliable evidence. The one point some individuals on this forum have hotly contested is the level of stress. None of them, yourself included, have proven that the labor supply isn't growing, that the requirements are harder than law school, or that the field, on the whole, works over 80-100 hours a week (or has fringe benefits that are lesser than most Americans). Looking over the analysis presented, one of my smaller points of analysis has been contested and the rest have been left virtually alone. If there is relevant empirical evidence to refute my claims then it should be presented.
Here is another piece of evidence on how “horrid” teacher pay is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3347981.html, the chart shows that teachers average about 30.48 dollars an hour. I do find it humorous that you wish to generalize about bankers and lawyers as all greedy. I would remind you they too could generalize teachers in a negative way; that would not make either party correct.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I did not say people's evidence was fabricated. I said that to get a picture of the whole you need broader data than one's personal experience. My points are valid because I have presented empirical evidence on the topic. I would prefer you do the same rather than attempting to use personal experience as a means to prove your argument. Basing arguments off of just personal experience alone would negate the purpose of argumentation. One would endorsing argumentation with subjective truths that cannot possibly be applied to the overall issue at hand. Therefore, empirics are vital to determining the larger forces that determine teacher pay.

If I attempted to tell people what the evidence says on better education policy they seem inclined to tell me that I do not understand because I myself do not teach. Telling teachers, especially on this forum, the facts of why they are paid what they are paid, or how we can make better educate children would likely be hotly contested if not outright ignored. If you yourself have actual evidence then present it. Until then my original points on Labor Supply, Easier Entry Requirements and Hours Worked have been proven by reliable evidence. The one point some individuals on this forum have hotly contested is the level of stress. None of them, yourself included, have proven that the labor supply isn't growing, that the requirements are harder than law school, or that the field, on the whole, works over 80-100 hours a week (or has fringe benefits that are lesser than most Americans). Looking over the analysis presented, one of my smaller points of analysis has been contested and the rest have been left virtually alone. If there is relevant empirical evidence to refute my claims then it should be presented.
Here is another piece of evidence on how “horrid” teacher pay is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3347981.html, the chart shows that teachers average about 30.48 dollars an hour. I do find it humorous that you wish to generalize about bankers and lawyers as all greedy. I would remind you they too could generalize teachers in a negative way; that would not make either party correct.
Very wordy response but nothing new. I still don't see what you are getting at related to the original question. Are schools worse now because teachers, according to you and you alone, have less stress than lawyers?
$30 an hour average? My wife with 2 masters degrees got about that in her 27th year, but that is Arizona pay, and she had to take on extra duties to make that much. I wonder where teachers average pay is that high?
My personal experience covers 40 years, it isn't just a generalization based on one teacher for one year. Your own link admits that starting pay for teachers sucks, and it is obviously an anti-union fluff piece, and it uses a Chicago salary schedule as an example. It also admits that they estimated the salaries for 17 of the states in a broader study. Poorly done, at best.
Those salaries might be true in some states, but most of the west has much lower salaries. And the medical benefits in some states are over $10K per year. Or did you think that they got it for free?
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
94,573
Reaction score
20,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
SFLRN

Actually...it was you who introduced "Stress" into this debate and that is the only issue that I have had with your assessment. That is inaccurate, as I have proven.

Teachers make less. I agree. I always have, since it is a fact. I think that according to how society views importance of certain jobs, they make what they do and that is fine. But society is filled with idiots that allow NBA stars to make $100 million dollar contracts...in reality, what is more important? Yeah...and educated society is more important. You are correct SFLRN. :2razz:

That being said...teachers should make as much as lawyers whose contribution to society can range much farther to the negative of teachers than it can the positive.

Hotly contested? I contested, without zeal and with success, the point regarding how stress plays into this picture. You refuse to accept my point of view, and I have to conclude that since you are not a teacher you do not fully understand how mis-representative certain studies can be. I would never begin to tell a person in another field how stressful it actually was. As you said, it is subjective. I would argue that you are not willing to alter your perception because you think more like an NT rather than an SF or something similar.

If I attempted to tell people what the evidence says on better education policy

Why not listen to educators regarding what might or will work when dealing with their field? LOL! This seems strange. Evidence? Most educators are ignored when this evidence is compiled. I know what would work better when teaching kids than you...sorry man, are you serious? How could you begin to think otherwise? What is your field? Whatever it is...you seem smart and I would never tell you how to do what you do or the best way to do it. To do otherwise is simple arrogance.

Telling teachers ... how we can make better educate children would likely be hotly contested if not outright ignored

I am curious though...how could I better educate kids? Tell me. What would you do if you had been in my classroom that would have been better than what I did...since you innately understand education, psychology, and cognitive development so well... Don't say that you were ever ignored on this one buddy! ;)

None of them, yourself included, have proven that the labor supply isn't growing

Almost all fields have a growing labor supply if you want to be logical about it...since we have a growing population.

that the requirements are harder than law school

Opinion. What is a requirement? It is a standard. If people are motivated to get into law school...they will. What is your evidence that people that desire to become lawyers and don't, since the requirements are to hard and thus they fall into "easier" professions like teaching? I am very curious about this one. The floor is yours...

I know lawyers that say that they could never be a teacher and I, for example was in law school and disliked it so much (just like Johnny Utah) that I left for what I do now. I know many people that are simply too smart to become lawyers...so they choose other professions.

or that the field, on the whole, works over 80-100 hours a week

Who cares? If I got paid 150-200K to work like an insane person and have no life I wouldn't do it. I would rather make 80K doing what I do now.

(or has fringe benefits that are lesser than most Americans).

I already stated, and this is beyond any logical debate, that multi-millionare CEO's have better fringe benefits than teachers. So do all lawyers once they reach a certain status or years worked... This point is moot and irrelevant.

What I would like to see you do is concede one thing...just one thing, as I have done multiple times. This would give your opinions more merit, IMO. Rather than the whole..." I am right and nobody agrees, especially the teachers that I am telling what they should do and why they aren't more stressed and underpaid" routine... :2razz:

Go for it man... grow some cajones!
 

SFLRN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
95
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Very wordy response but nothing new. I still don't see what you are getting at related to the original question. Are schools worse now because teachers, according to you and you alone, have less stress than lawyers?
I never said schools were particularly worse. I only stated that there were a few reasons teachers might not be paid as much as some other fields.
$30 an hour average? My wife with 2 masters degrees got about that in her 27th year, but that is Arizona pay, and she had to take on extra duties to make that much. I wonder where teachers average pay is that high?
My personal experience covers 40 years, it isn't just a generalization based on one teacher for one year. Your own link admits that starting pay for teachers sucks, and it is obviously an anti-union fluff piece, and it uses a Chicago salary schedule as an example. It also admits that they estimated the salaries for 17 of the states in a broader study. Poorly done, at best. Those salaries might be true in some states, but most of the west has much lower salaries. And the medical benefits in some states are over $10K per year. Or did you think that they got it for free?
You are taking issue with the Hoover Institute, the 30.34 figure was collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It also does not surprise me that the starting pay in teaching is low. It is "low" for graduates who do not have a degree in engineering or business as well. In teaching this is especially true because of a variety of factors.
I would prefer you cite empirical evidence and not anecdotal evidence so that we may be able to assess the whole and not just a few examples.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
94,573
Reaction score
20,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
SFLRN

Wow...that is twice now that you are ignoring me. :lol:

I can only assume that you are either upset, petty or unable to refute my points. I am not sure, but the lack of any respectful correspondence on your part is evidence enough that you have no case.

:2wave:
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
94,573
Reaction score
20,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
SFLRN

Wow...that is twice now that you are ignoring me. :lol:

Though I am not surprised at your inability to provide suffecient evidence that might help your case, I am disheartened that you would opt for this course instead of honest communication.

I can only assume that you are either unable or unwilling to refute the most simplistic of the points in question. The lack of any respectful correspondence on your part lately is evidence enough that you do not have a case.

An astute individual? ;)

:2wave:
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ipay.

None of them, yourself included, have proven that the labor supply isn't growing, that the requirements are harder than law school, or that the field, on the whole, works over 80-100 hours a week (or has fringe benefits that are lesser than most Americans). I do find it humorous that you wish to generalize about bankers and lawyers as all greedy. I would remind you they too could generalize teachers in a negative way; that would not make either party correct.
In the states where I have relatives or friends in the profession, some western states, and especially Utah, schools are starting this year with a shortage of teachers, especially in the fields of math and science. It makes the news. Principals doing interviews for replacements find that they have too few candidates to choose from and end up taking what they can get.
Turnover rate is high as some find the job a lot harder than they anticipated, or they decide to start a family, or their spouse finishes school and gets a good job and they don't need to work anymore.
Medical benefits for teachers are usually decent, but in many states (Arizona) it costs over $10K per year to add your family to your medical insurance if you are a teacher.
I generalized because you did. You want us to believe that teaching is easy in comparison to certain other jobs, well of course it is, but let's compare it to all jobs, not just a few. The studies that have done this have ALL put teahers in the top 10 worst jobs for stress. Of course, those studies haven't met YOUR criteria.
I know teachers who have "retired in place" and do the minimum, and in some cases get protected because of the difficulty in finding a replacement. But a bit less than half of teachers are not protected by a union as they are not members of a union. Tenure is a word you don't hear in the western states.
The most common reason bad or lazy teachers are not replaced is the difficulty of finding a replacement.
As for stress, try teaching 8th graders. My wife watched one class run a young male teacher, who was an officer in the Army Reserves, right out of the school. He had to be replaced mid year. They conspired to do it and he had no skills in classroom discipline. Teaching the little kids is a lot easier than teaching the teens. Stress varies within the job according to the age of the kids, and I bet it varies in your favored professions according to other variables. Still, overall, education always places near the top of the lists for stress.
Back to the original question, I don't think schools are worse now as most young people graduate and go on to get more education and become productive members of society.
The education is there for the taking, but some refuse it and quit trying and/or attending. THAT issue is definitely worse than when I was young.
 
Top Bottom