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.