Does the world need more teachers?

[Posy McPostface]

Education is a lifelong goal, for me. I have rarely met anyone who doesn't need to educate themselves more on a subject or matter, otherwise, we're in the twilight zone of sages and masters, which are rare and few. Even Aristotle, who one of my philosophy teachers told me, was the last man who knew everything in the world, did not become content with his knowledge. Similar to Goethe's Faust, there is an insatiable desire to want to know more, driven by important human traits such as curiosity, hope, and the desire for eudaimonia.

I've often resented the fact that education is considered as a stepping stone, which upon completing doesn't require further practice. It's become mechanized like a production line in many regards. Since the advent of modern education along with a growing population that is inquisitive and interested in further education, I feel as though, there might be a need for a higher degree than what is attainable as a P.hD. In all seriousness, a Bachelors nowadays has lost its value relative to what it would have been worth some 50 years ago. It would seem intuitively obvious that the best worker is one willing to learn on every step on the way forward before, during, and after work.

So, what am I getting at?

Basically, that with so many people around the world, who are curious and inquisitive, that we ought to have more teachers in the world to help guide them in their epistemological development about the world. We have seen the development of many online programs and youtube self-help tutorial videos that are driven by the aforementioned traits displayed by people. The practice of educating one's self is a virtuous circle, yet, is becoming increasingly difficult to satisfy. Again, as per one of my previous threads, the market has corrupted education in my mind.

Thoughts?

 

[Drakkith]

The practice of educating one's self is a virtuous circle, yet, is becoming increasingly difficult to satisfy.

How so? The rise of the internet has drastically increased the amount of information most people have access to. Not only in the sheer amount of "primary" articles and books, but also with how easy it is to communicate with people of almost any background and with nearly any interest. All of those online programs and self-help youtube videos you mentioned only make it easier.

I can't imagine a time when educating oneself was easier than it is now.

 

[Dr.D]

Not very many people today really value teachers. Colleges in particular make the assumption that anyone who makes it to graduate school can teach. The tend to reward teaching very poorly. What they reward instead is said to be "research" but in reality, it is grant money. To advance in most colleges, bringing in grant money is a much faster and more productive way to spend your time than teaching is. Colleges and advanced education are rather throughly corrupted by the quest for money and image. Thus, I suggest, that whether more teachers are needed is a moot point; its not going to happen when there is so little reward for doing it. I say this as one with 17 years of college teaching and rank of Professor.

 

[Posy McPostface]

I can't imagine a time when educating oneself was easier than it is now.

I agree with that sentiment; but, there's an issue of lacking guidance in one's goal of education. I mean, any professor or academic here cringe when Wikipedia is used as a bona fide source to a claim of knowledge. Then there's the paradox of choice, where there are so many vistas and different degrees that one can become overwhelmed by what best decision to make. So, hence again the need for a (possibly) higher role of institutional education in our lives provided by qualified teachers and (counselors)?

Gee, I hope I'm not making the profession of teaching more onerous with them also being moral or guides for others.

 

[symbolipoint]

How so? The rise of the internet has drastically increased the amount of information most people have access to. Not only in the sheer amount of "primary" articles and books, but also with how easy it is to communicate with people of almost any background and with nearly any interest. All of those online programs and self-help youtube videos you mentioned only make it easier.

I can't imagine a time when educating oneself was easier than it is now.

Information is not the same as knowledge or skill.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

We have plenty of loser teachers who are willing to pass students who don't do the homework and don't master the learning objectives.

We need more good teachers. Don't bother if you will just be another prostitute gifting grades and pretending to make a difference.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Not very many people today really value teachers.

I agree, and appreciate, all the more, the dedication of people who still desire to teach regardless of that fact.

Colleges and advanced education are rather throughly corrupted by the quest for money and image. Thus, I suggest, that whether more teachers are needed is a moot point; its not going to happen when there is so little reward for doing it. I say this as one with 17 years of college teaching and rank of Professor.

I would be keenly interested in what kind of solution could be provided to this predicament in your mind.

Thank you.

 

[phinds]

... Aristotle, who one of my philosophy teachers told me, was the last man who knew everything in the world

Your teacher GROSSLY overstated Aristotle's knowledge. Hell, he didn't even know about the existence of most of the world and I'm confident that his knowledge of, for example, the various living creatures in the world was but a tiny fraction of all extant organisms. I could go on and on and on ...

 

[Posy McPostface]

Your teacher GROSSLY overstated Aristotle's knowledge. Hell, he didn't even know about the existence of most of the world and I'm confident that his knowledge of, for example, the various living creatures in the world was but a tiny fraction of all extant organisms. I could go on and on and on ...

I should have stated that differently. He was the last man to know everything available to know at the time. I think there's some difference in stating that instead of 'everything' as I misstated.

 

[phinds]

I should have stated that differently. He was the last man to know everything available to know at the time. I think there's some difference in stating that instead of 'everything' as I misstated.

That caveat would certainly make it more reasonable but still, I think, far from the truth. I'm not arguing that he was not a polymath of his day but let's not go overboard.

 

[Borek]

I can't imagine a time when educating oneself was easier than it is now.

Sadly, people don't use access to the information to learn, but to confirm their prejudices. Think anti-vaccination movement.

 

[russ_watters]

I've often resented the fact that education is considered as a stepping stone, which upon completing doesn't require further practice.

Are you still a student or are you in the workforce yet? There are a great many professional jobs that require continuous learning - many even formally - in order to advance or even keep professional certifications.

...I feel as though, there might be a need for a higher degree than what is attainable as a P.hD. In all seriousness, a Bachelors nowadays has lost its value relative to what it would have been worth some 50 years ago. It would seem intuitively obvious that the best worker is one willing to learn on every step on the way forward before, during, and after work.

So, what am I getting at?

Not really, no. The idea of a degree above phd contradicts the idea of "learning every step on the way" because formal schooling to get a degree is generally designed to be a full-time job in itself. While there are people who do night school to get one, there just isn't enough time for most. So the learning comes in smaller bites.

...except for research scientists, who's primary job is continuous learning.

Can you give us a specific example of a field/job where this would apply and a specific description of the ongoing learning or higher degree you had in mind?

 

[cobalt124]

I'm not so sure we need more or better teachers, we need to treat the teachers we have better than we currently are doing, and teach learning for it's own sake rather than for the reasons we currently seem to have, e.g. making educational establishments look good, solely preparing children for a future job, grant money, and so on.

 

[gmax137]

I guess I am old-fashioned. In my view, the point of higher education is NOT to cram a bunch of knowledge into your mind; it is for you to learn HOW to cram that knowledge into your mind. It is to develop critical thinking, so that you can separate the truth from the crap. It is up to YOU to continue doing that for the 60 or 70 years you have left after you leave school. Learn new stuff every day. Learn stuff on your own, and from other people. They don't need the title "teacher" for you to learn from them. /rant sorry...

 

[Nidum]

We have plenty of loser teachers who are willing to pass students who don't do the homework and don't master the learning objectives.

We need more good teachers. Don't bother if you will just be another prostitute gifting grades and pretending to make a difference.

In the UK we now have a severe problem with teachers that just know the bare minimum about their subject to get by and absolutely nothing about anything else .

In my senior school days we mostly had teachers that not only had an in depth knowledge of their own subject but of many parallel and even unrelated subjects as well .

Maybe few of you who are younger than me have ever had the experience of being taught maths or physics by teachers like that . There was a syllabus somewhere but all the lessons where fresh and wide ranging and fascinating every time and not just absolutely fixed and sterile rote learning exercises .

 

[Dr.D]

I would be keenly interested in what kind of solution could be provided to this predicament in your mind.

I am afraid we will have to revise our sense of values to accomplish any real change. Today's society respects and honors the man with the most money, not the one with the greatest intellectual accomplishments. I see a real major part of the problem as lying at the upper levels of the academic establishment. When Deans discovered that grant money brought in "overhead money" as well (simply a slush fund), they really got behind the idea of making grants the most important activity. It gave them money for which they did nothing and were not accountable to anyone for the way it was spent. This factor makes a strong appeal to the lowest parts of the human mind. Until we restore the idea of personally working for the money you spend, this will not change.

 

[phinds]

I guess I am old-fashioned. In my view, the point of higher education is NOT to cram a bunch of knowledge into your mind; it is for you to learn HOW to cram that knowledge into your mind. It is to develop critical thinking, so that you can separate the truth from the crap. It is up to YOU to continue doing that for the 60 or 70 years you have left after you leave school. Learn new stuff every day. Learn stuff on your own, and from other people. They don't need the title "teacher" for you to learn from them. /rant sorry...

Exactly !

 

[Michal - skype man]

according me, yes. But not for making lectures, but for answering. I think about one thing: I learn math by study very good material in pdf-s. Then I go to forum where I ask questions. Maybe 200 question during 4 years, which I ask. I think that is core to understand anything. Questions and answers.

 

[Drakkith]

Sadly, people don't use access to the information to learn, but to confirm their prejudices. Think anti-vaccination movement.

I agree that many people use this access to information to confirm their own prejudices. But I also think that this is far outweighed by the people that use it correctly and I also think that many of these supporters of anti-vaxx (or other similar groups) use the internet correctly when it comes to topics of which they don't have strong pre-existing opinions about.

I'm not so sure we need more or better teachers, we need to treat the teachers we have better than we currently are doing, and teach learning for it's own sake rather than for the reasons we currently seem to have, e.g. making educational establishments look good, solely preparing children for a future job, grant money, and so on.

I don't understand what "teach learning for it's own sake" means or what it's supposed to accomplish beyond some vague premises of "teaching critical thinking" and whatnot. The primary reason people go to college is to help them get a job. If that isn't the primary concern of a college, most people aren't going to go to it.

I do agree that the other issues you mentioned, such as the focus on getting grant money, are important topics that should be looked into.

 

[Posy McPostface]

I guess I am old-fashioned. In my view, the point of higher education is NOT to cram a bunch of knowledge into your mind; it is for you to learn HOW to cram that knowledge into your mind. It is to develop critical thinking, so that you can separate the truth from the crap. It is up to YOU to continue doing that for the 60 or 70 years you have left after you leave school. Learn new stuff every day. Learn stuff on your own, and from other people. They don't need the title "teacher" for you to learn from them. /rant sorry...

So, we need to focus on liberal arts degrees more with an emphasis on critical thinking?

 

[Posy McPostface]

I am afraid we will have to revise our sense of values to accomplish any real change. Today's society respects and honors the man with the most money, not the one with the greatest intellectual accomplishments.

That's unfortunate. The general sentiment from what I gather here is that education is, again, a stepping stone or a means to an end to the profit motive that dictates behavior, especially if in debt due to college.

I see a real major part of the problem as lying at the upper levels of the academic establishment. When Deans discovered that grant money brought in "overhead money" as well (simply a slush fund), they really got behind the idea of making grants the most important activity. It gave them money for which they did nothing and were not accountable to anyone for the way it was spent.

Could this be a result of having colleges delve more and more into privative money being invested in them? I don't think it was such an issue before some presidents reduced state funds to colleges and federal funds(?)

 

[Dr.D]

I really cannot say what forced the changes other than the acceptance of greed as a driving motivation for administrators. When I was an undergraduate, there was some funded research at my university, but a lot of work was done without external funding simply based on interest. During my teaching career, I saw things change from "publish or perish" to "get grant money or perish." Good publications ceased to be valued nearly so much as slush money dollars.

There was a time (long, long ago, before the ice had all melted), when academics prided themselves on integrity and on the quality of their teaching. I cannot identify a single school where that is true today, except perhaps Grove City College and Hillsboro College. Otherwise, I think they have all sold out, saying "everyone else is doing it, so I must do so too."

 

[Mark44]

Hillsboro College

I think you mean Hillsdale College. They don't accept any government funding, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Mark44]

Today's society respects and honors the man with the most money, not the one with the greatest intellectual accomplishments.

This was probably true 500 years ago, as well, so I'm not sure that this is just limited to today's society.

 

[ZapperZ]

Again, as per one of my previous threads, the market has corrupted education in my mind.

Unfortunately, per your previous threads, your prejudice has corrupted your mind. You have already made up your mind on the nature of education, so any kind of rational discussion is meaningless, because you are regurgitating the same idea over and over again.

So why bother?

Zz.

 

[Dr.D]

I think you mean Hillsdale College. They don't accept any government funding, to the best of my knowledge.

You are correct. What I wrote did not look right, but I was drawing a blank otherwise. Thanks.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Unfortunately, per your previous threads, your prejudice has corrupted your mind. You have already made up your mind on the nature of education, so any kind of rational discussion is meaningless, because you are regurgitating the same idea over and over again.

So why bother?

Perhaps you are right; but, my prejudice doesn't change what other's have noticed and said in this thread. I doubt it, but is this some form of personal attack on me for presenting not a rose-tinted vision of our current educational system, in the US?

 

[Drakkith]

Perhaps you are right; but, my prejudice doesn't change what other's have noticed and said in this thread.

It also doesn't change the fact that multiple people have also presented viewpoints which run counter to your own.

 

[Posy McPostface]

It also doesn't change the fact that multiple people have also presented viewpoints which run counter to your own.

Isn't this a truism in any debate/discussion? To have a position and argue over it regardless if you're right or wrong, and then adjust your beliefs based on whatever consensus is achieved, given the consensus comes from an informed public or are informed about the issue more so than yourself? I'd say there is no consensus in this thread regarding what should be (if at all need be) done about the current state of affairs.

 

[Drakkith]

Isn't this a truism in any debate/discussion?

Certainly.

To have a position and argue over it regardless if you're right or wrong, and then adjust your beliefs based on whatever consensus is achieved, given the consensus comes from an informed public or are informed about the issue more so than yourself?

That would be ideal, yes.

I'd say there is no consensus in this thread regarding what should be (if at all need be) done about the current state of affairs.

There hasn't even been the semblance of a discussion along the lines of what you just described. It's just been people's opinions on about a dozen or more different topics. Almost every single post is talking about something different. And remember that you didn't even reply to your other thread. Or to my question in post #2 in this thread. Why should we give you serious consideration again when you haven't returned it?

 

[Posy McPostface]

I readdress your point.

How so? The rise of the internet has drastically increased the amount of information most people have access to. Not only in the sheer amount of "primary" articles and books, but also with how easy it is to communicate with people of almost any background and with nearly any interest. All of those online programs and self-help youtube videos you mentioned only make it easier.

I can't imagine a time when educating oneself was easier than it is now.

In response to:

The practice of educating one's self is a virtuous circle, yet, is becoming increasingly difficult to satisfy.

How so? Well, for starters college in the US isn't free. This drives students to make decisions out of financial reasons and has skewed the distribution of students to pursue more profitable fields of study, such as STEM-related fields for example. Is that a bad thing? In some regards yes and no. For jobs that are related to STEM fields, this is a good thing for an employer because you have more competition for a position, leaving you with a lower wage that has to be paid to the individual. I tend to think that you'd also get a better-qualified candidate given such enormous competition. Keep in mind that this is all true given that the supply of jobs for the position isn't growing at a substantial rate. So, my case might be moot in this setting of STEM-related fields due to the incredible growth of STEM-related jobs over the past few decades. Indeed, many graduates from the best colleges are lured into the market due to high wages and salaries, think quants or other specialized majors.

But, that's not the real issue. The crux seems to me to be that education seems to have evolved to producing good workers or consumers, not producers. Even if you're interested in producing goods you're going to be limited to many factors, such as debt accumulated from college. However, there are some few and notable cases where college students recognized the demands of the market, and seemingly decided to opt-out of the idea of becoming a good worker to instead being a producer of sorts, think Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and other notable people who didn't complete college. But, that's just my anecdote.

You can see this 5 minute video to better understand my point (disregard the title, it's not indicative to the discussion they're having in the video):

 

[Posy McPostface]

Basically, my whole idea is that there's an inexhaustible pool of supply that should be unleashed by increasing the number of teachers. Creating a virtuous circle.

Ideally, if the education system would be able to teach skills to people to become better producers, then that would further enhance the virtuous circle of education given that we can't all be teachers.

 

[Drakkith]

How so? Well, for starters college in the US isn't free. This drives students to make decisions out of financial reasons and has skewed the distribution of students to pursue more profitable fields of study, such as STEM-related fields for example.

Absolutely. The percentage of students going into non-STEM areas of study would probably be higher if school was free.

Is that a bad thing? In some regards yes and no. For jobs that are related to STEM fields, this is a good thing for an employer because you have more competition for a position, leaving you with a lower wage that has to be paid to the individual.

I have to admit, I've never ever heard this kind of argument before.

I tend to think that you'd also get a better-qualified candidate given such enormous competition.

Define "enormous". I'm hard pressed to believe that there's anything but modest competition in most STEM fields. Though I admit I haven't seen any statistics. Do you have any references supporting this?

But, that's not the real issue. The crux seems to me to be that education seems to have evolved to producing good workers or consumers, not producers.

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

However, there are some few and notable cases where college students recognized the demands of the market, and seemingly decided to opt-out of the idea of becoming a good worker to instead being a producer of sorts, think Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and other notable people who didn't complete college. But, that's just my anecdote.

You certainly don't need a college degree to be successful, but the number of people who wildly succeed without a college degree (or even with one) is so small that I don't feel that they have any bearing on this conversation. Also, how many people without college degrees do you think Bill Gates and Elon Musk hire? I'm willing to bet it's only a small amount and almost certainly not in areas of importance. They run businesses based on highly technical products that require people with years of experience and training in their respective fields to produce them. The vast majority of people are not going to acquire this experience and training on their own. That's why they go to college.

Basically, my whole idea is that there's an inexhaustible pool of supply that should be unleashed by increasing the number of teachers. Creating a virtuous circle.

Supply of what? And what is a "virtuous circle"?

Ideally, if the education system would be able to teach skills to people to become better producers, then that would further enhance the virtuous circle of education given that we can't all be teachers.

You need to define what you mean by 'producer'. If it means hugely successful people like the ones you listed, then your idea is a pipe dream.

You can see this 5 minute video to better understand my point (disregard the title, it's not indicative to the discussion they're having in the video):

The video only seems to be vaguely related to what you've presented in this thread. I agree with many of the points in the video, or at least think they are issues worth considering. I don't agree with much that you've presented here.

 

[Mark44]

How so? Well, for starters college in the US isn't free.

I'd have to counter by saying that college isn't free anywhere -- somebody has to pay for it. And in places where college is free, "government" doesn't pay for college -- taxpayers do, a point that was made already, either in this thread or possibly another one you started -- I don't recall.

This drives students to make decisions out of financial reasons and has skewed the distribution of students to pursue more profitable fields of study, such as STEM-related fields for example. Is that a bad thing? In some regards yes and no.

Does that mean in other regards, no and yes?
An important upside of having students pay for their own educations is that it becomes more expensive for them to become "professional students," spending many years at college, dabbling in this and that.

But, that's not the real issue. The crux seems to me to be that education seems to have evolved to producing good workers or consumers, not producers. Even if you're interested in producing goods you're going to be limited to many factors, such as debt accumulated from college.

Are you making the argument that workers aren't producing anything? I worked in the software industry for 15 years, after spending 20 years teaching at the community college level, so I have considerable experience in both the private and public sectors. While I worked for the software company, there were quite a few people who created things that became patented. And not a few decided to go their own ways, either starting their own companies or working with a small number of others in startups.

As far as schools producing consumers, what evidence do you have for that claim? That has not been my experience after spending lots of years as a student, as well as many more as a teacher.

However, there are some few and notable cases where college students recognized the demands of the market, and seemingly decided to opt-out of the idea of becoming a good worker to instead being a producer of sorts, think Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and other notable people who didn't complete college.

I don't know Elon Musk's background, but you're right about Bill Gates. I believe that Paul Allen, the other co-founder of Microsoft, also didn't complete college. At the company I worked for, most developers had degrees in Computer Science, but if someone had a proven track record, a degree was not a prerequisite of being hired.

 

[Posy McPostface]

I'd have to counter by saying that college isn't free anywhere -- somebody has to pay for it. And in places where college is free, "government" doesn't pay for college -- taxpayers do, a point that was made already, either in this thread or possibly another one you started -- I don't recall.

Speaking specifically about the US, but, it seems that the best public utility good that can be attained is by the investment in human capital. What's not to love about an informed and educated public?

Does that mean in other regards, no and yes?
An important upside of having students pay for their own educations is that it becomes more expensive for them to become "professional students," spending many years at college, dabbling in this and that.

Well, then it would seem you are advocating a shortage in supply to fill in the demand for such jobs, thus giving you higher wages (something you would want for paying a premium to ear more). In the case of the US, there seems to be a lot of talk about 'useless' degrees... So, there isn't demand for those degrees, stated otherwise. That would be the 'no' part.

Are you making the argument that workers aren't producing anything?

No, not really. Even consuming requires some level of producing something of value to sustain that consumption. My point is that education should either want from students to become producers instead of consumers. Meaning, to start your own business and apply your knowledge or otherwise to stay in college for as long you can and then apply what knowledge you have gained into some useful product.

As far as schools producing consumers, what evidence do you have for that claim? That has not been my experience after spending lots of years as a student, as well as many more as a teacher.

I don't have a quantified example. So, I might have to think over that for a while to make the claim more reasonable than on face value.

 

[Posy McPostface]

I think I might have made a mistake about college producing (as if some conspiracy) consumers rather than producers.

The issue seems to be that college is not making the fact clear enough that the end goal of education should be the constructive use of the investment in human capital, from college to the individual, through work or entrepreneurship or some business-related activity. You see this concept better developed in colleges with adequate funding; but, not so much in lower-tier colleges, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Mark44]

I'd have to counter by saying that college isn't free anywhere -- somebody has to pay for it. And in places where college is free, "government" doesn't pay for college -- taxpayers do.

Speaking specifically about the US, but, it seems that the best public utility good that can be attained is by the investment in human capital.

"Investing in human capital" by the government sounds harmless, but it ignores the fact that it is taxpayers footing the bill. If I'm a middle-class salesman working at a department store, and just barely getting by, I'm not sure that I want to be paying for some slacker in college who is studying the history of Renaissance reed instruments.

An important upside of having students pay for their own educations is that it becomes more expensive for them to become "professional students," spending many years at college, dabbling in this and that.

Well, then it would seem you are advocating a shortage in supply to fill in the demand for such jobs, thus giving you higher wages (something you would want for paying a premium to ear more). In the case of the US, there seems to be a lot of talk about 'useless' degrees... So, there isn't demand for those degrees, stated otherwise.

No, I am not advocating limiting the supply to drive up wages. I'm saying that if students have to pay their own way, or at least a larger share of it, they will be motivated by and large to work toward a degree that gives them a marketable skill. I am also advocating letting market forces react to job shortages. At the college where I'm currently employed (as a part-timer - by my choice), we don't have any problem filling our computer science and engineering classes. At the college where I worked before switching careers to software, the nursing and dental hygienist programs had no problems getting students, nor did the automotive technology courses.

Are you making the argument that workers aren't producing anything?

No, not really. Even consuming requires some level of producing something of value to sustain that consumption. My point is that education should either want from students to become producers instead of consumers. Meaning, to start your own business and apply your knowledge or otherwise to stay in college for as long you can and then apply what knowledge you have gained into some useful product.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Your categorization of college graduates as consumers or producers isn't a helpful one, especially in that there are just about zero colleges whose mission statement is "We turn out consumers." Colleges traditionally haven't had a focus of turning out graduates who were what you're calling "producers," as such a curriculum would necessarily include study in both business administration and engineering. To be an entrepeneur, you need the technical skills required to make something that people want to buy, as well as sufficient knowledge of business to be able to start a company and keep the business going.

 

[Blank_Stare]

To be an entrepeneur, you need the technical skills required to make something that people want to buy, as well as sufficient knowledge of business to be able to start a company and keep the business going.

Actually, you don't need any technical skills to make anything, nor do you need specific knowledge of your product. The simple fact is that all you need is the charisma and financial backing to hire people who do, (and who are willing to be lead by someone who is clueless,) for a sum of money that satisfies their need/greed. However, if you do happen to have the technical skills and/or knowledge particular to your product or service, your chances of long term success are much higher.

Another crucial ingredient of charisma. With charisma, you can talk investors out of their money, and skilled, intelligent people into "the fold".

So sadly, all it really takes is deep pockets, a silver tongue and a bit of luck to become a millionaire these days. I know a couple of millionaires who can't even balance a checkbook, or order production materials for their companies, but are enjoying a reasonable level of success, because they had some cash to start with, saw an opportunity, and made a lesser partner out of poor slobs who know which end of the pencil to hold, and do 99 percent of the work. If either of those "self made millionaires" were to lose their lesser partner, their business would fold like a cheap suit. The thing is, the "brains" are making way more than they would, drawing a salary anywhere else, so they will probably stay for life.

Let's face it, the pretty and smooth talking people will always find a way to bypass their ignorance and/or stupidity, riding on the shoulders of someone they can manipulate, or exploit. It's been that way forever, and probably will be that way forever.

Other than this small detail, I tend to agree with most of what you have had to say here.

 

[Drakkith]

Let's face it, the pretty and smooth talking people will always find a way to bypass their ignorance and/or stupidity, riding on the shoulders of someone they can manipulate, or exploit. It's been that way forever, and probably will be that way forever.

I would bet that the vast majority of these people fail miserably at attempting to manipulate and exploit others and that only a very small number actually succeed in any major way. For every one that succeeds, there are likely hundreds or thousands who do not. This is similar to the number of people who drop out of college to start their own business. Most fail. A few succeed.

 

[Posy McPostface]

"Investing in human capital" by the government sounds harmless, but it ignores the fact that it is taxpayers footing the bill. If I'm a middle-class salesman working at a department store, and just barely getting by, I'm not sure that I want to be paying for some slacker in college who is studying the history of Renaissance reed instruments.

While, there might as well be some people opposed to paying taxes for education, as I mentioned earlier, it is the best of all possible investments to make in terms of a future return on that investment, through various methods. If someone has an objection to paying taxes in principle or otherwise any taxes at all, then that seems to be a separate issue at hand.

This is my whole point in posting this thread, namely that the best investment is one in education, and the rest of what I have said is quibble.

 

[Mark44]

While, there might as well be some people opposed to paying taxes for education, as I mentioned earlier, it is the best of all possible investments to make in terms of a future return on that investment, through various methods. If someone has an objection to paying taxes in principle or otherwise any taxes at all, then that seems to be a separate issue at hand.

No, I don't object to paying taxes to support education. My point is that (college) students should bear at least a portion of the costs of their education -- have skin in the game, in other words -- as they will be the direct beneficiaries of that education.

 

[Blank_Stare]

Most fail. A few succeed.

By definition, "most" is anything over 50% - so I can not say you are completely wrong. However, I think the real numbers would surprise you.

If I remember correctly, 9 out of 10 of all new businesses fail in the first ten years. Then again, it's been 20 years since I studied that statistics, so it could better or worse in the current economy. Still, this high rate of ultimate failure effectively provides camouflage to the people I am describing - after all, people pretty much expect a new business owner to eventually fail, regardless of personal expertise.

Also, the people who we are talking about don't just "give up", and go away, when they fail. Once they have tasted a fat salary, with minimal work or knowledge on their part, they just keep going back to the well, for another go. A large percentage of them simply find new... well, "suckers" to work for them, and for investment capital. Often, they break laws, and end up with all expenses paid vacations that last 3 to 5 years, but the fact that they keep repeating the scenario, means that sure, they fail a lot, but that failure doesn't necessarily take them out of the equation, it simply moves them down the street to a different address, in a different industry, or different part of the same industry, where they can pit their charisma against a new pool of individuals.

Sadly, there is a huge number of incompetent, yet moderately successful business owners out there, whose only saving grace is the fact that they have a gift for talking people into doing what they want them to. I wish I could provide numbers for you, but all I have is anecdotal observations.

Not all business owners are idiots, and certainly not even the ones that fail are all idiots, and also, certainly, the numbers of those idiots when you get to huge corporations is small, because the system weeds them out. But when a corporate officer roster reads like a cult of personality - stand back, and watch for the fireworks.

 

[Drakkith]

Sorry Blank_Stare, I still disagree.

 

[Blank_Stare]

Sorry Blank_Stare, I still disagree.

Hey, that's cool. I never mind a dissenting opinion, when it is offered civilly.

I am also willing to believe that confirmation bias may effect either, or both of our opinions. I've seen a lot of people who were not qualified to do the work they were assigned, or that they assigned others to do, and took credit for. It sounds like you have not. It's a classic case of YMMV.

On another note...

Mark44 raises an interesting concept, namely, making the students "have some skin in the game". It seems to me that there's some truth to the concept, but I can't imagine any way to force the issue. Those with wealth will always have a better chance at a free ride, and those without will either have skin in the game, or not even be in the game, unless/until, college expenses are free to everyone. So while I like the idea of somehow requiring that there be some, (albeit small) personal stake, I just don't see how to make that a universal requirement.

Do you have some idea, Mark44, of how to make that happen? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

 

[Drakkith]

I am also willing to believe that confirmation bias may effect either, or both of our opinions.

Absolutely.

I've seen a lot of people who were not qualified to do the work they were assigned, or that they assigned others to do, and took credit for. It sounds like you have not.

Perhaps I just haven't encountered as many of them as you have. *shrug*

 

[WWGD]

Sadly, people don't use access to the information to learn, but to confirm their prejudices. Think anti-vaccination movement.

And/or to find the name of their favorite artist: actor/singer, etc. Do a search for any name ; when you enter a first name, Google will most likely suggest the last name of an artist. Similar for searches of any sort. EDIT: Re reinforcing prejudices, you have Google contributing to that: it tracks your search history and gives you results that somehow " best fit" your previous searches. It then keeps you in a small neighborhood of your experience set, of your previous searches.

 

[Stephenk53]

Disclaimer: I am in a US high school

I think we need better teachers considering some of mine know very little even about there own subjects. Often I find in engineering I know more than my teacher which is really bad considering if you have seen my posts you know, that I know very little. Often if I have a question or disagree with a teacher they don't appear to be capable of defending their opinion except in English, since that is my weakest subject

 

[Drakkith]

Often I find in engineering I know more than my teacher which is really bad considering if you have seen my posts you know, that I know very little. Often if I have a question or disagree with a teacher they don't appear to be capable of defending their opinion except in English, since that is my weakest subject

I think it's far more likely that they know exactly what they're talking about, they just can't always explain it well to confused students. Teaching is MUCH harder than most people realize and takes skills that most people don't even know exist. The ability to take in what a student is asking, process it to figure out what exactly their asking and how it's related to a topic, and then develop an answer that is both correct and presented in a way that the student will understand, all on the fly without being able to sit down and spend some time working through it, is incredibly difficult.

That's not to say that they're always right, only that it's extremely unlikely that you know more than your teacher does. Even if they're a bad teacher, they almost certainly know far more about the subject than you.

 

[Stephenk53]

I think it's far more likely that they know exactly what they're talking about, they just can't always explain it well to confused students. Teaching is MUCH harder than most people realize and takes skills that most people don't even know exist. The ability to take in what a student is asking, process it to figure out what exactly their asking and how it's related to a topic, and then develop an answer that is both correct and presented in a way that the student will understand, all on the fly without being able to sit down and spend some time working through it, is incredibly difficult.

That's not to say that they're always right, only that it's extremely unlikely that you know more than your teacher does. Even if they're a bad teacher, they almost certainly know far more about the subject than you.

That makes sense, come to think of it a few of them (primarily the ones who have trouble defending their opinion/fact) tend to be lazier or not have a minor or major in their field, aside from education.

 

[Stephenk53]

For clarification I mean someone might have a major in education in minored in say science but the teach English instead