Most people are quite familiar with the saying, “Those who can’t do, teach.” This statement suggests that people who have failed or would be failures in the world outside of academia end up as teachers.
The origins of this quote and various permutations of it are unclear. An early quote of similar meaning comes from George Bernard Shaw in "Maxims for Revolutionists" in Man and Superman (1903). The history of viewing the teaching profession with contempt or at the very least disregard may date back to the origins of the apple for the teacher custom.
In the Middle Ages, knowledge was viewed as God’s gift. Since it was God’s gift, it was seen as wrong to charge for it. As a result of this view, teachers at many institutions were not paid at all for their work. They had to rely on the gifts and charity of appreciative students.
Sometimes, a teacher was lucky to receive an apple so he’d have something to eat. It’s rather difficult to develop a mindset that a profession is pursued by people of high capability if that service is offered free of charge.
The value of the work being done as well as the education level required to perform that work is reflected in the salary, yet teachers are still relatively low-paid compared to other jobs with similar educational requirements. Additionally, teaching is one of the few professions that require a higher education, yet people commonly suggest those who take that career path are deficient in some fashion.
Being a teacher requires more than a standard Bachelors degree, but many people still view teaching as a profession for lazy or unskilled people. A favored chestnut among those who hold such views is the anecdotal story about the incompetence of teachers who teach topics related to professions in which they have never engaged.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - lori
While I applaud your defense of teachers, many of your arguments completely miss the mark.
Education is about equipping students with a broad base of knowledge they can draw on to become successful in the occupations they pursue.
Only to a point. Knowledge may be power, but SKILLS are even more powerful. One of the big problems with the typical liberal arts college education: it leaves its graduates with no discernable skills for the workforce. The number one question employers ask prospective employees is, What can you DO for me? A liberal arts education is usually more about what you know than what you can do. And that's a big flaw in the system right now. It was fine when only a small minority of wealthy elites attended college. Now that a college education is so commonplace, education needs to change to meet the needs of its students, most of whom are going to work for the man for the rest of their lives.
I should know -- I was an English major who, had I not worked on my school's newspaper, would have had an empty "skills" section on my first resume. Our colleges and universities need to stop living in their own isolated world and realize that for $30K per year they should be helping their students develop not only a a broad base of knowledge and the ability to reason, but also real working skills that can be applied in one or more job fields.
For example, a business teacher who has never successfully run a business can’t possibly know real world business well enough to teach the topic effectively.
This is essentially true, depending upon what level of education you're talking about. In junior high or high school, someone with no business experience can teach the basics of the subject just fine. Maybe even a 101 college course. But once you get into higher level courses, how can someone with only book knowledge of the subject be an effective teacher? I'd want someone who had been both successful and unsuccesful in business to be my teacher. And that goes for engineering, lab sciences, and yes, even liberal arts teachers, too. If those people haven't ever had a non-academia job that required them to apply some skills related to their field, how can they adequately prepare their students to do it? It would be okay if a minority of teachers had no practical work experience, but the majority don't (the exceptions may be in the sciences, business, etc.). And that's bad for students.
Considering that each company and job demands a customized set of skills, this is certainly a more reasonable approach.
If that were true, then nobody would ever jump companies for a higher salary based on past experience. Some job skills are company specific, but most are not. Usually, in white collar jobs, knowledge or information is company specific, but not actual skills. One test for whether or not someone will be a valuable employee is whether or not s/he can transfer his/her existing skills easily to a new company.
The sales tactics for selling computers requires a different approach than selling cars.
Not really. The sales process doesn't change that much between types of products, nor do the skills required to be a successful sales person. The process usually just gets shorter or longer and requires some specialized product and market knowledge. Good sales people switch from product to product and even industry to industry quite fluidly all the time!
Marketing at Apple, where the focus is on design and limited numbers of models, would be a very different job than marketing at Dell, where the emphasis is on frequent sales, different equipment combinations, and low price.
This is true, but it doesn't mean the people in the marketing department need different skills. It just means that they need to be tuned in to their company's goals and business model. But marketing is marketing.
Seriously, we need to rethink what we consider an educated person in the US and other western countries. I'm all for a broad liberal arts background, but to make that the goal of a $100K education is just simply a waste of time and money. The world has changed dramatically in the last 100 years -- why hasn't a liberal arts education changed as dramatically?
2 - Shari
Lori, you make good points but your very experience shows that you can use what you know to gain experience before you graduate which allows you to acquire skills. You worked on your school newspaper. A friend of mine who had the same major as you worked on the publishing of a book as a senior project. Both of you have relatively thin experience in publishing which you received as part of your university education yet you still managed to get jobs.
In fact, having worked publishing textbooks for over a decade, I'd say your experience was nearly inconsequential. It was as close to nothing as you can get. While it may have tipped the scales in the job market for you, it's your educational background that really will matter in your future. It's the type of thing you can't get from a job.
As for what you asert about salespeople, I disagree based on having worked at a company which had specific tactics. In fact, one of the main failings of the salespeople at my company was that Japanese people do not study a major related to their future work. They are completely trained by the company and often have no educational background. You could see the short-sightedness of their choices and how they simply followed the steps they were told to follow. When that failed, they had no new ideas because they had no general educational background in their field. They had no adaptability and were in trouble when their skill-set failed them.
As for a $100,000 education, with an average starting salary for college graduates being about $45,000 and an average salary which is $10,000 higher than non-college graduates, the cost of an education is reasonable given the present economic situation. It's all well and good to talk about cost but you have to also consider benefits and current salary ranges. You can pay off that expense in 10 years. That's what we all pretty much have had to do.
A big part of going to college is the process of becoming responsible for yourself and your education. You gain knowledge but by completing a degree, you also show that you have the ability to meet expectations, organize your time, and express yourself to others.
Part of that process includes being responsible for finding what you need to add to your resume before you graduate rather than expecting your teachers to do it all for you. Even if you turn unviersities into glorified technical colleges, it won't be enough to get you a job. You'll still need to show you had the initiative to gain real world experience.
The only difference will be that you'll leave as less of an individual with an all-round education and likely have less flexibility in the workplace. If you start to specialize degrees (which would ultimately be necessary to offer more skill-based education) in order to offer up more process than background, you'll find your options are narrower. I'm not sure that's good for anyone.
3 - lori
Both of you have relatively thin experience in publishing which you received as part of your university education yet you still managed to get jobs.
Fresh out of college, the only job I could get was as an administrative assistant. I had my pick of those. I was turned down for one copy editing job, the hiring manager told me, because I had zero *formal* experience (the school paper didn't count for that) or training as a copy editor. The company, who otherwise liked me, concluded that they needed to hire someone with at leat a couple of years experience because they *didn't have the time to train me.*
That's right: it's expensive and time consuming for companies to train new employees in *basic* job skills. Everything else being equal, they will almost always opt for someone with experience over someone with none. For $100K, liberal arts colleges should be turning out students with basic job skills AND a broad educational background.
At the time, I had a $40K education and couldn't get a copy editing job that paid about $15K/year. I was apparently qualified to type and run errands. Isn't that fabulous?
It was as close to nothing as you can get.
You're right. The whole package -- classes and extracurriculars -- didn't get me much right out of school.
While it may have tipped the scales in the job market for you, it's your educational background that really will matter in your future. It's the type of thing you can't get from a job.
As I mentioned, it didn't tip any scales for me. Now I'm old enough that my undergraduate education is irrelevant. What matters? My experience and skills. The thing you often can't get from a traditional liberal arts education is useful experience, unless you seek it out on your own.
My undergraduate education has had and will continue to have little impact on my career. I've created a career out of nothing by being proactive and chasing down opportunities, one after the other. My liberal arts school didn't provide me that. I had it in me already. But it would have been nice to have been prepared for that first copy editing job. It would have made life a lot easier, and I would have gotten a lot more value out of my formal education.
In fact, one of the main failings of the salespeople at my company was that Japanese people do not study a major related to their future work. They are completely trained by the company and often have no educational background. You could see the short-sightedness of their choices and how they simply followed the steps they were told to follow.
I never advocated this type of thing. I'm advocating that liberal arts programs change with the times to make sure students leave school with skills and experience, along with broad knowledge. I never advocated that young people skip school, get all their "education" at work, or learn rote repetition.
But the sales process is not unique to each industry, in spite of your Japanese anecdote. A good sales person can change jobs and industries pretty easily. They'll have some studying to do, but the sales skills are the same.
It's all well and good to talk about cost but you have to also consider benefits and current salary ranges. You can pay off that expense in 10 years. That's what we all pretty much have had to do.
Many people can still handle their student loan debt. And many leave school and find decent paying jobs. But I'm glad you mentioned "current" salary ranges. The cost of education has continued to rise, no matter what was happening in the overall economy. We're in a recession? Too bad, that $100K education still costs $100K. Yet another example of how schools don't live in the real world.
Besides, starting salaries and manageable debt aren't the only barometers for whether or not schools are preparing students well enough for the workforce. Ask the employers if they like what they're seeing. If companies are spending a lot of time getting new graduates up to speed on basic skills, then schools are not doing a good enough job. Companies have to hire from the available pool of candidates -- if we don't provide the kinds of employees they need, especially at the salaries they're paying, they'll start looking elsewhere. See the offshoring phenomenon as a cautionary example.
A big part of going to college is the process of becoming responsible for yourself and your education. You gain knowledge but by completing a degree, you also show that you have the ability to meet expectations, organize your time, and express yourself to others.
And none of this would go away if liberal arts schools added a strong career and skills component to their programs.
Part of that process includes being responsible for finding what you need to add to your resume before you graduate rather than expecting your teachers to do it all for you.
Straw man. I never said that "teachers should do it all" for students. I said that liberal arts colleges need to better prepare their students for life after school, which for the vast majority means getting a job and staring to pay their own way through life. That means schools need to offer good career planning services and academic counselors that/who help students learn what they need on their resume and then help them figure out how to get it (students shouldn't be left alone to wander around searching -- the school has some accountability here), a strong internship program, courses that focus on job-related skills for certain majors (copy editing and proofreading courses for English majors, for example), etc. I would really hope that for the price people pay today for school, they get more than just ivory tower intellectual masturbation.
Even if you turn unviersities into glorified technical colleges,
Another straw man.
it won't be enough to get you a job. You'll still need to show you had the initiative to gain real world experience.
Of course. This is always true, whether you go to college or enter a trade or do something else with your life. But that doesn't absolve the school that's taking your money from its responsibility to help you get some world experience.
If you start to specialize degrees (which would ultimately be necessary to offer more skill-based education) in order to offer up more process than background, you'll find your options are narrower. I'm not sure that's good for anyone.
Flexibility is still good for liberal arts graduates. But many, many other students leave school each year with a very specific plan for the next few years, be it grad or professional school, a job in a particular field (like computer science or engineering graduates), etc. Why do liberal arts majors resist building skills that can point them down a career path? If you have too vague a background, you're not really qualified for much of anything, and especially not for those $45K jobs fresh out of school. There has to be balance. And right now, the scales are still tipped at many schools toward a traditional knowledge-based education, which is the least valuable kind out there.
4 - Deano
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
I think you are debating the age-old question - why go to university? While I recognize that a liberal arts education is often widely derided as useless or unrelated to work-specific skills, I would have to disagree on two grounds - the first being that the ability to process information/ knowledge, analyze, comprehend, and draw conclusions is one that is taught quite effectively within most liberal arts curriculum, despite the fact that it is often qualitative in nature rather than quantitative as it is in the sciences. The ability to think effectively, to have a broad-base of knowledge and human experience from which to draw upon is the fundamental byproduct of the liberal arts education...and it is a skill that has a tangible impact in the workplace.
The second is the focus on University / college as being the "be-all, end-all" of learning - determining your future worth, skills and life. Effective learning is a life-long pursuit, not limited to the years of your major. It is an attitude, not an end. Certainly there are skill sets that you can take in college or university that will enhance your job prospects - skills sell, that is a basic truth - but you need to ask the question if we should be spending all our time just learning specific technical skills that are easily salable? The number of business majors, engineers or medical professionals I've met over the years who can't string a sentence together or communicate a basic concept to anyone without acronyms is very high. My MBA class was filled with people that bluntly couldn't write, couldn't demonstrate basic communication abilities in their own languages, yet who had tremendous skill sets in other areas.
To merely train on a salable skill is to deny much of the knowedge and capability that helps make an effective and adaptable thinker. Cross-pollenization of skills is a necessity, if what you are trying to achieve is a balanced, effective member of society and the economy.
A liberal arts education is not a bad thing, nor is it unsellable or lacking in usefulness for employers.
5 - Mark Saleski
Effective learning is a life-long pursuit, not limited to the years of your major. It is an attitude, not an end.
couldn't said it better myself.
6 - Howard Dratch
Mark hit the educational nail. Somewhere the love of learning and knowledge, of reading and thinking seems to have been trashed for saleable skills. The only salable skill that education can and should offer is learning to think, to read, to question. The skills come from them. Or, after learning to think, read and discuss, there are places to go to learn to work -- computer school, graduate schools in art, drama, conducting, museum curating,law school...
As a friend in Columbia's placement office used to quote (from What Color Is Your Parachute) "Planning without planning for change is not planning at all." If you learn to think, read and learn then you can change with the world rather than saying forlornly that the world has changed and you have been left behind.
7 - lori
Ay-yi-YI! In spite of (or maybe as a result of) writing incredibly long comments, I'm not being understood. I've repeated my main point several times, which makes me wonder about those alleged reasoning and analysis skills a traditional liberal arts education provided all you BC readers out there.
;-)
So, here's what I said in comment #1:
Our colleges and universities need to stop living in their own isolated world and realize that for $30K per year they should be helping their students develop not only a broad base of knowledge and the ability to reason, but also real working skills that can be applied in one or more job fields.
In comment #3 I said:
I'm all for a broad liberal arts background, but to make that the goal of a $100K education is just simply a waste of time and money.
I should have said "the only goal."
And I added:
For $100K, liberal arts colleges should be turning out students with basic job skills AND a broad educational background.
In other words, I said schools should do both, not one of the other. And yet, I continue to see responses like:
Sheri: "Even if you turn unviersities into glorified technical colleges,"
Deano: "but you need to ask the question if we should be spending all our time just learning specific technical skills that are easily salable?"
And Deano: "To merely train on a salable skill is to deny much of the knowedge and capability that helps make an effective and adaptable thinker."
And Howard: "Somewhere the love of learning and knowledge, of reading and thinking seems to have been trashed for saleable skills."
So to sum it up, because saying it four or five times is apparently not enough, my point is that a traditional liberal arts education does not provide all the basic skills employers are looking for and that graduates deserve to have. I never said anything about specializing or training only in "salable" or "techinical" skills, but about being realistic and getting some BASIC skills for jobs in one or more fields along with the traditional liberal arts stuff.
Why is that so wrong?
Onto other comments:
The second is the focus on University / college as being the "be-all, end-all" of learning - determining your future worth, skills and life.
Never said it. I'm talking about leaving college with an idea of what kind of job you want to start with and the real skills you need to do it at an entry level. I said nothing about "be all and end all" or about college determining your worth or life. It's about getting something besides four years of navel gazing for your time, effort, and expense.
The reality is that most of us have to work and that we start working within a few months of graduating. What is so wrong with starting out with job-related skills employers are looking for so you can get a better job that makes you happier? Nobody would be forcing college students to learn particular skills for jobs they don't want -- the choice would still be theirs.
Effective learning is a life-long pursuit, not limited to the years of your major. It is an attitude, not an end.
I happen to agree. And most of life's learning doesn't happen in college, does it? So shouldn't we take a more tactical approach to college, which is a mere four-year snippet out of the life-long pursuit? There's plenty of time to take pottery classes after you graduate.
The number of business majors, engineers or medical professionals I've met over the years who can't string a sentence together or communicate a basic concept to anyone without acronyms is very high.
You'd be surprised by how poorly some English majors write. I realize that certain fields are acronym laden (as my brother-in-law says, all his software is fully buzzword compliant), but you can't swing a cat without hitting an American college graduate who doesn't know how to write or communicate effectively. But that's another topic for another day.
The ability to think effectively, to have a broad-base of knowledge and human experience from which to draw upon is the fundamental byproduct of the liberal arts education...and it is a skill that has a tangible impact in the workplace.
Fair enough, except for that bit about a broad base of human experience -- college doesn't give you that, it gives you a narrow base of human experience for the most part. I happen to believe that American schools (K-12, especially) do a pretty terrible job of producing graduates who can really think. Colleges don't do a whole lot better, probably because they're already behind the 8-ball when they start.
Howard said:
The only salable skill that education can and should offer is learning to think, to read, to question.
The ONLY? That's just nutty.
Or, after learning to think, read and discuss, there are places to go to learn to work -- computer school, graduate schools in art, drama, conducting, museum curating,law school...
Okay, so what you're saying is that after I spend $100K on an undergraduate education, I'm not qualified for a job? (I think that's what I've been saying, isn't it?) I need to spend more time and money on school?
8 - nugget
no lori, you rock. I could not agree with you more. I know fifteen dirty rednecks (mechanics, construction workers, handymen, etc.) that learned how to read, write, "comprehend", and think logistically and productively because they HAD to in order to survive. They did it all without college. This bullhonky about "oh we need the liberal arts to teach us "how" to think" is just so full of it. I went to 5 different liberal arts schools, had a slew of majors, ended up in music performance, got a degree, and now I do computer repair. (I'm 24)
I studied everything under the sun and enjoyed it, but HOw much do I remember about William the Conquerer sailing across the English Channel to sack England in 1056? 1066? Not a whole lot. Do I remember everything about James Joyce or Shakespeare's The Tempest or T.S. Eliot's Wasteland?? Well, probably more than most because I enjoyed it, but I would have read that shit anyways. Funny how that works. Right now I'm reading Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. Just finished Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat" and have continued music studies on a different principle instrument than was my major. Once I got out of college I really started learning. On top of all of that,
TWO WORDS: 1) GOOGLE 2) WIKIPEDIA
Liberal arts colleges have turned into campy year-long binge drinking faux political rallies. I hated every minute of every college I went to...(unless I was drunk or having sex). The class parts sucked b/c they weren't applicable. If I want to learn French, I"ll go to France. I'm starting to learn a little bit of Spanish....know why??? you guessed it, there are lots of mexicans around me. that's why!
Liberal arts schools have morphed into these ridiculous, detached sandboxes in which professors can romanticize about the subject matter they scatter about the student body. The regurgitated bits and pieces of information they "organize" for students hardly makes sense at all. They are bitches to their texts and some other historians general perspective. I can think of only 2 teachers in my entire college life that could think beyond Houghton & Mifflin (or however you spell it).
9 - nugget
also, how the fuck can a professor prepare a student for the workforce??? The only professors that are worth a damn, as far as preparation goes, are ones that have had multiple jobs in the workforce. I know there are a good bit of these, but not enough. I didn't meet many. Most of my profs thought, "hey you should go to grad school, get a masters, then get a doctorate, then be poor like me! that's what I did! YOu could teach college like me!!!!" then they let out a whimsical "I hate my life" sigh and continue on in their fantasy world of "knowledge."
Learning for the sake of learning is just so fucking overrated. If you learn something, it must YIELD you some benefit in life. It must be relevant to my safety, wallet, health, understanding of other people (in order to keep myself safe and build friendships), etc.
rant rant rant rant....I could go on!!!!!!!!!
10 - Mohjho
"Those that can't do, teach."
This is a ridiculous notion. How about "Those that can't teach, do"? Either make no sense.
Teaching is a skill in itself. I know this because there are good teachers and bad teachers.
Most people can trace some profound positive effect on their life from a teacher in their past.
If you doubt the use of teachers, try to imagine our country without them.
11 - lori
Nugget, I agree with some of what you said but not with the idea that learning must yield something as tangible as you describe. I'm reading a book right now about the relationship between Mark Twain and Ulysses S. Grant. I'm not reading it for any other reason than I thought it was interesting. My safety, health, job prospects, or understanding of other people won't be affected by what I'm reading. I'm reading it purely for pleasure, and I'm learning a little obscure literary history in the process. It's all good.
I'm also reading a book about Maria Montessori for entirely different reasons. One of my kids is in a Montessori school, and I want to learn more about the woman and her educational philosophies. So I'm approaching the book with a different purpose, and as a result, I'm even reading it differently from the other book.
We learn different things for different reasons. Given its cost and what most people do after graduation, college should be a time for learning for pleasure/self-actualization/whatever and for more tangible goals.
A lot of women who go to college or beyond leave the workforce or choose not to work in the first place. Does that mean their education was a waste of money or time? No, of course not. We as individuals and as a society benefit from having a well-educated populace. But that doesn't mean that colleges should operate in a vaccuum, as if it doesn't matter if anyone ever gets a job after school, because most graduates do go to work.
12 - nugget
I think your reading is more tangible than you think. For instance, I think learning about the more soap opera side of History is pretty cool. Yes it's entertaining. I remember reading David McColough's (sp) JOhn Adams and thought the family letters were riveting.
I don't think that reading John Adams (even though it was for pleasure) was an intagible "oh well" sort. For instance, I learned the word "acquiesce" and later used it in a non-nerdy context. I also spoke with some pedantic fool about the book. (this guy liked my girlfriend, and I kinda showed this fool that I wasn't just an athlete when he started name-dropping NY times bestsellers and I started giving my own synopses).
And those are just more superficials benefits. Some more benefits are learning about other people's lives and decisions and mirroring them (or avoiding them) because it may be good for us. I remember Charles, John Adams second son, was a moron and alcoholic. Youngest kid I think. I am the youngest kid, probably the most talented, and I read that book at an age where I needed to compare myself to someone like me, and then NOT end up like Charles (an alcoholic.)
I'd say those reasons for "pleasure" reading are very tangible. Don't you think?
13 - nugget
haha. I just called myself a moron. *dies*
14 - nugget
come to think of it, Lori. I think the only place we disagree is the definition of the word "tangible."
I believe everything has some sort of tangible outcome. The purpose of the abstract is to imply something and let the tangibility snow ball plow through societical consciousness. In other words, everything has a tangible outcome.
15 - Victor Lana
"The point is not to memorize a sequence of steps to be regurgitated as needed at a future job."
This calls to mind old Gradgrind in Dickens. He was the school master in Hard Times who gave Joe Friday a run for his "just the facts, m'am" attitude.
Education should not be about grinding the grad (gradgrind) but nurturing, supporting, and enlightening. What's missing most is meaningful discourse (in and out of the classroom).
Still, as an educator for the past 22 years, I've seen more teachers who are dedicated and wanting to go the extra distance for their students. These are intelligent, qualified, and capable people who have chosen a profession of service to the country.
The old Henry Adams quotation has never been more true: "A teacher affects eternity." And then some.
16 - SHARK
Nugget: "Learning for the sake of learning is just so fucking overrated. If you learn something, it must YIELD you some benefit in life. It must be relevant to my safety, wallet, health, understanding of other people (in order to keep myself safe and build friendships), etc."
Can't remember reading a more ignorant, despicable paragraph in a long time.
=====
I think a lot of you are missing the point:
[Personal Anecdote Warning!]
Back in the early days of AOL, I used to participate in a folder with a number of talented, very successful writers of all sorts. When a discussion of TEACHERS came up, there was an outpouring of PASSIONATE personal testimony which -- to a person -- included a story about at least one Very Special Teacher who INSPIRED that writer/artist/etc. to pursue quality and creativity.
You'll find the same sort of anecdotes in just about ANY field.
=====
There.
Now back to your regulary scheduled hair-splitting arguments.
17 - SHARK
Shark's List of the What Should Be the Highest Paid Professions In America
1) Teachers
2) Nurses
3) Police
4) Firemen
5) Plumbers (no, wait... they already are!)
6) Satirists
18 - SHARK
Mohjo, I just got to yer comment #10:
"Most people can trace some profound positive effect on their life from a teacher in their past."
BINGO! Well said.
19 - Howard Dratch
Thank you, Shark, for saying so strongly what I tried to say. Mark and Victor, too, wrote about the fact that the love of learning is not "nutty" and Mohjho added the importance of teachers to many of us.
Sadly many people choose colleges inappropriately or decide to attend one when they really want a vocationally-oriented school. Colleges are like marriages. The choice is hard and the match must be right.
Nugget, sadly, chose one where she learned that now famous statement,
"Learning for the sake of learning is just so fucking overrated. If you learn something, it must YIELD you some benefit..."
Shark's list is excellent. The jury is out on policemen and he forgot to put in photographers (just below satirists). But teachers are where they should be.
20 - Mark Saleski
we touched on some of these topics a while back in a hot topic titled A Well-Rounded Education
21 - nugget
haha. shark the typical "i can't separate my passion and thought" type of artist totally misunderstands what I posted.
shark: What's wrong with benefits? If you would have read further on my discussion with Lori, you would see that I include (or implied to include) such things as basic human values and morals as "benefits". NOW, if that wording offends you, and you need some sort of syntax that makes it more comforting that will assuage your sensibilities....I'll ....ok nevermiind I'll just let you look stupid.
also, I'm a teacher. I have every reason to believe that teachers are great....but I don't. Parents are great. Teaching is just something you do when you're grown up to make money. Sure....try very nobly at what you do. TRY to make a difference. Reality says that kid will enjoy you and learn from you if you're kid. But you're not saving the fucking kid's life mk?
also, nice fantasy land teacher salary scenario. I can't say I wouldn't want it to be that way.
quit abberation to your little "TEACHER SHOUL MAKE TEH MOST DOUGH" fiasco:
if all little kids were perfect little learners and did what their teachers asked them to, then yes, teachers should make the most money because all kids are making 1600 on the SAT and getting in IVY league schools and supplementing larger incomes than their parents did....
that's not how the money really flows. I make money now because I studied, not because of any teacher.
Lastly, since when is MONEY so important to you sharky shark? I thought artists should look beyond the gross scapegoat of govt. issued paper and not value it as if it should be some sort of REWARD for being a great TEACHER.
out.
22 - nugget
quick* abberation (not quit)
23 - Elena
I believe that wether you will become well rounded and skilled for life in the real world has to do a lot with the type of college you choose to attend. Typically, Universities dont give a damn about you. Most of the teachers are there for research purposes. In my opinion they are mainly after your money there as they do not assist you in learning. Colleges are very different. First and foremost, they are much cheaper and the professors there differ greatly from the professors in Universities. The teaching style is VERY different and they constantly adjust what they teach in order to better the overall class performance. They don't believe in memorizing" tons of algebra formulas. Instead they give you a formula sheet during the exams! You know why? Because they believe that memorizing a whole bunch of shit is non sense. Instead, all they want you to know is how to apply those formulas. I believe that that type of teaching style helps students a lot in preparing for the "real world". You will need skills in learning how to apply things that you learn. Those are the skills you receive from smaller Colleges. In those Colleges they do an amazing job in preparing you to enter the workforce successfuly. Thats what they are all about. People actually go there in order to get a well rounded education AND prepare themselfs for the workforce at the same time. Because teachers at those colleges are not there for research purposes. They have taken specific courses in their education on how to successfully teach and prepare students for the real world.
24 - Ryan
Those who can't do, teach.......well how could those people that supposedly "do" be able to accomplish this without receiving knowledge and life skills from teachers? This includes parents and the like. People learn from examples and from hands-on experiences. This is the role of the teacher. What is that old saying?...."Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”. Teachers prepare you for life (most of them). It is a true calling and a wonderful profession if you are invested in it.
Ryan H.
25 - Alex
While agree with some of your statements and comments as a college student I have to speak my mind right now.
First and outermost you don't necessarily get a college education JUST to apply it in your carrier so many people don't work in what they pursued , I'm majoring in a relatively rare major and if I don't work with it I know how I can pursue my education regardless of what I got my undergraduate degree in. (well actually im a double major, ones rare one isn't and there not that closely related) anyway, what college does is it also lets you reason stuff better, it lets you see another perspective and most of all it challenges you. No matter how smart or dumb you are college is still a challenge and you meet so many different problems that not attending it is a very poor judgment. If someone told me I could make $1 million right now and I would have to drop out of college and never return I seriously would not take the offer, because its college that has given me so much skills. It gave me many ways to think about stuff, It drastically improves writing (i don't really care about grammar in this post to bad) but you go through a whole lot of choices in making decisions like drinking , relationships, academics, integrity, time management, and life skills. So you can badger everything but if you didn't get this in your college education you mist out or you most likely cheated yourself.
Whether teachers should be paid more. Well yes they should especially professors they really deserve it. There the most educated but some teachers are terrible I recall teachers who could not service past the teachers edition, do they deserve a raise to? and as a side not most teachers major in education and there classes is about teaching so you technically can be a good teacher and know very little by going of topic (how the students wont mind and will tell you there god teachers) so yes teaching is also a skill not just a knowledge but these comments about a liberal education just suck. Some skills must be learned on your own
I think I left out some stuff I wanted to say but I'll wait for some replies.