Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Scary Ignorance (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Scary Ignorance
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just stumbled across this, which chills me to the core:

quote:
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted July 7-17 among 2,000 adults, also finds deep religious and political differences over questions relating to evolution and the origins of life. Overall, about half the public (48%) says that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 42% say that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Fully 70% of white evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time; fewer than half as many white mainline Protestants (32%) and white Catholics (31%) agree.
Excuse me for being a bit elistist, but are Americans really that stupid??? This is not asking whether you "believe in evolution" or not, but whether you do not believe the entire fossil record and its implications. That they apparently believe what Bibical experts tell them about science and reality more than those who actually study science and reality. That physical evidence is less important than faith.

To those who make a living studying these things, there is not even a question. Yet more than 4 out of every 10 people believe the opposite?? Are Americans really that ignorant?

Now I'm scared about the future of this country.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lessismore
Member
Member # 2092

 - posted      Profile for lessismore   Email lessismore   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[QUTOE] This is not asking whether you "believe in evolution" or not, but whether you do not believe the entire fossil record and its implications. [/QUOTE]
??? The question is not about whether you believe in evolution or not but whether you do not believe in fossil record (evolution) or do?????
The question which is not the question seems to be the question????

What are the ramifications/implications if 50+/- % of the populations believing or not believing in evolution or the fossil record?
Why should I care?

Posts: 437 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What are the ramifications/implications if 50+/- % of the populations believing or not believing in evolution or the fossil record?
Why should I care?

Do you want America to keep the cutting edge in medicine, science and technology? If you don't care about that either, then go ahead and sleep soundly.

[ December 12, 2005, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: KidA ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The poll is worded badly to have more people put the "evolution" answer.

" while 42% say that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. "

See thats not true according to Christian doctrine. Humans have NOT stayed the same. There is pre-fall and post-fall. Completly different creature after orginal sin entered the world.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The question apparently is "do you believe that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

The terms "present form" and "the beginning of time" are the truly scary things.

How can anyone believe creatures had their "present form since the beginning of time" when microevolution (not even macroevolution) and the fossil record are taken into account?

Horses have always looked the way they do?? Even though the fossil record clearly shows a change in the physical structure of horses.

The only way to deny this is to deny what is known in science, in various fields:

Biology: evolution is wrong;
Geology: fossil dating is wrong;
Physics: radioactive dating of rocks is wrong;
Astrophysics: stellar evolution is wrong (remember, the creatures have not changed "since the beginning of time").

I'm sure there are a few others.

Can you comprehend the incredulity required to dismiss these fields? From 100 to 200 years of accumulated knowledge in these fields is thrown out the window because it disagrees with their understanding of the Bible. Biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers, etc. don't know what they are talking about or are lying through their teeth if this is true.

So what if some people of these same fields discover something else unpleasant, like maybe global warming? What if they found proof as certain as the consistency of radioactive decays that proved global warming? How hard would it be to dismiss them just like these Americans are dismissing evolution?

If such a sizable number of Americans can ignorantly dismiss the findings of science in this respect, there is no telling what other findings they can blithely dismiss, too. And when a nation dismisses the facts, how can they make intelligent decisions about the vital issues in the world?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The poll is worded badly to have more people put the "evolution" answer.

" while 42% say that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. "

See thats not true according to Christian doctrine. Humans have NOT stayed the same. There is pre-fall and post-fall. Completly different creature after orginal sin entered the world.

So not only do 42 percent of American dismiss scientific findings, they also don't even understand Christian doctrine. [Wink]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So what if some people of these same fields discover something else unpleasant, like maybe global warming? What if they found proof as certain as the consistency of radioactive decays that proved global warming? How hard would it be to dismiss them just like these Americans are dismissing evolution?

If such a sizable number of Americans can ignorantly dismiss the findings of science in this respect, there is no telling what other findings they can blithely dismiss, too. And when a nation dismisses the facts, how can they make intelligent decisions about the vital issues in the world?

Exactly.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They must have gotten lucky with their two thousand "representative" americans they bothered contacting. I don't know ANYONE who believes this "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time"
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is far from the first study I've seen with these numbers. This has been the case for decades.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ssci
Member
Member # 1053

 - posted      Profile for ssci   Email ssci   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When pollsters try to detain me on the street I always wave and keep walking. Perhaps the results are skewed because the only people answering the questions think they have a message to spread.
Posts: 442 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like I said, I've seen studies from the early 80's that give these numbers. Multiple studies are done every year. The numbers are usually roughly the same, give or take 10% for differences in the poll questions and other factors.

The point is - a very large portion of the American population believes this.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lessismore
Member
Member # 2092

 - posted      Profile for lessismore   Email lessismore   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you want America to keep the cutting edge in medicine, science and technology? If you don't care about that either, then go ahead and sleep soundly.
Not sure about this argument? Taking the pole's results as accurate and assuming that the percentage was probably greater in the past how has America been able to achieve its curent cutting edge medicine, science and technology?

quote:
Can you comprehend the incredulity required to dismiss these fields?
I can, and it’s something mankind has had to deal with since recorded history. (From which point I don’t believe we have changed all that much.)
Putting aside this issue Just look at today’s current news and tell me how one is expected to discern truth and not expect a backlash in ‘orthodox’ thinking.
Still I suspect, perhaps hope, the belief and disbelief, understanding and misunderstanding, ignorance and knowledge are all a part of the process for growth. Checks and balances. That said it does seem too easy of late for the few to manipulate the mass-man, but even that has probably not changed much from the beginning of time.

It’s a marvel we have survived this long.

[ December 12, 2005, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: lessismore ]

Posts: 437 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All ignorance is scary, but the fact that Americans are, in general, appalling in their lack of knowledge on pretty much any subject is old news.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So not only do 42 percent of American dismiss scientific findings, they also don't even understand Christian doctrine."

Heh yeah... but my guess is actually they put down whatever was opposite to the pro evolution side of things. I personally wish all polls had a "I do not feel this is a fair poll" instead of "other."

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not sure about this argument? Taking the pole's results as accurate and assuming that the percentage was probably greater in the past how has America been able to achieve its curent cutting edge medicine, science and technology?

"Creation Science" is an invention of the 20th century that has only entered mainstream discourse in the last 25 years. It is now another serious threat to our already underfunded and inadequate science education infrastructure in public schools.

Even if there were equal numbers of "doubters" in the past, they nonetheless were educated with greater rigor, and lived and worked in an America that wasn't competing with China, India, Europe, Japan, and South Korea - all of whom are now graduating gobs of engineers, physicists, biologists, and pharm researchers while our own numbers are in retreat.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They must have gotten lucky with their two thousand "representative" americans they bothered contacting. I don't know ANYONE who believes this "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."
I do hope you're right, jav. Because 42 percent is too large a number of people who dismiss science and the facts that support it, IMHO.

quote:
I personally wish all polls had a "I do not feel this is a fair poll" instead of "other."
Only if they allow you to tell them how you feel it is unfair, so they know why you didn't respond. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep its ridiculous, I touched on this stuff a lot in some other threads a while back although I didn't single out this specific issue, I was looking at a bigger picture.

Its a terrible shame that people choose to be so ignorant.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"they nonetheless were educated with greater rigor,"

I blame liberals for the lack of rigor in educating children. Deffered success and not using red pens are just symtoms of a horrible paradigm most teachers have.

[ December 12, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Lewkowski ]

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lessismore
Member
Member # 2092

 - posted      Profile for lessismore   Email lessismore   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Still don't get it.
If the creationists are correct then God being God must have everything under control, and is likely using the godless evolutionist to His/Her own purpose.
If the evolutionists are correct then society is evolving as it must, growth coming from the tension that is the striving of life. All forms of life.
That “China, India, Europe, Japan, and South Korea - all of whom are now graduating gobs of engineers, physicists, biologists, and pharm researchers while our own numbers are in retreat” may just be the cause to the next evolutionary effect.
Should we make the assumption that America must remain “on top” in order to further mankind’s evolutionary destiny? Looking through the eyes of history is this not hubris - when in the span of time our lives are but a speck.

Posts: 437 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I blame liberals for the lack of rigor in educating children.
You blame liberals for everything. So this is nothing new.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You blame liberals for everything. So this is nothing new. "

I don't blame liberals for 9/11.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I blame liberals for the lack of rigor in educating children. Deffered success and not using red pens are just symtoms of a horrible paradigm most teachers have. - Lewkowski
I blame the children for being too lazy to learn. Lew, is your deep-seated hatred of teachers the result of not being properly "red-penned" as a child? That would explain a lot...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The poll is flawed to the point of being badly misleading. Here's the actual question:

quote:
Some people think humans & other living things have existed in their present form
since the beginning of time. Others think humans & other living things have
evolved over time. Which comes closest to your view?

Framing the question this way leads to gross oversimplifications in people's views. Many will probably key in on the "evolved over time" and go against it. The "Some people think" opening invites people to consider that the safe choice.

On and on.

Finally, note that the organization creating the poll is committed to the advancement of religious causes, and almost certainly is trying to demonstrate more support than they truly have when an honest poll and sample are conducted.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"they nonetheless were educated with greater rigor,"

I blame liberals for the lack of rigor in educating children. Deffered success and not using red pens are just symtoms of a horrible paradigm most teachers have.

Liberals also pushed for the existence of Public education in the first place. NYC in the 1950's had arguable the best public school system in the world, and it was run by ardent liberals.

Sure, there are problems with the current softie/pomo new teaching methods that came in during the 1960's. But by far the biggest problem now is that teaching doesn't pay well-enough to draw educated and capable people to the job. Lack of a competitive wage is not the fault of liberals.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Sure, there are problems with the current softie/pomo new teaching methods that came in during the 1960's. But by far the biggest problem now is that teaching doesn't pay well-enough to draw educated and capable people to the job. Lack of a competitive wage is not the fault of liberals."

Hmm. Let me think, are teachers paid more or less then the average worker. Hmm let me think do teachers have the option to take two month vacations. Hmmm

Sorry the idea that teachers are underpaid is a joke. They are paid pretty well for being glorified babysitters. Now if they were to actually do a good job teaching... I might accept higher wages. Which incidently is why I would prefer a voucher system and the dismantling of the teachers union. Make them compete. Good teachers will be paid more, crap teachers will be paid less or fired. And believe me there are a lot of crap teachers in public schools.

And when I use the term liberals, I mean today's current liberals. Not from the last generation or the generation before or what not. A conservative 100 years ago is very different then a conservative today. A liberal a 100 years ago is very different then a liberal today.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
our already underfunded and inadequate science education infrastructure in public schools.
We have a winner here! I'd guess for most of us only one year of science education was required to graduate HS (maybe 2)...and it was probably pretty weak in general...and for most survey participants was probably a long time ago. They probably don't have enough education to be capable of answering this question (poorly formed as it is).
Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hmm. Let me think, are teachers paid more or less then the average worker. Hmm let me think do teachers have the option to take two month vacations. Hmmm

Sorry the idea that teachers are underpaid is a joke. They are paid pretty well for being glorified babysitters. Now if they were to actually do a good job teaching... I might accept higher wages. Which incidently is why I would prefer a voucher system and the dismantling of the teachers union. Make them compete. Good teachers will be paid more, crap teachers will be paid less or fired. And believe me there are a lot of crap teachers in public schools.

You know, I've been trying to keep a polite and respectful attitude here lately, but I've got to call you out on making this utterly idiotic, crap-headed statement. This attitude - your attitude - is the reason why our schools are a mess.

No amount of payment is going to make a lousy teacher into a great teacher. You have to offer a wage - not to mention a certain social respectibility which you are utterly denying - to attract someone with a Masters in Chemistry to teach a chemistry class. If you pay $40k in NYC, you're only going to get people with "education" degrees but no formal science training. Now, rich counties like Westechester just up the river get great teachers - because they pay more! Duh! Only the rich neighborhoods can afford the good teachers. And we're talking $80k versus $40k. A huge difference.

In many cities and burbs, teachers are paid so little that they do, in fact, work through the summer at a second job just to scrape by, and then return in the fall to what is more like a 50 or 60 hour work-week. And people like you guarantee mediocrity of the outcome with your obvious contempt for the profession and its social worth, and your unwillingness to fork up the revenue needed to make the long-term changes which will eventually rectify the situation.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidA:
quote:
Hmm. Let me think, are teachers paid more or less then the average worker. Hmm let me think do teachers have the option to take two month vacations. Hmmm

Sorry the idea that teachers are underpaid is a joke. They are paid pretty well for being glorified babysitters. Now if they were to actually do a good job teaching... I might accept higher wages. Which incidently is why I would prefer a voucher system and the dismantling of the teachers union. Make them compete. Good teachers will be paid more, crap teachers will be paid less or fired. And believe me there are a lot of crap teachers in public schools.

You know, I've been trying to keep a polite and respectful attitude here lately, but I've got to call you out on making this utterly idiotic, crap-headed statement. This attitude - your attitude - is the reason why our schools are a mess.

No amount of payment is going to make a lousy teacher into a great teacher. You have to offer a wage - not to mention a certain social respectibility which you are utterly denying - to attract someone with a Masters in Chemistry to teach a chemistry class. If you pay $40k in NYC, you're only going to get people with "education" degrees but no formal science training. Now, rich counties like Westechester just up the river get great teachers - because they pay more! Duh! Only the rich neighborhoods can afford the good teachers. And we're talking $80k versus $40k. A huge difference.

In many cities and burbs, teachers are paid so little that they do, in fact, work through the summer at a second job just to scrape by, and then return in the fall to what is more like a 50 or 60 hour work-week. And people like you guarantee mediocrity of the outcome with your obvious contempt for the profession and its social worth, and your unwillingness to fork up the revenue needed to make the long-term changes which will eventually rectify the situation.

Well said. Teachers are more important than many people think.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"This attitude - your attitude - is the reason why our schools are a mess. "

You mean things like... lack of standards, lack of choice in schools, and foolish teaching fads have less impact then my personal opinion on teachers?

"No amount of payment is going to make a lousy teacher into a great teacher. You have to offer a wage - not to mention a certain social respectibility which you are utterly denying - to attract someone with a Masters in Chemistry to teach a chemistry class. If you pay $40k in NYC, you're only going to get people with "education" degrees but no formal science training. Now, rich counties like Westechester just up the river get great teachers - because they pay more! Duh! Only the rich neighborhoods can afford the good teachers. And we're talking $80k versus $40k. A huge difference. "

***
Economist Richard Vedder has observed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey shows that teachers earn “more per hour than architects, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, statisticians, biological and life scientists, atmospheric and space scientists, registered nurses, physical therapists, university-level foreign-language teachers, [and] librarians.” In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the average pay per hour for all workers in the “professional specialty” category in 2001 was $27.49, while public secondary school teachers earned $30.48 and elementary teachers $30.52 — or about 10 percent more than the typical professional
***

from - http://www.policyreview.org/apr04/hess.html

Teachers aren't underpaid.

Furthermore I do agree with you the current group of teachers is simply failing. Its refreshing to hear someone like you actually acknowledge that there are many teachers who simply suck. Tell me... do you think the teachers union makes it harder for crappy teachers to be fired?


Oh and I don't want people with masters degrees teaching. That just encourages more people to go to college or go to college longer. We need more programs like troops to teachers. We need real people to teach the majority of courses not intellectuals. Now don't get me wrong, a masters degree shouldn't disqualify you, its just we shouldn't prefer them over non masters degree. Because all a degree does is prove you can jump through hoops, will work, and have a basic understanding of the material.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The article observes the following:

quote:
The average teacher salary in 2001 was $43,300, compared to the average full-time worker salary of $40,100.1
This is not exactly commensurate with the difference in required education-level between a teacher and an average full-time worker. It also suggests that teachers are considered of roughly average imporance to society as whole.

quote:
Its refreshing to hear someone like you actually acknowledge that there are many teachers who simply suck. Tell me... do you think the teachers union makes it harder for crappy teachers to be fired?

Oh, yes. I do acknowledge it. Of course the union makes it harder to fire teachers...that's basically what a union is there for. The crappiness of the teachers in question is a separate issue, for which I do not hold the union directly responsible. The union is only doing what a union must, mindlessly and doggedly.

The problem is that our goverment keeps obsessing over "testing standards", curriculum standards, etc. You can have a great, absolutley brilliant textbook and a stupendous teaching "technique" - but it will be all for naught if the teacher is a bonehead. Likewise, a good teacher can take the lousiest curriculum and make it work. In the end, it all comes to to the individual at the front of the class - and that person must have a love of the subject, and a reasonably deep knowledge thereof. Science classes should not be taught by "education" majors whose only knowledge of science comes from the textbook they are using.

quote:
Economist Richard Vedder has observed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey shows that teachers earn “more per hour than architects, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, statisticians, biological and life scientists, atmospheric and space scientists, registered nurses, physical therapists, university-level foreign-language teachers, [and] librarians.” In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the average pay per hour for all workers in the “professional specialty” category in 2001 was $27.49, while public secondary school teachers earned $30.48 and elementary teachers $30.52 — or about 10 percent more than the typical professional

Fine. Pay them more. This supposedly splendid salary is still not enough to attract intelligent and competent people to what is a phenomenally demanding job.

"Incentivising" the current crop of underqualified teachers to deliver results by dangling the carrot of better pay for better output is not going to magically turn them into qualified teachers. You might just as well incentivise all the cabbies in New York to become better airline pilots.

We're going to have to set higher standards for knowledge of one's subject, offer pay to the new hires accordingly, and wait over a period of 20 years or while the tenured, under-qualified set slowly work their way out of the system before we see the full onset of the better results. It's not quick and easy, but it's the only way.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Teachers aren't underpaid.

From the same article:
quote:
While, on the whole, teachers are not underpaid, good teachers, those working in tough circumstances, and those with critical skills are often wildly underpaid . The flip side is that mediocre teachers are overpaid, sometimes substantially. In the past few years, the notion of the “$100,000 teacher” has come into vogue. In books like The Two-Percent Solution and The $100,000 Teacher, authors such as Matthew Miller and Brian Crosby have called for paying good teachers $100,000 or more. Miller and Crosby are right. If we are serious about attracting and retaining the energetic and talented practitioners we want, we need to pay our best, hardest-working teachers that kind of money.
Nice of you to cite a link where the authors refute your point.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I just stumbled across this, which chills me to the core:

...etc., etc., etc.

Good gracious, has it been a whole month since the last "this disbelief in evolution has me all dandered up about the state of American intelligence" thread?

Most Americans think if you knew enough about a very small physical system you could predict its outcome. Most Americans think computers can magically figure out what you want to do. Most Americans think exercising specific body areas will reduce fat in that area primarily. Most Americans think you need to cook unground meat all the way through for it to be safe. Most Americans didn't know where Iraq was until Bush Sr. launched an attack.

Heck, we even went through a spot where a significant number of Americans thought that eating just the beef patty of a hamburger was good for them.

Etc., etc., etc., yada yada yada.

So why are you picking on evolution specifically? Does it really rile you up that much that Americans could be wrong about something that has to do with your faith?

Why does evolution vs. creationism always get singled out in these "oh, alas and alack for the future of America!" threads?

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Economist Richard Vedder has observed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey shows that teachers earn “more per hour than architects, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, statisticians, biological and life scientists, atmospheric and space scientists, registered nurses, physical therapists, university-level foreign-language teachers, [and] librarians.”

The problem -- and I've seen this study before -- is that it woefully undercounts the hours actually worked by teachers during a week and over the course of a school year, and does not include the cost of personal materials purchased to supplement classes.

quote:

We need real people to teach the majority of courses not intellectuals.

Um....I'm not sure what bothers me more: the implication that real people can't be intellectual, or that we'd rather not have intellectual teachers.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Intellectual: n. Somebody smarter than you.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Oh, yes. I do acknowledge it. Of course the union makes it harder to fire teachers...that's basically what a union is there for. The crappiness of the teachers in question is a separate issue, for which I do not hold the union directly responsible. The union is only doing what a union must, mindlessly and doggedly."

Right a union doing what it must, making it harder for kids to be educated properly. In the end, most teachers goals aren't ideal, they are based on what motivates most people, greed. Which is why incentives are the best way to get teachers to teach better.

"Fine. Pay them more. This supposedly splendid salary is still not enough to attract intelligent and competent people to what is a phenomenally demanding job. "

For one I disagree with the idea its a demanding job. It CAN be a demanding job, but it can also be a lay back easy job. You can uassualy tell by walking into the class room. If the kids are consumed with busy work... theres a lazy teacher. Print out some hand outs, lecture briefly, and sit back and relax.

""Incentivising" the current crop of underqualified teachers to deliver results by dangling the carrot of better pay for better output is not going to magically turn them into qualified teachers. You might just as well incentivise all the cabbies in New York to become better airline pilots. "

Trying harder always gets better results! Currently if a teacher isn't doing well in teaching the material and hasn't been doing well for the last five years, do you think that teacher is just going to at the spur of the moment change their teaching method. I bet they will if they are in danger of losing their job if they don't shape up. But teachers don't want to shape up, they want to teach "their" way. Why do you think the teachers union is against objective standards?

"We're going to have to set higher standards for knowledge of one's subject, offer pay to the new hires accordingly, and wait over a period of 20 years or while the tenured, under-qualified set slowly work their way out of the system before we see the full onset of the better results. It's not quick and easy, but it's the only way. "

Screw that. Kill tenure ASAP. Its a horrible system, that is simply ineffecient. I someone has taught great for 30 years, and stops teaching great, fire his ass. This isn't a freakin charity this is a class room where people's future is at stake. Your past performance should hold no sway expect as possible indication of future performance.


Haggis -
"Nice of you to cite a link where the authors refute your point. "

That doesn't refute my point at all. If you have an incentive system, the best teachers should get paid that much. High quality teachers should be paid what they are worth. Which is why it is aboslutly necessary to have an incentive system and objective standards to measure how well our kids are being educated.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That just doesn't make sense, Lew.

How do you make a better physics teacher out of someone who doesn't understand physics? There's a point at which "trying harder" simply doesn't work.

You have to attract people who are qualified and knowledgable to the job.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How do you make a better physics teacher out of someone who doesn't understand physics? There's a point at which "trying harder" simply doesn't work."

Then they learn physics... If a kid can learn what needs to be learned from the curriculum in a year, then an adult can learn in 2 monthes.

In any event the basic curriculum is not complicated. And only a tiny fraction of kids go into things like Calculus. If you don't know a thing about physics you shouldn't be teaching physics obviously. And to be honest, while I've had some dumb, lazy, and ineffective teachers all but one actually knew the material covered in the course.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lewkowski,

quote:
Then they learn physics... If a kid can learn what needs to be learned from the curriculum in a year, then an adult can learn in 2 monthes.
Err that makes no sense at all. Physics is taught typically in the senior year. Which are pretty much adults 17-18. Those taking physics are generally the top 10% of high school students, which is roughly equivalent to the top 10% in IQ. So unless you think the adult is well above the top 10% IQ, it should actually take them longer than a year to adequately learn the material (assuming the recommended 2 hours a day). Indeed a typical college class is 3 hours of class and four hours of lab a week, plus 2-3 hours of independent study and 3 hours of homework. Generally a high school teacher needs at least a college sophmores understanding and generally far better.

LetterRIp

[ December 13, 2005, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In order to teach a subject, you need to not only know what is in the curriculum, but the answer to as many questions as possible that MIGHT come up in class. You have to model competence in the subject area you teach (often even in area's you do not teach).

For example, what if a kid comes up to you (as a physics teacher) and says "I was reading about dark matter, and I don't understand why its necessary." If you want that kid to trust you, and learn from you at ALL for the rest of the year, you need to be able to provide an explanation that student can understand, is not a false explanation, and further's his interest in the subject. You can't do that if you've taken two months to learn a subject.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Err that makes no sense at all. Physics is taught typically in the senior year. Which are pretty much adults 17-18. Those taking physics are generally the top 10% of high school students, which is roughly equivalent to the top 10% in IQ. So unless you think the adult is well above the top 10% IQ, it should actually take them longer than a year to adequately learn the material (assuming the recommended 2 hours a day). Indeed a typical college class is 3 hours of class and four hours of lab a week, plus 2-3 hours of independent study and 3 hours of homework. Generally a high school teacher needs at least a college sophmores understanding and generally far better."

Eh? Physics was taught in the 11th year at my school. And I live in Texas. In any event... of course you shouldn't be teaching a class you have no experience in!

"For example, what if a kid comes up to you (as a physics teacher) and says "I was reading about dark matter, and I don't understand why its necessary." "

Dark matter isn't necessary.

Saying "I don't know" isn't a bad thing. Students should not think teachers are infallable. Furthermore you can always say "I'll get back to you on that" and go look it up on wikipedia, or show the kid how to. A history teacher isn't going to know the exact detail of every issue either.

And guys... where do you guys get the idea that I think someone who doesn't know a thing about science should be teaching physics?

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1