This Is Who Is Teaching College
-
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@Breffni-Potter said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said
It's an extremely self centered job (a lot like politics) that starts with good intentions, and then quickly devolves.
All the more reason why we should celebrate the few who continue to be good over the long haul.
Oh I don't disagree, but at the same time the idea of "I need a tenured job after 1-5 years" is crap.
No where else do you work for 1-5 years and have a life time position.
Yup, entitlement is all I see. Nobody, anywhere, gets guaranteed jobs. These are people competing with burger flippers for jobs, have no market value, yet while because they feel entitled to job security that essentially no one, anywhere ever gets.
-
@stacksofplates said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@Breffni-Potter said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said
No where else do you work for 1-5 years and have a life time position.
Politics?
Not even there, sure the population has a hard time changing people out (especially in the US) but in politics you have to rerun ever few years.
It's essentially reapplying for the job.
Depends. Federal Judges don't.
That's not considered politics, but law. But true, there is that exception.
-
@scottalanmiller said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
They want to teach full time, and not have to do manual labor or whatever else when they aren't employed.
I see this has an issue on both sides.
What's the issue on the college side? Why would it pay more or give permanent jobs to people who aren't employable? What I really want to know is why any student finds it acceptable to be taught by people useless in the real world!
The college side has the issue of not being able to say "listen, you are unemployable besides for this part time work, there is manual labor, go do that instead."
Because of the political correctness that we all have to follow.
-
@stacksofplates said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@coliver said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@stacksofplates said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@Breffni-Potter said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said
No where else do you work for 1-5 years and have a life time position.
Politics?
Not even there, sure the population has a hard time changing people out (especially in the US) but in politics you have to rerun ever few years.
It's essentially reapplying for the job.
Depends. Federal Judges don't.
They are also appointed and not elected. Granted they have to go through a vetting process that can be, but often isn't, fairly vigorous.
Right. It's still sort of relatable since the college has to hire (similar to appoint) the professor.
Except no vetting and they go for cheap rather than qualified.
-
@stacksofplates said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@stacksofplates said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@stacksofplates said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@Breffni-Potter said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said
No where else do you work for 1-5 years and have a life time position.
Politics?
Not even there, sure the population has a hard time changing people out (especially in the US) but in politics you have to rerun ever few years.
It's essentially reapplying for the job.
Depends. Federal Judges don't.
Federal Judges are appointed (as listed below) and only the Supreme Court Justices get life time positions. Which even there I think is insane.
Rubbed elbows with the right people, and BAM lifetime job even if the person who appointed you is no longer around.
It's kind of a good thing though, because they aren't swayed by elections. If they were elected, You could literally buy them out just like the others.
This is a fair point, but at the same time you could end up with some crackpot justice with some out there ideas of "fair"
But that's why they are vetted, and there are multiple.
Senility is more the issue. Degradation over time.
-
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@stacksofplates said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@stacksofplates said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@stacksofplates said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@Breffni-Potter said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said
No where else do you work for 1-5 years and have a life time position.
Politics?
Not even there, sure the population has a hard time changing people out (especially in the US) but in politics you have to rerun ever few years.
It's essentially reapplying for the job.
Depends. Federal Judges don't.
Federal Judges are appointed (as listed below) and only the Supreme Court Justices get life time positions. Which even there I think is insane.
Rubbed elbows with the right people, and BAM lifetime job even if the person who appointed you is no longer around.
It's kind of a good thing though, because they aren't swayed by elections. If they were elected, You could literally buy them out just like the others.
This is a fair point, but at the same time you could end up with some crackpot justice with some out there ideas of "fair"
But that's why they are vetted, and there are multiple.
Because opinions don't change over time?
I understand the balances of having multiple justices, it works most of the time. But that insane justice is still there, always voting for insanity. Because they have a life time position.
Get my point?
Judges aren't supposed to have opinions. Opinions changing over time is not the concern for judges. It is whether or not they are doing their jobs.
-
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@scottalanmiller said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
They want to teach full time, and not have to do manual labor or whatever else when they aren't employed.
I see this has an issue on both sides.
What's the issue on the college side? Why would it pay more or give permanent jobs to people who aren't employable? What I really want to know is why any student finds it acceptable to be taught by people useless in the real world!
The college side has the issue of not being able to say "listen, you are unemployable besides for this part time work, there is manual labor, go do that instead."
Because of the political correctness that we all have to follow.
So you feel that colleges aren't allowed to talk to professors as adults because college professors aren't up to the level of maturity needed for teenage burger flipping jobs?
I can buy that
-
@scottalanmiller said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@scottalanmiller said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
They want to teach full time, and not have to do manual labor or whatever else when they aren't employed.
I see this has an issue on both sides.
What's the issue on the college side? Why would it pay more or give permanent jobs to people who aren't employable? What I really want to know is why any student finds it acceptable to be taught by people useless in the real world!
The college side has the issue of not being able to say "listen, you are unemployable besides for this part time work, there is manual labor, go do that instead."
Because of the political correctness that we all have to follow.
So you feel that colleges aren't allowed to talk to professors as adults because college professors aren't up to the level of maturity needed for teenage burger flipping jobs?
I can buy that
Pretty much, because the same people that are top honors at these schools are of the same maturity level as a burger flipper. The only difference is the college graduate is in some serious debt while supposedly being highly educated.
-
I think there is a debt:entitlement ratio that has never been explored.
The more debt an individual has, the more entitled they feel to a good paying job or whatever else.
I would love to see if there was actually a study on this. . .
-
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
I think there is a debt:entitlement ratio that has never been explored.
The more debt an individual has, the more entitled they feel to a good paying job or whatever else.
I would love to see if there was actually a study on this. . .
That's a very interesting thought. I, too, would love to see that study done. And compare people with the same degrees, from the same schools, with no debt. Does the debt create entitlement even though non-debt represents the better candidate (better decision making and financial skills.)
-
Just considering the thought for a bit.
Positions that are highly respected positions such as doctors or professors cost a ton of time and money to earn, causing a ton of debt.
And in these same positions, we have people who are literally charging way more money for a basic service. Because they need to pay off their personal debt.
Which if it didn't cost so much money to become a doctor (not talking about reducing education efficiency or studies, just financial cost) than doctors wouldn't be forced to charge so much for the same basic services (which ultimately result in insurance payments) because the customer simply couldn't afford to pay for the service at those inflated rates.
-
Which means, do doctors think they are entitled to rip off their customer base, because of their personal choice to become a doctor and it put them into a ton of debt?
I would think so. . of course I'm not a doctor so can't speak for mine.
-
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
Positions that are highly respected positions such as doctors or professors cost a ton of time and money to earn, causing a ton of debt.
Who highly respects a doctor? Are there good doctors? Of course. But they should never get respect because they are a doctor. Doctor is a trade degree that involves incredibly immature hazing practices, depends on certifications (Just paper) rather than performance, doesn't get judged in their field by performance but only be passing a minimum spec, have a known track record that is failing compared to zero training at all, follow every path that in any other circle would put them at the least respected tier.... what aspect of being a doctor makes them even remotely respectable?
-
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
Which if it didn't cost so much money to become a doctor (not talking about reducing education efficiency or studies, just financial cost) than doctors wouldn't be forced to charge so much for the same basic services (which ultimately result in insurance payments) because the customer simply couldn't afford to pay for the service at those inflated rates.
The cost of healthcare is almost entirely from other sources, though. It's all insurance and overhead, not the cost of the doctors themselves. If we fixed those other things, the cost of the doctor would fade into background noise by comparison.
-
@scottalanmiller said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
Positions that are highly respected positions such as doctors or professors cost a ton of time and money to earn, causing a ton of debt.
Who highly respects a doctor? Are there good doctors? Of course. But they should never get respect because they are a doctor. Doctor is a trade degree that involves incredibly immature hazing practices, depends on certifications (Just paper) rather than performance, doesn't get judged in their field by performance but only be passing a minimum spec, have a known track record that is failing compared to zero training at all, follow every path that in any other circle would put them at the least respected tier.... what aspect of being a doctor makes them even remotely respectable?
That is why I italic'd the words "highly respected", its a figment of respect. Because it comes with a title.
-
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
That is why I italic'd the words "highly respected", its a figment of respect. Because it comes with a title.
A title associated with a lack of education (not learning much over a long number of years) and is often seen as a mark of shame. There is a reason that comparing many other fields (IT, engineers, etc.) to doctors is insulting.
-
This is exactly why I will take experience over education every single time. It's also why I put little weight into certificates. Especially if they have a bunch of certs and no related experience.
-
@pchiodo said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
This is exactly why I will take experience over education every single time. It's also why I put little weight into certificates. Especially if they have a bunch of certs and no related experience.
I always struggle with not seeing education as a negative. Whether it is the time wasted being taught by wanna be burger flippers or the otherwise unemployable, the entitlement it often engenders or the sign of bad life decision making that it suggests - why put up with that when there is an large pool of people who didn't do those things ready and willing to work? College shows a lack of work ethic, as well. I know of no positive thing demonstrated by college, but loads of negatives that it suggests.
I hate that because once in a while people go to college for innocent reasons that should not be held against them. But it is so uncommon that it seems like a waste of time not to use college as a filtering factor in hiring when you want to hire the best people.
-
@scottalanmiller said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
@DustinB3403 said in This Is Who Is Teaching College:
Which if it didn't cost so much money to become a doctor (not talking about reducing education efficiency or studies, just financial cost) than doctors wouldn't be forced to charge so much for the same basic services (which ultimately result in insurance payments) because the customer simply couldn't afford to pay for the service at those inflated rates.
The cost of healthcare is almost entirely from other sources, though. It's all insurance and overhead, not the cost of the doctors themselves. If we fixed those other things, the cost of the doctor would fade into background noise by comparison.
Of course healthcare is the burden compounded by insurance providers. HCP's say we need to charge X to keep people alive and the business going.
Insurance Providers say "we'll pay x" for this service.
Pharma companies say "screw you all, pay me $5000 per pill"
Doctors say "I have knowledge of these symptoms and can prescribe X Y and Z but I work for an HCP that charges X, I get a fee per client I see, therefor everyone gets the same treatment, regardless of service quality provided"
-
Oh thank goodness. I thought this was going to be a sob story post about these people who should be able to earn something even though they made horrible decisions to take out insane student loans for something almost nobody cares about. It's not. It is about people wanting the rest of us to pay them to do something society doesn't really want or need.
These people need a dose of reality and a lesson in the sunk cost fallacy. Cut bait, head into the real world and learn a real skill.
