Top Law Schools

IAFG wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote: I think that if you lock kids in a room with a shitty teacher, they will come out WORSE than if they had just stayed home (in terms of academic skills and discipline). Add to that the fact that this teacher will cost the state about 50K or so, and that this teacher is probably killing the school's culture... I'd call him/her an all-around net loss for society.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just pointing out the fact that I've never heard a good teacher say they were overpaid.

I've never heard a good CEO say they were overpaid, but others might disagree for a variety of reasons. My own skill or lack thereof has not one thing to do with it, so drop the ad hominems.

Hey man, you're the one who brought up "I was a teacher/admin, so I'm qualified to speak on how hard they work." Don't be surprised if people want to take irrelevant stabs at your irrelevant support for your argument.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

IAFG wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote: I think that if you lock kids in a room with a shitty teacher, they will come out WORSE than if they had just stayed home (in terms of academic skills and discipline). Add to that the fact that this teacher will cost the state about 50K or so, and that this teacher is probably killing the school's culture... I'd call him/her an all-around net loss for society.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just pointing out the fact that I've never heard a good teacher say they were overpaid.

I've never heard a good CEO say they were overpaid, but others might disagree for a variety of reasons. My own skill or lack thereof has not one thing to do with it, so drop the ad hominems.

Hey man, you're the one who brought up "I was a teacher/admin, so I'm qualified to speak on how hard they work." Don't be surprised if people want to take irrelevant stabs at your irrelevant support for your argument.

My background backs up my opinion. It doesn't make ad hominem attacks more valid.

IAFG wrote:I think we should just have high expectations, high salaries, and fire the teachers who can't or don't meet those expectations.

I wouldn't disagree. Isn't a higher salary an incentive? I think higher pay attracts better qualified candidates. That's why the richer school districts have the best teachers. But I think without unions, you'd have very poor schools with the very worst teachers making close to nothing. Most teachers with half their wits would leave at the first opportunity, even more so then now. At least with unions there's some leverage to keep salaries from dropping outrageously low in certain districts. I guess you could make the free market argument that then those schools should close, but then where will those students go?

happyshapy wrote:

IAFG wrote:I think we should just have high expectations, high salaries, and fire the teachers who can't or don't meet those expectations.

I wouldn't disagree. Isn't a higher salary an incentive? I think higher pay attracts better qualified candidates. That's why the richer school districts have the best teachers. But I think without unions, you'd have very poor schools with the very worst teachers making close to nothing. Most teachers with half their wits would leave at the first opportunity, even more so then now. At least with unions there's some leverage to keep salaries from dropping outrageously low in certain districts.

I don't think this is true. generally speaking, richer school districts have better teachers because it is a much easier place to teach. often, wealthier school districts actually pay less because of simple market demand. for example, i teach in a title 1 school. 20% ell's, 96% of high school students considered "at-risk" and 99% below the poverty line. first year teachers make $42K. the wealthy school district in the same city has 2% ell's and 1% below the poverty line. they pay first year teachers $34K. They have a waiting list to even get an interview. my high school can't find enough people who are willing to apply.

IAFG wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote: While I don't like the overall effect unions have on education, it's an inherently political job, and you'd have a hard time attracting the best minds out there if they weren't protected (to a degree) from capricious political headwinds. If you want to get rid of unions, there should be some sort of built in protection against angry soccer moms. They have this for some judges, so I don't see why it's not applicable here.

I don't really think teaching is any more political than private sector jobs.

Really? At most private sector jobs, whose opinion do you need to worry about besides your boss? At worst, maybe Jesse Jackson tries to behead your boss if he says something racially controversial. Maybe you get some protesters when he moves your job to China. When it comes to kids though, everything we say, do, read, watch, or practice is an object of someone's view on social justice. You're not just teaching them- you're indoctrinating them. Trust me, if you thought the idiot overpaid teacher at your kid's school was teaching your kid to unfairly hate whitey, you'd tell the principal. The thing is, almost every involved parent thinks you're too challenging/not challenging enough/too edgy/etc./etc./etc, and they all think they can do your job better than you can.
Let me get on the phone and sell someone some spam software though. Let me DJ a top 40 hit. Let me balance a budget. Chances are no one gives a fuck when I do these things.

emkay625 wrote:

happyshapy wrote:

IAFG wrote:I think we should just have high expectations, high salaries, and fire the teachers who can't or don't meet those expectations.

I wouldn't disagree. Isn't a higher salary an incentive? I think higher pay attracts better qualified candidates. That's why the richer school districts have the best teachers. But I think without unions, you'd have very poor schools with the very worst teachers making close to nothing. Most teachers with half their wits would leave at the first opportunity, even more so then now. At least with unions there's some leverage to keep salaries from dropping outrageously low in certain districts.

I don't think this is true. generally speaking, richer school districts have better teachers because it is a much easier place to teach. often, wealthier school districts actually pay less because of simple market demand. for example, i teach in a title 1 school. 20% ell's, 96% of high school students considered "at-risk" and 99% below the poverty line. first year teachers make $42K. the wealthy school district in the same city has 2% ell's and 1% below the poverty line. they pay first year teachers $34K. They have a waiting list to even get an interview. my high school can't find enough people who are willing to apply.

I agree it's a much easier place to teach. That also contributes to their effectiveness. But very wealthy districts actively search for the best and brightest teachers. The high school I went to has an average of 100 applicants for every spot. The average salary is 150k a year. Most of my teachers had phds. I think a lot of qualified teachers leave poor school districts because they get offered a position in a "better" that either pay them more, or the same for less work.

I guess maybe we're thinking of wealth in different terms. I think in relative terms, where you have one very at risk school and another "wealthier" school in the same city, the pay at the at risk school would probably be a little higher. But I'm talking more about the suburbs where high property taxes result in high teacher salaries where teachers flock to.

IAFG wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

IAFG wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote: I think that if you lock kids in a room with a shitty teacher, they will come out WORSE than if they had just stayed home (in terms of academic skills and discipline). Add to that the fact that this teacher will cost the state about 50K or so, and that this teacher is probably killing the school's culture... I'd call him/her an all-around net loss for society.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just pointing out the fact that I've never heard a good teacher say they were overpaid.

I've never heard a good CEO say they were overpaid, but others might disagree for a variety of reasons. My own skill or lack thereof has not one thing to do with it, so drop the ad hominems.

Hey man, you're the one who brought up "I was a teacher/admin, so I'm qualified to speak on how hard they work." Don't be surprised if people want to take irrelevant stabs at your irrelevant support for your argument.

My background backs up my opinion. It doesn't make ad hominem attacks more valid.

I didn't attack you ad hominem. I called your experience into question by raising the possibility that perhaps your view that teachers are overpaid for their contributions could be explained if you weren't teaching at the level of rigor/effort necessary to be effective. It's only relevant because you're using your experience as support (albeit extremely weak support) for your argument.

3v3ryth1ng wrote: My background backs up my opinion. It doesn't make ad hominem attacks more valid.

I didn't attack you ad hominem. I called your experience into question by raising the possibility that perhaps your view that teachers are overpaid for their contributions could be explained if you weren't teaching at the level of rigor/effort necessary to be effective. It's only relevant because you're using your experience as support (albeit extremely weak support) for your argument.[/quote]

WTF? How is working with literally hundreds of teachers "weak support" for my subjective opinion?

I have no idea why bad teachers would think teachers are overpaid than good teachers since people are rarely so self aware as to think themselves undeserving of a paycheck. Quite the opposite, it's the worst teachers that whine the loudest about being asked to stay an hour after school for a team meeting.

Honestly you seem to have a weak grasp of reasoning and logic.

emkay625 wrote:

MrAnon wrote:I can't for the life of me understand why a TFA applicant, who can't get a more dynamic job and decides to take two years in a structured program, with a set exit point, is considered somehow better than someone who applies on his/her own to become a teacher and fully immerses him or herself into the school and the community. The TFA people are here-today, gone-tomorrow. The TFA applicant knows it, the school administrators know it, the students know it, the parents know it. How is that ever helpful to society in any way shape or form? "Here's our teacher Mr. Anon, its his second year at the school and at the end of it he is leaving forever for grad school." What sort of impact can be made in two years and how is it useful? The truth is that most TFA applicants could not find other work if they tried. Those I have met are not qualified for science jobs or finance jobs. The question for them is law school now or law school later?

1. we can get a more dynamic job. not all of us come straight from undergrad. i made about $10,000 more a year working in marketing before i joined tfa than i make now in tfa.

2. 67 percent of corps members actually stay in the classroom/education (go on to become principals, etc.)

Sorry but I know tons of people who bumbled around being paralegal, working in art store, and then going to TFA. I also know former TFA tending bar. It may have its share of dynamic people but it also has its share of deadbeats who are decent conversationalists in the interview I guess.

MrAnon wrote:

emkay625 wrote:

MrAnon wrote:I can't for the life of me understand why a TFA applicant, who can't get a more dynamic job and decides to take two years in a structured program, with a set exit point, is considered somehow better than someone who applies on his/her own to become a teacher and fully immerses him or herself into the school and the community. The TFA people are here-today, gone-tomorrow. The TFA applicant knows it, the school administrators know it, the students know it, the parents know it. How is that ever helpful to society in any way shape or form? "Here's our teacher Mr. Anon, its his second year at the school and at the end of it he is leaving forever for grad school." What sort of impact can be made in two years and how is it useful? The truth is that most TFA applicants could not find other work if they tried. Those I have met are not qualified for science jobs or finance jobs. The question for them is law school now or law school later?

1. we can get a more dynamic job. not all of us come straight from undergrad. i made about $10,000 more a year working in marketing before i joined tfa than i make now in tfa.

2. 67 percent of corps members actually stay in the classroom/education (go on to become principals, etc.)

Sorry but I know tons of people who bumbled around being paralegal, working in art store, and then going to TFA. I also know former TFA tending bar. It may have its share of dynamic people but it also has its share of deadbeats who are decent conversationalists in the interview I guess.

please define "tons." your characterization of the application process ("decent conversationalists in the interview") reveal that you don't really know much at all about tfa.....because that is not how the admissions process works.

also, your main criticism as to why adcomms should value a reg. teacher above a TFA teacher seems to be that the TFA teacher is leaving. in your scenario......they are both applying to law school......aren't they both leaving?

IAFG wrote: WTF? How is working with literally hundreds of teachers "weak support" for my subjective opinion?

I have no idea why bad teachers would think teachers are overpaid than good teachers since people are rarely so self aware as to think themselves undeserving of a paycheck. Quite the opposite, it's the worst teachers that whine the loudest about being asked to stay an hour after school for a team meeting.

Honestly you seem to have a weak grasp of reasoning and logic.

[/quote]

Your argument:

"I was a teacher/admin before. (your experience)
The teachers I've met don't deserve what they make. (again, your experience)
Teachers in general are over paid."

You're using your experience as a basis for making a conclusion about what teachers are paid in general. I'm saying that your experience may be flawed in that it doesn't represent the typical teacher. I could also point out that perhaps you worked with an unusually shitty bunch of teachers.

"Ad hominem" refers to an attack on the speaker's personal qualities, which lie outside the scope of the argument. Your experience is within the scope of the argument, as it is your only support. My method of reasoning is questioning your premise. I'm saying, "Your conclusion may be flawed because your premise may be flawed." "You're wrong about teachers being overpaid because you're a bad teacher" is a different statement, and is a true ad hominem attack.

Do you see how you being a bad teacher is irrelevant to me concluding that you're wrong, but the possibility that you're a bad teacher is relevant to me concluding that you're not right?