Still Doing the Math, But for 100K A Year(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Still Doing the Math, But for 100K A Year
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/fashion/01generationb.html
6 comments
>Second, the unions have convinced teachers that any measurement of quality will be inaccurate, arbitrary, and a front for administrators' political and personal animosity.
But this is true. How do you suggest measuring performance? Standardized testing is not an acceptable answer.
But this is true. How do you suggest measuring performance? Standardized testing is not an acceptable answer.
The same as in any other job: we rely on the honesty, skill, and self-interest of their bosses and peers. Honest and accurate evalution of performance is the signal, stupidity and bias is the noise. Somehow, though it's pretty frickin' amazing when you think about it, people who are chosen, guided, and evaluated by biased, flawed, mostly stupid human beings manage to treat disease, build bridges, publish newspapers, maintain sewage systems, and do everything else required to keep society going.
I mean, I work in a vast and faceless corporate bureaucracy driven by the most idiotic politics imaginable, but when I think back to my favorite teachers from high school, they got a raw deal compared to me. Even though I got laid off my first job because of the dot-com bust. Even though I left my last job because of an abusive boss. Even though my review process is cookie-cutter and somewhat divorced from reality. It would have been better than having no opportunity to differentiate themselves from the stupid, lazy, coasting teachers who climbed right up the pay scale with them. Heroic, good, average, bad, and sleepwalking, they all have the same job title and same pay all the way to retirement -- it's no wonder teaching isn't respected as a profession.
I mean, I work in a vast and faceless corporate bureaucracy driven by the most idiotic politics imaginable, but when I think back to my favorite teachers from high school, they got a raw deal compared to me. Even though I got laid off my first job because of the dot-com bust. Even though I left my last job because of an abusive boss. Even though my review process is cookie-cutter and somewhat divorced from reality. It would have been better than having no opportunity to differentiate themselves from the stupid, lazy, coasting teachers who climbed right up the pay scale with them. Heroic, good, average, bad, and sleepwalking, they all have the same job title and same pay all the way to retirement -- it's no wonder teaching isn't respected as a profession.
There's one critical area where assessment of teachers varies from those in medicine, law, etc.: many states require consistent salary and retention policies across all their schools. Given the limited resources available to do any sort of meaningful performance measurement, that pretty much means that any "pay for performance" model will necessarily require a single set of standardized tests that can be delivered to every student in the state.
...and we all know how well those sorts of tests measure real learning and intelligence, right?
...and we all know how well those sorts of tests measure real learning and intelligence, right?
How consistent do they have to be? Law abounds in absolute-sounding formulations that are never interpreted absolutely in practice. By policy (though probably not by law) my company has a consistent salary scale across the company. There are hundreds of people of my position and rank, managed by dozens of managers, many of whom have never met each other. (Yes, my company is really that epically huge.)
Is a Software Engineer B in my group exactly the same as a Software Engineer B in every other group in the company? Of course not; a pay grade is just a vague description interpreted by many different managers from diverse backgrounds. Yet people are content to say that we have a consistent pay scale.
The union would fight against it because they oppose giving any discretion to management, but teachers might defect from the union if it meant a chance at making teaching a rewarding and respected profession.
Is a Software Engineer B in my group exactly the same as a Software Engineer B in every other group in the company? Of course not; a pay grade is just a vague description interpreted by many different managers from diverse backgrounds. Yet people are content to say that we have a consistent pay scale.
The union would fight against it because they oppose giving any discretion to management, but teachers might defect from the union if it meant a chance at making teaching a rewarding and respected profession.
My point is precisely that most state employees are not free to interpret law as they see fit. The rules defining hiring, retention, pay raises, etc., are written quite precisely across the board, not just for teachers. Trying to game the system is a breach of ethics, if not an outright crime.
I'm not trying to defend the public-sector model -- there are obvious inefficiencies, and many of the best potential hires would never even consider a government job for many of the same reasons you suggested. I'm just not sure how better to balance the need to be accountable to the taxpayers with the desire of administrators to pay their staff according to ability, not just seniority.
I'm not trying to defend the public-sector model -- there are obvious inefficiencies, and many of the best potential hires would never even consider a government job for many of the same reasons you suggested. I'm just not sure how better to balance the need to be accountable to the taxpayers with the desire of administrators to pay their staff according to ability, not just seniority.
"A salary spread of $50k to $100k is too much for the same job, and I never noticed older teachers being much more effective than teachers with five years of experience."
First, there are similar margins in engineering as well. It is not unique to teaching.
Second, as to your effectiveness claim, anecdotes != data. I would have a tendency to believe the contrary and would need to see evidence otherwise to be convinced.
Third, part of the pay differential is probably due to the turnover rate in teaching. Why pay someone top dollar when something like 1/2 teachers leave before their fifth year (in the US)?
First, there are similar margins in engineering as well. It is not unique to teaching.
Second, as to your effectiveness claim, anecdotes != data. I would have a tendency to believe the contrary and would need to see evidence otherwise to be convinced.
Third, part of the pay differential is probably due to the turnover rate in teaching. Why pay someone top dollar when something like 1/2 teachers leave before their fifth year (in the US)?
To the best of my knowledge, such a salary spread in engineering would span different jobs with different job titles. Inside software engineering, you don't get promoted from Junior Software Developer to Architect by seniority. Heck, being a senior citizen doesn't even guarantee you a promotion to Senior Software Engineer. Outside of software engineering, only about 5% of people earning engineering degrees end up doing design work at all, so the work roles of different engineers can be very different.
You have a good point about retention in the early years, which is why I mentioned five years of experience. I also believe that the best teachers just keep getting better. However, among average teachers I couldn't tell much difference between the thirty-year-olds and the sixty-year-olds, except that the thirty-year-olds were better-looking and told better jokes. I had dozens of teachers and cared deeply about the performance of each one (me: valedictorian, mathlete, AP whore) so I expect I would have noticed the pattern if older teachers tended to be significantly better than younger ones.
You have a good point about retention in the early years, which is why I mentioned five years of experience. I also believe that the best teachers just keep getting better. However, among average teachers I couldn't tell much difference between the thirty-year-olds and the sixty-year-olds, except that the thirty-year-olds were better-looking and told better jokes. I had dozens of teachers and cared deeply about the performance of each one (me: valedictorian, mathlete, AP whore) so I expect I would have noticed the pattern if older teachers tended to be significantly better than younger ones.
To the best of my knowledge, such a salary spread in engineering would span different jobs with different job titles.
I've lived the 50K-100K salary spread for the same programming job. Also, at my last "real" job Amazon stole away one of our interns. He was offered a job for $86K whereas the other intern was offered almost the same position for $67K. She was the better of the two developers. I'd like to believe there wasn't any gender discrimination going on with that situation, but I don't.
Anyway, there's definitely huge spreads for the same work in software. Sometimes, even in the same company! In my experience, salaries are completely arbitrary for software engineering. I've gotten paid the most for the easiest work I've done. The only constant I've seen is that salaries are higher across the board when the economy is good.
I've lived the 50K-100K salary spread for the same programming job. Also, at my last "real" job Amazon stole away one of our interns. He was offered a job for $86K whereas the other intern was offered almost the same position for $67K. She was the better of the two developers. I'd like to believe there wasn't any gender discrimination going on with that situation, but I don't.
Anyway, there's definitely huge spreads for the same work in software. Sometimes, even in the same company! In my experience, salaries are completely arbitrary for software engineering. I've gotten paid the most for the easiest work I've done. The only constant I've seen is that salaries are higher across the board when the economy is good.
I must be naive, why is $50k a poor starting salary when there are families who get by on $50k-$55k?
It's a shame that the best teacher still starts at $50k, especially when the worst teacher at the same school will make $100k at some point. If a star teacher could make $100k from the start, it would be a lot easier to attract them.
100K for 30 years, is not as much as you would think. The problem with teaching right now, is that there is not a concrete way to have really great teachers shine.
In enterprise, employees that would perform really well would be accordingly compensated (theoretically) with a higher salary/bonus. This doesn't happen with teachers though. You could be a terrible teachers, with terrible results, but have tenure and still reach that 100,000k mark without a hitch.
I believe unions are important to ensure some job security and fair practice, but not at the expense of our children's education. There should be competitive practices in public education, that allow teachers to earn way more than 100,000k, but also does not guarantee that a teacher will rise on a pay scale when they just babysit in a classroom.
I speak from experience as I was formerly a teacher in NYC, where I encountered many teachers that were not competent to teach, but yet continued to exist in their role. There are schools that are trying experimental means to increase the quality of teaching - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/nyregion/07charter.html?ex... - but ultimately we need to think of a new system of rewarding the best teachers and getting rid of the worst.
In enterprise, employees that would perform really well would be accordingly compensated (theoretically) with a higher salary/bonus. This doesn't happen with teachers though. You could be a terrible teachers, with terrible results, but have tenure and still reach that 100,000k mark without a hitch.
I believe unions are important to ensure some job security and fair practice, but not at the expense of our children's education. There should be competitive practices in public education, that allow teachers to earn way more than 100,000k, but also does not guarantee that a teacher will rise on a pay scale when they just babysit in a classroom.
I speak from experience as I was formerly a teacher in NYC, where I encountered many teachers that were not competent to teach, but yet continued to exist in their role. There are schools that are trying experimental means to increase the quality of teaching - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/nyregion/07charter.html?ex... - but ultimately we need to think of a new system of rewarding the best teachers and getting rid of the worst.
It would of course be protested as outrageous, and would also be hard to implement, but I bet if you allowed someone to pay for their education partly by selling a stake in their future income (capped at a certain point, or possibly with a buyback clause of some kind). This would actually lead great teachers to seek out great students, too -- instead of retiring on their teaching pension, they'd retire on .1% of the incomes of each of a few hundred students; if those students are making six figures...
So, no great teacher would choose to work in poor school districts. We already have to give incentives to experienced teachers to work there.
Good teachers would concentrate in wealthy districts, because the best teachers would have an amplification effect, and those kids are going to end up in college and most will end up in good jobs because of their family connections.
Good teachers would concentrate in wealthy districts, because the best teachers would have an amplification effect, and those kids are going to end up in college and most will end up in good jobs because of their family connections.
That doesn't seem to apply here at all. If education can really make a difference, teachers would be able to raise money from VCs in order to educate inner city kids for no upfront fee and a large cut of their future pay. If they didn't behave that way, you might have to suspect that since spending billions of dollars on improving those schools and improving those students hasn't had any significant effect on their ability to learn, the problem is not with how hard we're trying, but with what we think we can accomplish.
This is hilariously bad logic, and I assume it's tongue in cheek.
Your first point, the VC scenario: are you actually serious?
Here's what I mean by "serious": you actually think that the transaction you're sketching:
- group of good teachers goes to VC, asks for money
- VC invests in group of good teachers
- good teachers teach inner city students for no upfront cost
- good teachers -- and therefore investors -- profit by collecting a portion of their students' future earnings
...is something that'd actually happen.
I can understand if you were just trying to make the rhetorical point: "if education worked the way some speculate, it'd be profitable to invest in a scheme wherein you taught students for free and took a cut of their future earnings; you don't see that, do you? Ergo: education must not work amirite?"
So I really want to know: are you "serious" about your vc-funded educational scheme, or were you just going for the rhetorical point?
Your second point is equally hilarious, and I have to also ask if you're also "serious" about it.
You say: "...since spending billions of dollars on improving these schools and improving these students hasn't had any significant effect on their ability to learn, the problem is not how hard we're trying, but with what we think we can accomplish."
What you appear to be attempting to insinuate is the following:
- there's a class of people who are ineducable
- we know this is true b/c we've spent billions trying to educate them, with precious little to show for it
If that's not what you're trying to insinuate, you're free to clarify.
Assuming that's right, you've got a big jump in your logic.
We've clearly spent billions.
It clearly hasn't worked.
We can conclude: (1) the way we've spent the money thus far doesn't do jack.
We can't really conclude: (2) there's no possible way that that money could've been spent that would've worked.
For your apparent conclusion -- some people can't be educated -- you need (2), but you only have (1).
You tried to sneak your way to (2) by characterizing "spending money in various programs that we hoped might to improve those schools and that we hoped might improve those students" as "spending money on improving those schools and improving those students".
Nice work, when it works.
So yeah: are you serious about your second point?
Your first point, the VC scenario: are you actually serious?
Here's what I mean by "serious": you actually think that the transaction you're sketching:
- group of good teachers goes to VC, asks for money
- VC invests in group of good teachers
- good teachers teach inner city students for no upfront cost
- good teachers -- and therefore investors -- profit by collecting a portion of their students' future earnings
...is something that'd actually happen.
I can understand if you were just trying to make the rhetorical point: "if education worked the way some speculate, it'd be profitable to invest in a scheme wherein you taught students for free and took a cut of their future earnings; you don't see that, do you? Ergo: education must not work amirite?"
So I really want to know: are you "serious" about your vc-funded educational scheme, or were you just going for the rhetorical point?
Your second point is equally hilarious, and I have to also ask if you're also "serious" about it.
You say: "...since spending billions of dollars on improving these schools and improving these students hasn't had any significant effect on their ability to learn, the problem is not how hard we're trying, but with what we think we can accomplish."
What you appear to be attempting to insinuate is the following:
- there's a class of people who are ineducable
- we know this is true b/c we've spent billions trying to educate them, with precious little to show for it
If that's not what you're trying to insinuate, you're free to clarify.
Assuming that's right, you've got a big jump in your logic.
We've clearly spent billions.
It clearly hasn't worked.
We can conclude: (1) the way we've spent the money thus far doesn't do jack.
We can't really conclude: (2) there's no possible way that that money could've been spent that would've worked.
For your apparent conclusion -- some people can't be educated -- you need (2), but you only have (1).
You tried to sneak your way to (2) by characterizing "spending money in various programs that we hoped might to improve those schools and that we hoped might improve those students" as "spending money on improving those schools and improving those students".
Nice work, when it works.
So yeah: are you serious about your second point?
Your tone and attitude is not congruent with that of your peers here on HN. Please keep this site cordial and just stick to the facts. Thanks!
If you peruse my posting history here you'll find I'm constructive and respectful where it's warranted.
Here's the exact quote I was responding to:
"That doesn't seem to apply here at all. If education can really make a difference, teachers would be able to raise money from VCs in order to educate inner city kids for no upfront fee and a large cut of their future pay. If they didn't behave that way, you might have to suspect that since spending billions of dollars on improving those schools and improving those students hasn't had any significant effect on their ability to learn, the problem is not with how hard we're trying, but with what we think we can accomplish."
There's so many things wrong with this it was hard to know where to begin; to actually address this one just on the facts is like trying to refute the assertion "colorless dreams sleep furiously", but I'll do what I can.
Part 1: the "teachers raising money from VCs" scenario.
First, let's understand what I think he's saying. I think he's saying this:
- step 1: "assume good education can raise someone's lifetime earning potential"
Hidden Assumptions in Step 1: none relevant.
- step 2: "assuming good education raises someone's lifetime earning potential, a good teacher or teachers could get raise funds from investors and then educate people free-of-charge NOW in exchange for a sizable cut of the students' future lifetime earnings."
Hidden Assumptions in Step 2: when he says "would be able to raise money from VCs" I assume he means "it'd be a net-profitable endeavor to educate people NOW in exchange for a large cut of their future earnings, and thus investors would be willing to fund it." I edited "VCs" to "investors" to be generous, and I'm assuming the investors want to see a profit (investors could do this out of charity -- let's call that a "scholarship" -- but for sake of argument let's stick to profit-seeking investors).
- step 3: "if they didn't behave that way, then...". By this, I'm going to assume he is saying "clearly, people aren't investing in people's education in exchange for a percentage of their future earnings".
I assume he is saying these kinds of investments aren't happening for the following reason: the rest of his "argument" depends on it not being the case that people are currently investing in schemes like the one we're sketching here.
Where does this get us? About how I summarized the "rhetorical point" last time:
"If education substantially improved people's future earning potential, it'd be a profitable investment to fund people's education NOW in exchange for a percentage of their future income, but you don't see that happening, which I choose to take as evidence in favor of my world view (which appears to be that there are many people who can't be educated)."
There's more ways than I have time for to make a mockery of that, but let's pick three of the easier one.
Firstly: there's an enormous industry dedicated to loaning people money to get an education. You can characterize this behavior as: "paying for someone's education NOW in exchange for a portion of their future income". It's not 100% isomorphic to his proposal, but it's quite close, don't you think? Most of the larger loans -- like for medical school or law school -- only make economic sense under the assumption the education received in law school or medical school leads to substantially increased earning ability once the education is finished.
Sure, student loans are debt and not equity, but they're quite cheap as a % of lifetime earnings (you'll find census figures for average lifetime earnings of college grads in the $2.1 million range versus average net indebtedness at graduation from a 4-year program in the $20k range if you search around; even assuming punitive interest leading to paying back a total of $40k you're talking < 2% of your lifetime earnings to pay for an undergraduate education; you'll find, if you crunch #s for law school or medical school, that the %s are quite clear).
The reason student loans are regarded as painful is because they're expected to be paid back immediately after graduating, which is exactly when you're typically at your very lowest earning potential; as a % of lifetime earnings they're quite reasonable.
It might be possible to salvage the argument, but the existence of the student loan industry makes it a lot harder to claim flat-out that people aren't investing in students' education-boosted future income; investors are investing, just not quite in the way this guy sketched out.
Secondly: using exactly the same logic as he's using you can make more ridiculous claims. Here's how you do it:
- If medical school / ivy league / law school / pro football really increased your earnings potential, you'd see investors willing to fund people's medical school / ivy league / law school / football training for no upfront cost in exchange for a large cut of the student's future earnings. But, you don't see that, so I take this as evidence in support of my worldview.
Take your pick of "sure-thing" -- the arrangement he's sketching is extremely rare, and arguing that its absence in a particular field implies anything about that field is more than a little dubious.
Thirdly: you could handwave about the various pragmatic reasons why such an arrangement is unlikely -- imperfect information, various transaction and friction costs -- or point to the arrangement's relative rarity across most fields and assume there's something intrinsically unrealistic about it that has limited its adoption. Not a whiz-bang refutation, sure, but about as robust as that argument was, and thus equally convincing.
OK
I've gone through part one, the "teachers raising VC" scenario, and explained why the whole thing is worthy of derision:
- contrary to his claims, it's happening all the time, just as debt and not equity investment
- using the same logic you can show that eg medical school can't possibly raise someone's lifetime earnings
- you can also point to the "equity" version of the arrangement appearing to be rarely used in practice, hinting at its unworkability with at least as much rigor as his "argument" had
Part 2: the argumentative fallacy
I'm going to reproduce the quote, but split into parts with short commentary.
Section A: "If education can really make a difference, teachers would be able to raise money from VCs in order to educate inner city kids for no upfront fee and a large cut of their future pay."
NB: we're talking about a hypothetical scenario (if X then Y). Leaving aside the issues already arranged, remember this: he's talking about something that might happen, not something that is happening, or did happen but failed. Pure conjecture.
Section B: "If they didn't behave that way, you might have to suspect that..." -- still in the hypothetical mode (if X then Y), not the definite mode "because X happened a conclusion of Y is implied"
Section C: "since spending billions of dollars on improving those schools and improving those students hasn't had any significant effect on their ability to learn, the problem is not with how hard we're trying, but with what we think we can accomplish"
NB: here's where stuff gets dirty. You see how he slid from speaking in a hypothetical mode in Section A and Section B to speaking about stuff that actually happened (money we spent, results we didn't get)?
You also see how the qualifiers and signs of uncertainty start to disappear: "if education can really make a difference, teachers would be able to raise money from VCs...If they didn't behave that way you might have to suspect...
Go look for qualifiers or signs of uncertainty in Section C; you won't find any.
It's possible it's entirely accidental, but it has the look of dishonest writing commonly employed in eg direct mail campaigns soliciting donations for politicians or advocacy groups: you start with careful hypotheticals and finish with a conclusion.
It's no different than "If asteroid mining was profitable, astronauts would be able to raise funds from VCS to go mind asteroids. If they didn't behave that way, you might have to suspect that, since spending billions of dollars on improving our space program hasn't brought us much space-metal, the problem is not with how hard we're trying, it's with what we think we can accomplish." If that sounds a little off to you, it should, but it's the same "logical" "argument" at work, just with sections A and B chosen to draw out the incongruity of section C.
Part Three: the "improving" fallacy
Thankfully this one is short. Let's go back to section C:
Section C: "since spending billions of dollars on improving those schools and improving those students hasn't had any significant effect on their ability to learn, the problem is not with how hard we're trying, but with what we think we can accomplish"
This is sneaky writing, too.
Facts:
Fact A: billions have been spent on the schools
Fact B: those billions haven't had any significant effect on their ability to learn
I'd argue fact B slightly: compared to, say, the kids of coal miners or sharecroppers or appalachian mountain folks, I'd be shocked if the schools -- as bad as they often are -- aren't having a significant effect on the kids' ability to learn. Whether the cost of the schools is too high for the benefit is separate; claiming outright "no significant effect on their ability to learn" seems unwarranted. You'd also have to explain the Flynn effect.
Where do those get you? Not as far as they're taken in Section C.
You could say "we've spent billions in schemes we hoped might improve outcomes, but they didn't work the way we hoped they would." That'd be honest, but it'd also weaken the argument that's being attempted here, which is essentially "proof by exhaustion" (there's only one possible plan that might "improve" the schools' outcomes, we tried it, it didn't work).
Hence the omission of the qualifiers (instead of "the stuff we tried didn't work" it's like "we improved it and it was still crap"), as it makes the intended conclusion flow more naturally.
I gotta jet, it's been a long day and it's nice to have something to do to procrastinate; I hate intellectual dishonesty and so coming back to see that post after burying one of my dogs pretty much put me into conniption.
This kind of stuff seems out of place here so after this I quit; I submit as a parting shot in my defense that the post I replied to was every bit as flawed as I claimed it was.
Here's the exact quote I was responding to:
"That doesn't seem to apply here at all. If education can really make a difference, teachers would be able to raise money from VCs in order to educate inner city kids for no upfront fee and a large cut of their future pay. If they didn't behave that way, you might have to suspect that since spending billions of dollars on improving those schools and improving those students hasn't had any significant effect on their ability to learn, the problem is not with how hard we're trying, but with what we think we can accomplish."
There's so many things wrong with this it was hard to know where to begin; to actually address this one just on the facts is like trying to refute the assertion "colorless dreams sleep furiously", but I'll do what I can.
Part 1: the "teachers raising money from VCs" scenario.
First, let's understand what I think he's saying. I think he's saying this:
- step 1: "assume good education can raise someone's lifetime earning potential"
Hidden Assumptions in Step 1: none relevant.
- step 2: "assuming good education raises someone's lifetime earning potential, a good teacher or teachers could get raise funds from investors and then educate people free-of-charge NOW in exchange for a sizable cut of the students' future lifetime earnings."
Hidden Assumptions in Step 2: when he says "would be able to raise money from VCs" I assume he means "it'd be a net-profitable endeavor to educate people NOW in exchange for a large cut of their future earnings, and thus investors would be willing to fund it." I edited "VCs" to "investors" to be generous, and I'm assuming the investors want to see a profit (investors could do this out of charity -- let's call that a "scholarship" -- but for sake of argument let's stick to profit-seeking investors).
- step 3: "if they didn't behave that way, then...". By this, I'm going to assume he is saying "clearly, people aren't investing in people's education in exchange for a percentage of their future earnings".
I assume he is saying these kinds of investments aren't happening for the following reason: the rest of his "argument" depends on it not being the case that people are currently investing in schemes like the one we're sketching here.
Where does this get us? About how I summarized the "rhetorical point" last time:
"If education substantially improved people's future earning potential, it'd be a profitable investment to fund people's education NOW in exchange for a percentage of their future income, but you don't see that happening, which I choose to take as evidence in favor of my world view (which appears to be that there are many people who can't be educated)."
There's more ways than I have time for to make a mockery of that, but let's pick three of the easier one.
Firstly: there's an enormous industry dedicated to loaning people money to get an education. You can characterize this behavior as: "paying for someone's education NOW in exchange for a portion of their future income". It's not 100% isomorphic to his proposal, but it's quite close, don't you think? Most of the larger loans -- like for medical school or law school -- only make economic sense under the assumption the education received in law school or medical school leads to substantially increased earning ability once the education is finished.
Sure, student loans are debt and not equity, but they're quite cheap as a % of lifetime earnings (you'll find census figures for average lifetime earnings of college grads in the $2.1 million range versus average net indebtedness at graduation from a 4-year program in the $20k range if you search around; even assuming punitive interest leading to paying back a total of $40k you're talking < 2% of your lifetime earnings to pay for an undergraduate education; you'll find, if you crunch #s for law school or medical school, that the %s are quite clear).
The reason student loans are regarded as painful is because they're expected to be paid back immediately after graduating, which is exactly when you're typically at your very lowest earning potential; as a % of lifetime earnings they're quite reasonable.
It might be possible to salvage the argument, but the existence of the student loan industry makes it a lot harder to claim flat-out that people aren't investing in students' education-boosted future income; investors are investing, just not quite in the way this guy sketched out.
Secondly: using exactly the same logic as he's using you can make more ridiculous claims. Here's how you do it:
- If medical school / ivy league / law school / pro football really increased your earnings potential, you'd see investors willing to fund people's medical school / ivy league / law school / football training for no upfront cost in exchange for a large cut of the student's future earnings. But, you don't see that, so I take this as evidence in support of my worldview.
Take your pick of "sure-thing" -- the arrangement he's sketching is extremely rare, and arguing that its absence in a particular field implies anything about that field is more than a little dubious.
Thirdly: you could handwave about the various pragmatic reasons why such an arrangement is unlikely -- imperfect information, various transaction and friction costs -- or point to the arrangement's relative rarity across most fields and assume there's something intrinsically unrealistic about it that has limited its adoption. Not a whiz-bang refutation, sure, but about as robust as that argument was, and thus equally convincing.
OK
I've gone through part one, the "teachers raising VC" scenario, and explained why the whole thing is worthy of derision:
- contrary to his claims, it's happening all the time, just as debt and not equity investment
- using the same logic you can show that eg medical school can't possibly raise someone's lifetime earnings
- you can also point to the "equity" version of the arrangement appearing to be rarely used in practice, hinting at its unworkability with at least as much rigor as his "argument" had
Part 2: the argumentative fallacy
I'm going to reproduce the quote, but split into parts with short commentary.
Section A: "If education can really make a difference, teachers would be able to raise money from VCs in order to educate inner city kids for no upfront fee and a large cut of their future pay."
NB: we're talking about a hypothetical scenario (if X then Y). Leaving aside the issues already arranged, remember this: he's talking about something that might happen, not something that is happening, or did happen but failed. Pure conjecture.
Section B: "If they didn't behave that way, you might have to suspect that..." -- still in the hypothetical mode (if X then Y), not the definite mode "because X happened a conclusion of Y is implied"
Section C: "since spending billions of dollars on improving those schools and improving those students hasn't had any significant effect on their ability to learn, the problem is not with how hard we're trying, but with what we think we can accomplish"
NB: here's where stuff gets dirty. You see how he slid from speaking in a hypothetical mode in Section A and Section B to speaking about stuff that actually happened (money we spent, results we didn't get)?
You also see how the qualifiers and signs of uncertainty start to disappear: "if education can really make a difference, teachers would be able to raise money from VCs...If they didn't behave that way you might have to suspect...
Go look for qualifiers or signs of uncertainty in Section C; you won't find any.
It's possible it's entirely accidental, but it has the look of dishonest writing commonly employed in eg direct mail campaigns soliciting donations for politicians or advocacy groups: you start with careful hypotheticals and finish with a conclusion.
It's no different than "If asteroid mining was profitable, astronauts would be able to raise funds from VCS to go mind asteroids. If they didn't behave that way, you might have to suspect that, since spending billions of dollars on improving our space program hasn't brought us much space-metal, the problem is not with how hard we're trying, it's with what we think we can accomplish." If that sounds a little off to you, it should, but it's the same "logical" "argument" at work, just with sections A and B chosen to draw out the incongruity of section C.
Part Three: the "improving" fallacy
Thankfully this one is short. Let's go back to section C:
Section C: "since spending billions of dollars on improving those schools and improving those students hasn't had any significant effect on their ability to learn, the problem is not with how hard we're trying, but with what we think we can accomplish"
This is sneaky writing, too.
Facts:
Fact A: billions have been spent on the schools
Fact B: those billions haven't had any significant effect on their ability to learn
I'd argue fact B slightly: compared to, say, the kids of coal miners or sharecroppers or appalachian mountain folks, I'd be shocked if the schools -- as bad as they often are -- aren't having a significant effect on the kids' ability to learn. Whether the cost of the schools is too high for the benefit is separate; claiming outright "no significant effect on their ability to learn" seems unwarranted. You'd also have to explain the Flynn effect.
Where do those get you? Not as far as they're taken in Section C.
You could say "we've spent billions in schemes we hoped might improve outcomes, but they didn't work the way we hoped they would." That'd be honest, but it'd also weaken the argument that's being attempted here, which is essentially "proof by exhaustion" (there's only one possible plan that might "improve" the schools' outcomes, we tried it, it didn't work).
Hence the omission of the qualifiers (instead of "the stuff we tried didn't work" it's like "we improved it and it was still crap"), as it makes the intended conclusion flow more naturally.
I gotta jet, it's been a long day and it's nice to have something to do to procrastinate; I hate intellectual dishonesty and so coming back to see that post after burying one of my dogs pretty much put me into conniption.
This kind of stuff seems out of place here so after this I quit; I submit as a parting shot in my defense that the post I replied to was every bit as flawed as I claimed it was.
This was textbook destruction of a poorly argued line of reasoning. Hope to see a lot more of you around here, the BS needs to be called out on the regular.
Education certainly can make a difference. However, let's consider the problems that you have in lower income school districts.
* Increased child abuse * Poorer nutrition. * Lower chance of a safety net. My parents helped me out with college expenses and I stayed at home, so I only had to work every other semester, taking challenging semesters off. I contrast that to friends who were working full time jobs making very little and taking as many hours as they could. It was a lot easier path for me, and it was still easier for families who sent their children off to school fully paid with spending money.
Great people will overcome these barriers, but there's a reason that middle class parents raise middle class children. Let's say that a series of median teachers would pass on students that make 1.2 million over their lifetimes, graduating high school on average. * Let's say that median teacher in a wealthy school district passes on students that averages college degrees because their parents have them, and those who don't are balanced out by those who get doctorates or MBAs or are handed their parents' businesses. As such, their studends make 2.1 million dollars in their lifetimes on average.
That's 75% more for being an average teacher.
Now, let's say that you are able to increase the average student's lifetime salary by 40% by being a great teacher. You've raised the lower income up to 1.68 million in their lifetimes, but you've raised that student from wealthier parents to nearly 3 million dollars! You have to actively decide not to pursue money in this system, even if that 40% means a world more to the lower income student than the higher income student.
* http://www.earnmydegree.com/online-education/learning-center...
* Increased child abuse * Poorer nutrition. * Lower chance of a safety net. My parents helped me out with college expenses and I stayed at home, so I only had to work every other semester, taking challenging semesters off. I contrast that to friends who were working full time jobs making very little and taking as many hours as they could. It was a lot easier path for me, and it was still easier for families who sent their children off to school fully paid with spending money.
Great people will overcome these barriers, but there's a reason that middle class parents raise middle class children. Let's say that a series of median teachers would pass on students that make 1.2 million over their lifetimes, graduating high school on average. * Let's say that median teacher in a wealthy school district passes on students that averages college degrees because their parents have them, and those who don't are balanced out by those who get doctorates or MBAs or are handed their parents' businesses. As such, their studends make 2.1 million dollars in their lifetimes on average.
That's 75% more for being an average teacher.
Now, let's say that you are able to increase the average student's lifetime salary by 40% by being a great teacher. You've raised the lower income up to 1.68 million in their lifetimes, but you've raised that student from wealthier parents to nearly 3 million dollars! You have to actively decide not to pursue money in this system, even if that 40% means a world more to the lower income student than the higher income student.
* http://www.earnmydegree.com/online-education/learning-center...
Let's say that [...] students that averages college degrees [...] make 2.1 million dollars in their lifetimes on average.
Does having a college degree increase earning power/potential? Do you have a source for that?
Does having a college degree increase earning power/potential? Do you have a source for that?
That was what the star was for. Look at the end of my comment for the link. That's one of many that I could have chosen.
Your link says, "a college degree correlates [...] to [...] salary". It is well-known that education level correlates to income. A claim that weak does not need a reference. Correlation is not causation. My question was: "Does having a college degree increase earning power/potential?" Do you know of any education/income studies that control for IQ?
middle class parents raise middle class children.
Is that always true? Do you have a source for that?
Is that always true? Do you have a source for that?
And when the wealthy districts are saturated, but there is still a strong positive return to education in poorer districts, where then does the next great-but-mercenary teacher go?
Your scenario only plays out if there is always a higher marginal return to teaching among the already-advantaged. Sorry, but lots of advantaged people are dumb and lazy, and even among those who aren't, there is a point of diminishing economic returns to their education.
Yes, the talented wealthy will be well-served under a 'human capital' system. But then teaching resources will find upside potential wherever it exists, including those areas with disastrously bad public schools today.
Your scenario only plays out if there is always a higher marginal return to teaching among the already-advantaged. Sorry, but lots of advantaged people are dumb and lazy, and even among those who aren't, there is a point of diminishing economic returns to their education.
Yes, the talented wealthy will be well-served under a 'human capital' system. But then teaching resources will find upside potential wherever it exists, including those areas with disastrously bad public schools today.
The bureaucracy needed to enforce it would be stifling. Think about the number of teachers one is going to have from elementary school to college graduation. Even if the portion was really small, you'd be talking about having well over a dozen people who are owed money for each person. Enforcing this, and tracking it (I'm sure the IRS will want their share, after all) will require a lot of government involvement. I do think the idea has some merit in principle, but I can't think of a way that it could be implemented without causing a ton more harm than good.
If you own shares of five mutual funds (a modest number for a middle-aged person with some retirement savings), you may have stock in 300 separate companies, each of which may have partly-owned subsidiaries. Somehow, all this can be handled with transaction costs of about 1-2% per year.
Who says changing teachers every year is in the best interests of the students or teachers?
Your education costs a lot more than you might think.
Lets say the average teacher has 30 students per year for 30 years, and the average student has 15 years of school. Your .1% would end up as ~6% of 100k/year. (In high school you have more teachers but they have more students, so the math still works out the same.)
Lets say the average teacher has 30 students per year for 30 years, and the average student has 15 years of school. Your .1% would end up as ~6% of 100k/year. (In high school you have more teachers but they have more students, so the math still works out the same.)
The numbers were not meant to be significant. What I meant was that people would have some combination of a flat fee (like they do now) and a fraction of future income (which they don't now). It would be a good signaling device -- a teacher confident in his ability to educate students well might accept less cash for more future income -- which would signal to parents and students that the teacher was, e.g. likely to add 5% to the average student's future income, at which point the Equity Equation applies (http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html).
I'm not sure why the number of years of school matters. Are you assuming that the student gives up 0.1% total or 0.1% for each year of teaching? In the latter case, it works out about perfectly:
30 students * 30 = 900 students
900 students * 100000 dollars / student * 0.001 = 90000 dollars
IMO, if we want to motivate teachers we should give them a bonus based on the change in students performance relative to their past performance. Teaching the Honors classes would not give them an edge because the students where already doing well and the teacher need to keep pushing them.
Anyway, your assuming all students make 100k, the average is around 50k/year and the teacher is already looking at a 60k/year pension. But, what about elementary school teachers they can wait 15 years before you are making any money. Retire after 30 years and only 1/2 or less of your students are working. In the end I think we need to recognize that pensions are really a tax on the teachers past performance as a group. As a group they get money because they did a good job as a group, but there is little direct connection.
Anyway, your assuming all students make 100k, the average is around 50k/year and the teacher is already looking at a 60k/year pension. But, what about elementary school teachers they can wait 15 years before you are making any money. Retire after 30 years and only 1/2 or less of your students are working. In the end I think we need to recognize that pensions are really a tax on the teachers past performance as a group. As a group they get money because they did a good job as a group, but there is little direct connection.
and only in the years between when the teacher retires and dies
Actually, it would probably be transferable. It's worth more if teachers can sell it -- if a student starts working, that stake represents a fraction of the next forty years worth of earnings, but the teacher might expect to spend it over the next ten (and since it is equity, rather than fixed income, it might not be an appropriate thing to own for retirement). So making it something the teacher can sell to invest the proceeds in bonds would be fine -- although they could just sell and invest in the future income of a public school teacher, which apparently has the stability of a T-Bill and the growth rate of Google.
Actually, it would probably be transferable. It's worth more if teachers can sell it -- if a student starts working, that stake represents a fraction of the next forty years worth of earnings, but the teacher might expect to spend it over the next ten (and since it is equity, rather than fixed income, it might not be an appropriate thing to own for retirement). So making it something the teacher can sell to invest the proceeds in bonds would be fine -- although they could just sell and invest in the future income of a public school teacher, which apparently has the stability of a T-Bill and the growth rate of Google.
In my view, a good teacher is still underpaid at 100K per year.
In the ideal world, the best teachers would be celebrities and their lectures/lessons would be high demand items.
Wait... Maybe it's coming... with YouTube, HubPages, and Google's 10^100 contest. Who knows.
In the ideal world, the best teachers would be celebrities and their lectures/lessons would be high demand items.
Wait... Maybe it's coming... with YouTube, HubPages, and Google's 10^100 contest. Who knows.
> In the ideal world, the best teachers would be celebrities and their lectures/lessons would be high demand items.
On a boat ride in Brugges, I heard a boat operator/philosopher expound on why it was so that teachers were paid so little, rockstars like Ozzy Osbourne were rich, and famous composers like Mozart died broke.
He said it was a question of network effects and impact. Mozart died broke because of poor money management and the inability to reach a worldwide audience.
An elementary school teacher is only paid a small amount relative to most celebrities because their impact is small. They cannot reach more 10-30 students at a time.
A baseball player is paid millions because he (through cable TV) can impact/entertain many more anonymous people indirectly.
This brings to mind the interesting question of micro-payments and distance learning - could an effective model for rock star professors be implemented, in an effective implementation of feedback-based distance learning?
On a boat ride in Brugges, I heard a boat operator/philosopher expound on why it was so that teachers were paid so little, rockstars like Ozzy Osbourne were rich, and famous composers like Mozart died broke.
He said it was a question of network effects and impact. Mozart died broke because of poor money management and the inability to reach a worldwide audience.
An elementary school teacher is only paid a small amount relative to most celebrities because their impact is small. They cannot reach more 10-30 students at a time.
A baseball player is paid millions because he (through cable TV) can impact/entertain many more anonymous people indirectly.
This brings to mind the interesting question of micro-payments and distance learning - could an effective model for rock star professors be implemented, in an effective implementation of feedback-based distance learning?
> This brings to mind the interesting question of micro-payments and distance learning - could an effective model for rock star professors be implemented, in an effective implementation of feedback-based distance learning?
There's another interesting question - what happens to the "not quite rockstar" professors/teachers?
As Sousa pointed out, recorded music reduces the number of people who can make a living playing music. (It may increase the amount of money spent by listeners.)
Note that only some things scale through distribution. Lectures may. Office hours don't. Thesis advising doesn't.
There's another interesting question - what happens to the "not quite rockstar" professors/teachers?
As Sousa pointed out, recorded music reduces the number of people who can make a living playing music. (It may increase the amount of money spent by listeners.)
Note that only some things scale through distribution. Lectures may. Office hours don't. Thesis advising doesn't.
Sousa pointed out, recorded music reduces the number of people who can make a living playing music.
He should have read his Henry Ford. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/hnfrd10.txt
In a little dark shop on a side street an old man had laboured for years making axe handles. Out of seasoned hickory he fashioned them, with the help of a draw shave, a chisel, and a supply of sandpaper. Carefully was each handle weighed and balanced. No two of them were alike. The curve must exactly fit the hand and must conform to the grain of the wood. From dawn until dark the old man laboured. His average product was eight handles a week, for which he received a dollar and a half each. And often some of these were unsaleable--because the balance was not true.
To-day you can buy a better axe handle, made by machinery, for a few cents. And you need not worry about the balance. They are all alike--and every one is perfect. Modern methods applied in a big way have not only brought the cost of axe handles down to a fraction of their former cost--but they have immensely improved the product.
Like the machine-made, to the artisan-made, axe handle, recorded music is vastly superior to live music - especially given today's digital recording and distribution systems. Leveraging mass distribution, a musician today can afford the luxury of honing a fine product. A live performance is rarely a fine product. It is usually middling in quality, and often below middling. It is usually expensive. For those that wish to see as well as hear their music, today, with DVD and Blu Ray, the live performances that are good can be distributed in a high-quality captured form to wide audiences, at low cost.
He should have read his Henry Ford. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/hnfrd10.txt
In a little dark shop on a side street an old man had laboured for years making axe handles. Out of seasoned hickory he fashioned them, with the help of a draw shave, a chisel, and a supply of sandpaper. Carefully was each handle weighed and balanced. No two of them were alike. The curve must exactly fit the hand and must conform to the grain of the wood. From dawn until dark the old man laboured. His average product was eight handles a week, for which he received a dollar and a half each. And often some of these were unsaleable--because the balance was not true.
To-day you can buy a better axe handle, made by machinery, for a few cents. And you need not worry about the balance. They are all alike--and every one is perfect. Modern methods applied in a big way have not only brought the cost of axe handles down to a fraction of their former cost--but they have immensely improved the product.
Like the machine-made, to the artisan-made, axe handle, recorded music is vastly superior to live music - especially given today's digital recording and distribution systems. Leveraging mass distribution, a musician today can afford the luxury of honing a fine product. A live performance is rarely a fine product. It is usually middling in quality, and often below middling. It is usually expensive. For those that wish to see as well as hear their music, today, with DVD and Blu Ray, the live performances that are good can be distributed in a high-quality captured form to wide audiences, at low cost.
Sousa was quite aware of Henry Ford. Sousa's point is that superior recorded music pretty much destroyed "music in the small".
Music isn't much like an axe handle. Is teaching?
Don't get me wrong - I think that distributing good lectures is a great thing. Rock-star lecturers will do extremely well and ordinary ones will have to find something else to do.
However, there's more to education than lectures. The question is what happens to the rest and to education as a whole when lectures come through a separate channel.
Music isn't much like an axe handle. Is teaching?
Don't get me wrong - I think that distributing good lectures is a great thing. Rock-star lecturers will do extremely well and ordinary ones will have to find something else to do.
However, there's more to education than lectures. The question is what happens to the rest and to education as a whole when lectures come through a separate channel.
I think recording music has actually helped the indie scene. More independent bands are able to make a living because they have a wider sphere of influence. They are able to tour more places and get more people to their shows.
It's a lot easier to carve out a small niche if you have access to a lot of people. Lets say that a band's fan base can reliably get x number of their fans to their shows every six months. Well, those fans will bring their friends, and promotions will get more people into the show who think they might be interested in the music. Well, most of those newcomers won't want to see that band has often as the fans do. So a band would get more people if their fans were spread out. because more of the surrounding community would be willing to support.
I personally am not interested some of the concerts that they have had at my college, but I've gone to them before with friends. I'm sure I would not be interested in seeing those artists again if they were local and played more shows.
It's a lot easier to carve out a small niche if you have access to a lot of people. Lets say that a band's fan base can reliably get x number of their fans to their shows every six months. Well, those fans will bring their friends, and promotions will get more people into the show who think they might be interested in the music. Well, most of those newcomers won't want to see that band has often as the fans do. So a band would get more people if their fans were spread out. because more of the surrounding community would be willing to support.
I personally am not interested some of the concerts that they have had at my college, but I've gone to them before with friends. I'm sure I would not be interested in seeing those artists again if they were local and played more shows.
Music isn't much like an axe handle.
Artisan made:
Instances are produced one at a time. The quality varies wildly and is usually poor. The cost is high.
Machine made:
The design is perfected, and then limitless high-quality copies are made. The cost is low.
What is the relevant difference between axe-handles and music?
Is teaching [much like an axe handle]?
Yes. The above applies to teaching, as well as to music and axe-handles.
there's more to education than lectures. [...] what happens to the rest
Interactive educational software.
distributing good lectures is a great thing.
By the way, lectures are often written by pharmaceutical companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#Controv...
Lecture scripts and even journal articles presented by academic researchers may actually be 'ghost-written' by pharmaceutical companies.
Artisan made:
Instances are produced one at a time. The quality varies wildly and is usually poor. The cost is high.
Machine made:
The design is perfected, and then limitless high-quality copies are made. The cost is low.
What is the relevant difference between axe-handles and music?
Is teaching [much like an axe handle]?
Yes. The above applies to teaching, as well as to music and axe-handles.
there's more to education than lectures. [...] what happens to the rest
Interactive educational software.
distributing good lectures is a great thing.
By the way, lectures are often written by pharmaceutical companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#Controv...
Lecture scripts and even journal articles presented by academic researchers may actually be 'ghost-written' by pharmaceutical companies.
> What is the relevant difference between axe-handles and music?
Music is more than a product -- live performance is a social experience, not just private consumption. People go to see bands live for many reasons other than the rendition of notes they could get from a recording: they flirt with other concert-goers, they experience mistakes and improvisations by the artists, and they drink and dance in public.
Similarly, good teaching is not a solitary or entirely reproducible event. The best teachers I've ever had were the ones who could get students talking to each other, generating and assessing ideas faster than any one pupil could alone. You can't get the same experience reading a textbook or watching time-delayed streaming video of a lecture. I'm not even entirely convinced that online interaction can pull it off, at least in areas like history and the arts, where subjective and emotional arguments are just as critical as hard logic.
Music is more than a product -- live performance is a social experience, not just private consumption. People go to see bands live for many reasons other than the rendition of notes they could get from a recording: they flirt with other concert-goers, they experience mistakes and improvisations by the artists, and they drink and dance in public.
Similarly, good teaching is not a solitary or entirely reproducible event. The best teachers I've ever had were the ones who could get students talking to each other, generating and assessing ideas faster than any one pupil could alone. You can't get the same experience reading a textbook or watching time-delayed streaming video of a lecture. I'm not even entirely convinced that online interaction can pull it off, at least in areas like history and the arts, where subjective and emotional arguments are just as critical as hard logic.
> What is the relevant difference between axe-handles and music?
Interaction: calling back to the singer, requesting a song. Fidelity: being right there. Shared experience: being right there with a whole bunch of other excited people.
I've had tremendously emotional experiences listening to recorded music, but none so potent as hearing the same song live.
You might extend this to teaching: a recording of even the greatest lecturer can't answer your question.
Further to the discussion, though: mass production increased the base quality of tools like axes and knives, and improved efficiency. However, if you want something bespoke, mass production doesn't care. I like my semi- and full-custom knives: they were made for me, according to my specifications. Modern tooling can bridge the gap, too, yielding full-custom items of the same quality as mass-produced items.
Interaction: calling back to the singer, requesting a song. Fidelity: being right there. Shared experience: being right there with a whole bunch of other excited people.
I've had tremendously emotional experiences listening to recorded music, but none so potent as hearing the same song live.
You might extend this to teaching: a recording of even the greatest lecturer can't answer your question.
Further to the discussion, though: mass production increased the base quality of tools like axes and knives, and improved efficiency. However, if you want something bespoke, mass production doesn't care. I like my semi- and full-custom knives: they were made for me, according to my specifications. Modern tooling can bridge the gap, too, yielding full-custom items of the same quality as mass-produced items.
And if Sousa were right, the country wouldn't now be full of clubs, bars, cafes and concert halls where live music is performed, and there'd be nothing to play on the radio (or, okay, download on Bittorrent). Music scales through distribution.
> And if Sousa were right, the country wouldn't now be full of clubs, bars, cafes and concert halls where live music is performed
Compared to Sousa's time, the country isn't "full" of places where live music is performed. It's practically empty.
In his time, every bar had live music every night. Today, most don't any night, and most of the ones that do only have it on weekends.
Even fairly small companies had bands - big ones had one or more at every facility. I can't think of three established companies that have bands today. (A group of people getting together to jam at the company party doesn't count.)
We may hear more music today, but people heard far more live music before recorded music caught on.
Compared to Sousa's time, the country isn't "full" of places where live music is performed. It's practically empty.
In his time, every bar had live music every night. Today, most don't any night, and most of the ones that do only have it on weekends.
Even fairly small companies had bands - big ones had one or more at every facility. I can't think of three established companies that have bands today. (A group of people getting together to jam at the company party doesn't count.)
We may hear more music today, but people heard far more live music before recorded music caught on.
> Today, most don't any night, and most of the ones that do only have it on weekends.
When I visited Portland, I was amazed at the multiple, majority no-cost free music every night of the week
When I visited Portland, I was amazed at the multiple, majority no-cost free music every night of the week
> When I visited Portland, I was amazed
suggests that your experience in Portland was different from what you are used to.
Some places do have lots of live music. (Nashville and Austin are also big.) However, they're the exceptions these days.
suggests that your experience in Portland was different from what you are used to.
Some places do have lots of live music. (Nashville and Austin are also big.) However, they're the exceptions these days.
Man, I had no idea. Where'd you hear/read about this?
A system of seniority-based pay, negotiated between two monopolistic cartels, does not sound like the best way to ensure that someone is paid $100K for being a "good teacher".
The problem is, it's a heck of a hard task to determine who is a good teacher. How would you do it?
Give bonuses and raises to teachers who's students perform well on standardized tests? That just encourages teaching to the book.
Student evaluations? Then the teachers are obliged to suck up to the students for good ratings.
Leave it up to administrators? That creates huge potential for bias and currying for favor. At least when that happens in a for-profit company, the free market will shake out the worst cases eventually.
Seniority is not a great way to determine pay, but it's not an absolutely terrible way either, as generally, more experienced teachers ARE better teachers.
Give bonuses and raises to teachers who's students perform well on standardized tests? That just encourages teaching to the book.
Student evaluations? Then the teachers are obliged to suck up to the students for good ratings.
Leave it up to administrators? That creates huge potential for bias and currying for favor. At least when that happens in a for-profit company, the free market will shake out the worst cases eventually.
Seniority is not a great way to determine pay, but it's not an absolutely terrible way either, as generally, more experienced teachers ARE better teachers.
Seniority is not a great way to determine pay, but it's not an absolutely terrible way either, as generally, more experienced teachers ARE better teachers.
I don't actually know how long the teachers I had in grade school had been teaching, but if experience can be roughly estimated by age then I am not convinced there's any correlation between experience and quality. I had a lot of great young teachers and a lot of rotten old ones.
I don't actually know how long the teachers I had in grade school had been teaching, but if experience can be roughly estimated by age then I am not convinced there's any correlation between experience and quality. I had a lot of great young teachers and a lot of rotten old ones.
I like the idea of comparing a students score on a standardized test before and after the teacher. And, adding in a long term effect so students from 2+ years down the line also impact your evaluation. IMO, it's going to be hard to teach to this test and next years test without covering the subject in some detail. Also by inspiring students to really enjoy the subject you will improve their long term performance. Basically take 30 students at 50% up to 55%, that's great, and if they keep getting 55 percentile for the next 5 years you probably did a great job.
PS: Students at the edges students will tend to regress to the mean, so you can still measure performance on a class that scored 95% last year.
PS: Students at the edges students will tend to regress to the mean, so you can still measure performance on a class that scored 95% last year.
Its easy to train students to perform better on tests by teaching them things orthogonal to the actual material.
Further, you can "teach to the test" by giving students only classes of problems that will appear on the test and drilling them in that and little else. I imagine that you could end up with lots of functional-illiteracy type issues where students would only be able to do a task in the tightly controlled circumstances that they have been trained on but have difficulty generalizing.
Further, you can "teach to the test" by giving students only classes of problems that will appear on the test and drilling them in that and little else. I imagine that you could end up with lots of functional-illiteracy type issues where students would only be able to do a task in the tightly controlled circumstances that they have been trained on but have difficulty generalizing.
That depends on the test.
A simple multiple choice test covering vary limited subject matter is one option, but we can do better than that. I remember taking a vary comprehensive series of tests when I was !10 years old that included such things as attempting to sound out words that don't exist in English. Granted, the possibility of extremely high quality testing in this country is one thing, I suspect the actual creation of standardized tests in the public school system has become extremely political.
PS: I think AP tests are fairly good indicators of their subject matter. Even teachers who "teach to the test" still cover the subject to an acceptable degree.
A simple multiple choice test covering vary limited subject matter is one option, but we can do better than that. I remember taking a vary comprehensive series of tests when I was !10 years old that included such things as attempting to sound out words that don't exist in English. Granted, the possibility of extremely high quality testing in this country is one thing, I suspect the actual creation of standardized tests in the public school system has become extremely political.
PS: I think AP tests are fairly good indicators of their subject matter. Even teachers who "teach to the test" still cover the subject to an acceptable degree.
Pretty much any test is teachable. I raised my ACT scores by 3 or 4 points with some studying. Even IQ test are teachable. I believe taking the WAIS IV for a second will invalidate it if taken sooner than six months prior to the first testing date.
Wikipedia link on validity:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(psychometric)#Factors...
Wikipedia link on validity:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(psychometric)#Factors...
If there's no way to determine who is a good teacher, and no way to pay good teachers the right amount of money, it seems to me that we ought to cap teacher salaries at $30K plus a cost of living adjustment. I know a lot of people who want to be teachers and don't care about the money; I know plenty of teachers who complain that they're overpaid, but can't find any job that matches their skills and pays more than about 40% less than they currently make.
And if you pay for seniority, you're rewarding people who know how to make themselves hard to get rid of.
And if you pay for seniority, you're rewarding people who know how to make themselves hard to get rid of.
At universities and colleges it is like that. While bad professors struggle with pathetic attendance numbers, "celebrity" profs have to book rooms far larger than their enrollment numbers just to account for all the others who drop in and listen.
It's a little bit of a chicken and egg situation. At the college level students are willing to go out of the way to attend a lecture that they know will be good. How many high school students have the freedom and motivation to do the same?
It's a little bit of a chicken and egg situation. At the college level students are willing to go out of the way to attend a lecture that they know will be good. How many high school students have the freedom and motivation to do the same?
Teachers are respected like that in Finland.
I completely disagree. The best teachers should be compensated, but there is no reason to spend 100k on high elementary school & high school teachers... Hell you could have a grad student teaching the course -- the material isn't hard. The trick is getting the kids to work and be motivated, and that's primarily caused by setting high standards and having parents emphasize the importance of education.
The trick is getting the kids to work and be motivated, and that's primarily caused by setting high standards and having parents emphasize the importance of education.
I think a good (grade school) teacher is not necessarily one who is an expert in the material (though, of course, base competence is necessary) but one who is an expert in motivating and engaging students.
I think a good (grade school) teacher is not necessarily one who is an expert in the material (though, of course, base competence is necessary) but one who is an expert in motivating and engaging students.
Bill Gates disagrees.
"It is amazing how big a difference a great teacher makes versus an ineffective one. If you want your child to get the best education possible, it is actually more important to get him assigned to a great teacher than to a great school." Bill Gates
http://2mm.typepad.com/usa/2009/01/it-is-amazing-how-big-a-d...
"It is amazing how big a difference a great teacher makes versus an ineffective one. If you want your child to get the best education possible, it is actually more important to get him assigned to a great teacher than to a great school." Bill Gates
http://2mm.typepad.com/usa/2009/01/it-is-amazing-how-big-a-d...
While I believe its true, I still don't think good teachers are worth 100k/year. That's way too high. That's higher than any other basic profession except doctor/lawyer, and there are certainly some doctors and lawyers that don't make that much, e.g., public defenders.
This argument still makes no sense to me. Teachers are in an obvious and direct way responsible for producing the next generation of doctors, lawyers, and computer programmers. How can we then in good conscience refuse to pay them as much as people working in those fields?
Think of it this way: in private firms, employees who demonstrate mastery of both their own specialization and "people skills" are promoted to management, so that they can guide and support the next generation of workers. They are paid more for this than their employees, in part due to the fact that not everyone can do what they do. Similarly, teachers have to balance knowledge of the actual material being taught, and all the "soft" skills of classroom management: facilitating discussions, maintaining discipline, keeping emotions and energy on an even keel.
Any manager who could effectively herd 30+ techies would be lauded as worth their weight in gold; why then isn't a teacher who does the same thing with as many children (a harder task, to be sure) appreciated as the deft administrator they must be?
Think of it this way: in private firms, employees who demonstrate mastery of both their own specialization and "people skills" are promoted to management, so that they can guide and support the next generation of workers. They are paid more for this than their employees, in part due to the fact that not everyone can do what they do. Similarly, teachers have to balance knowledge of the actual material being taught, and all the "soft" skills of classroom management: facilitating discussions, maintaining discipline, keeping emotions and energy on an even keel.
Any manager who could effectively herd 30+ techies would be lauded as worth their weight in gold; why then isn't a teacher who does the same thing with as many children (a harder task, to be sure) appreciated as the deft administrator they must be?
While it would be great if the world revolved around what we should and shouldn't do, the reality is that it revolves more around what we can and can't do. By and large, economics are responsible for what people make, not what we feel they should get paid.
But you're comparing exceptional teachers to average doctors/lawyers. The people that could be great teachers have a lot of good alternatives, so if you want good teachers to teach, you need to reduce their opportunity cost by paying more.
Then you have to ask yourself should these great teachers be teaching average students, or should they only be teaching the best? Or should they be incentivised into going into science or engineering? These are tough questions, I honestly think the best scenario would be for top engineers and scientists (practicing) to mentor students, and help them see the big picture/inspire them while their teachers train them in the skills necessary.
You just described a top Collage like MIT.
But teachers pay is only a function of seniority. The system doesn't care whether a teacher is good or bad, the pay's the same if they've been in the job as long.
Most people simply do not want to work in an environment like that.
Most people simply do not want to work in an environment like that.
"That's higher than any other basic profession except doctor/lawyer"... and computer programmer.
Assuming that pay is tied to performance and the material being taught is relevant (two huge problems,) a good teacher more than pays for their salary in the increased productive output of their students.
Assuming that pay is tied to performance and the material being taught is relevant (two huge problems,) a good teacher more than pays for their salary in the increased productive output of their students.
but there is no reason to spend 100k on high elementary school & high school teachers... Hell you could have a grad student teaching the course -- the material isn't hard.
I would have thought it obvious that "hardness of the material" has little to do with what makes a great elementary school or even high school teacher.
I would have thought it obvious that "hardness of the material" has little to do with what makes a great elementary school or even high school teacher.
Paying as little as you can get away with isn't always the best policy.
Why? It would seem to me that you should always pay as little as you can get away with, and that that statement can always be made true by revising the qualification "as you can get away with". In other words, if paying as little as you can get away with causes some negative effect, then you aren't really getting away with it, so to speak.
> In my view, a good teacher is still underpaid at 100K per year.
Teach for America throws inexperienced recent liberal arts grads into teaching and pays them peanuts. They generally outperform experienced teachers.
Teachers are generally over-paid, I think. The problem is really that nobody with ability would choose to work in such a bureaucratic shit-show. It's not the money.
I bet lots of SUPER qualified people would go for a four year stint in teaching. Retired people, young mothers looking for reduced hours for a couple years, or recently cashed out entrepreneurs, or whatever. The bureaucracy currently precludes this.
Teach for America throws inexperienced recent liberal arts grads into teaching and pays them peanuts. They generally outperform experienced teachers.
Teachers are generally over-paid, I think. The problem is really that nobody with ability would choose to work in such a bureaucratic shit-show. It's not the money.
I bet lots of SUPER qualified people would go for a four year stint in teaching. Retired people, young mothers looking for reduced hours for a couple years, or recently cashed out entrepreneurs, or whatever. The bureaucracy currently precludes this.
How many of those inexperienced teachers stick with it? I know plenty of people who taught for a year or two and then left.
The system seems to punish new teachers and the job sucks even at 100k/year let alone what they start at. The types of skills that make a great teacher are in high demand. Many great teachers would also make a great consultants and where I work 200k/year is not that rare for senior people. Hell, at 28 I am 2 promotions from that pay grade.
PS: We need to compare teachers to other collage educated professions not just random call center / factory workers with lots of supervision.
The system seems to punish new teachers and the job sucks even at 100k/year let alone what they start at. The types of skills that make a great teacher are in high demand. Many great teachers would also make a great consultants and where I work 200k/year is not that rare for senior people. Hell, at 28 I am 2 promotions from that pay grade.
PS: We need to compare teachers to other collage educated professions not just random call center / factory workers with lots of supervision.
In a system in which learners could shop for the most suitable schools, the best teachers would make much more than $100K, while other current teachers would change careers, all to the good of learners.
http://learninfreedom.org/school_state.html
http://learninfreedom.org/school_state.html
I worry that the criteria for successful teachers will instead be teachers that are easy or social instead of effective teachers.
I have definitely taken languages classes where I hated the teachers (the class was hard!) but I learned a great deal and actually have pretty good recall years later. If I had been able to bail out and go join my friends in the class taught by the easy teacher I would have, but I certainly would not have learned anything.
In fact, now that I think about it, I think such a system would probably encourage a trend toward treating schooling as a sort of nationalized childcare program, as the money and rewards would go to teachers (and schools) where students are allowed to float through. You can argue all you want about how much you enjoy learning, but I imagine that the vast majority of the people in my high school could have cared less. (There are similar arguments for why private schools do better than public schools: private schools are primarily composed of the kids/families that actually care about what said student is learning.)
I have definitely taken languages classes where I hated the teachers (the class was hard!) but I learned a great deal and actually have pretty good recall years later. If I had been able to bail out and go join my friends in the class taught by the easy teacher I would have, but I certainly would not have learned anything.
In fact, now that I think about it, I think such a system would probably encourage a trend toward treating schooling as a sort of nationalized childcare program, as the money and rewards would go to teachers (and schools) where students are allowed to float through. You can argue all you want about how much you enjoy learning, but I imagine that the vast majority of the people in my high school could have cared less. (There are similar arguments for why private schools do better than public schools: private schools are primarily composed of the kids/families that actually care about what said student is learning.)
trend toward treating schooling as a sort of nationalized childcare program
You don't think that trend is already here? The parents I know who are shopping for more academics in their children's school programs have very limited scope of choice to look for something better, as something better has little incentive currently even to be offered.
You don't think that trend is already here? The parents I know who are shopping for more academics in their children's school programs have very limited scope of choice to look for something better, as something better has little incentive currently even to be offered.
As someone who spent most of my primary school years in "gifted student" magnet programs (like, I suspect, many other HN readers), this appeals to me personally. However, I have it on good authority from actual teachers that separating students according to interest and aptitude disadvantages the average and below-average students greatly, while providing only minimal benefit to the best students.
I have it on good authority from actual teachers that separating students according to interest and aptitude disadvantages the average and below-average students greatly
This is commonly said by teachers, but there is not a research base to back up this statement. There is a considerable research base (especially from cross-national comparisons) to suggest that grouping students by readiness at a given time benefits all learners.
http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Research/Bibliography/
This is commonly said by teachers, but there is not a research base to back up this statement. There is a considerable research base (especially from cross-national comparisons) to suggest that grouping students by readiness at a given time benefits all learners.
http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Research/Bibliography/
Public education often inadvertently acts as an amplifier for class differences, but your system seems designed to that end. What would be the upside of that? Upper-class and lower-class kids' paths would start to diverge at a very young age, and the kids couldn't very well be held responsible for the result. Anything that cements class differences like that would mean giving up the pretense of equal opportunity, which would create political pressure to officially recognize the existence of different classes with different obligations and different claims on the state. It sounds like a nightmare. Why not try to give a good education to kids even if their families didn't teach them the value of it?
Why not try to give a good education to kids even if their families didn't teach them the value of it?
Fully agreed with the goal. And in fact the newly industrialized countries of east Asia (where I lived for many years) are conspicuous in reaching this goal. But they are also conspicuous in ability grouping of a certain kind (although with higher expectations for the below-average students than the United States has for above-average students) and for a substantial degree of family-chosen, privately funded supplemental education after school hours. My claim is that the instrumentality I propose, letting state funding follow the learner and letting the learner choose the provider of schooling with the program best suited for the learner, actually better achieves your commendable goal of providing all learners with a better education.
Fully agreed with the goal. And in fact the newly industrialized countries of east Asia (where I lived for many years) are conspicuous in reaching this goal. But they are also conspicuous in ability grouping of a certain kind (although with higher expectations for the below-average students than the United States has for above-average students) and for a substantial degree of family-chosen, privately funded supplemental education after school hours. My claim is that the instrumentality I propose, letting state funding follow the learner and letting the learner choose the provider of schooling with the program best suited for the learner, actually better achieves your commendable goal of providing all learners with a better education.
You're talking about cultures that already value education, hard work, and obedience to elders. I'm talking about Americans. We have less automatic respect for elders, so poor parents have very little credibility with their kids. Poor kids tend to disregard their parents' urgings to get an education -- in the American mentality, you don't get ahead by paying attention to broke-ass chumps. (Kids still unconsciously emulate their parents, but that's also bad news for the lower class.)
Americans are capitalists -- we only do things when we understand the investment and have confidence in the return. The more educated and successful the parents, the more credibility they have, and the more likely their kids are to work hard in school. Plus, the main effect is still emulation, which works in their favor. So the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
It would help if poor kids had some exposure to normal well-off people, but their only exposure is through television, and normal people are frickin' boring on TV and therefore invisible. People glamorous enough to shine on TV tend to be terrible role models.
Americans are capitalists -- we only do things when we understand the investment and have confidence in the return. The more educated and successful the parents, the more credibility they have, and the more likely their kids are to work hard in school. Plus, the main effect is still emulation, which works in their favor. So the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
It would help if poor kids had some exposure to normal well-off people, but their only exposure is through television, and normal people are frickin' boring on TV and therefore invisible. People glamorous enough to shine on TV tend to be terrible role models.
In a system in which learners could shop for the most suitable schools
That's the way it would be if all schooling were on online. Naturally, there would be no physical schools, but children not logging-in from home might use local commercial generic offices for internet access, just as some telecommuters do. From the local generic office, children could still log-in to the school of their choice. Since the school choices could be worldwide, the number of schools available to choose from might number in the millions.
That's the way it would be if all schooling were on online. Naturally, there would be no physical schools, but children not logging-in from home might use local commercial generic offices for internet access, just as some telecommuters do. From the local generic office, children could still log-in to the school of their choice. Since the school choices could be worldwide, the number of schools available to choose from might number in the millions.
FTA: you get $100k/yr as a teacher after working at the same job for ~30 years. A sweet pension is also possible -- although who knows whether this is still the case or will last.
This isn't terribly uncommon, particularly for senior teachers in well-to-do suburban school districts. The "teachers are one step away from starvation" meme is, well, suffice it to say it was never universal and that we have excellent PR in a lot of ways.
As to whether this will last or not: well, that pension has been available for thirty of the last thirty years. One of the two political parties in the United States would rather scrape out its belly with a rusty fork before seriously taking a whack at teachers unions, and the other is the Democrats[1]. I'm not predicting rapid change with respect to the employment market for teachers in the US.
Do you want to be the political candidate cutting education funding and then facing, quite literally, a NEA warchest and a small army of very popular people in your district who you just made enemies of for life? Who will mention, in a totally non-partisan and objectively true manner, that you are cutting funding for the school Little Davey attends? To Little Davey's dotting parents?
[1]: Edited to add -- in deference to readers from outside the US, I should add the common knowledge that makes the joke work (at the expense of killing the funny): there are two major political parties in the United States, Republicans and Democrats. Organized labor and, in particular, the national teachers unions are inseparable from the Democratic Party.
As to whether this will last or not: well, that pension has been available for thirty of the last thirty years. One of the two political parties in the United States would rather scrape out its belly with a rusty fork before seriously taking a whack at teachers unions, and the other is the Democrats[1]. I'm not predicting rapid change with respect to the employment market for teachers in the US.
Do you want to be the political candidate cutting education funding and then facing, quite literally, a NEA warchest and a small army of very popular people in your district who you just made enemies of for life? Who will mention, in a totally non-partisan and objectively true manner, that you are cutting funding for the school Little Davey attends? To Little Davey's dotting parents?
[1]: Edited to add -- in deference to readers from outside the US, I should add the common knowledge that makes the joke work (at the expense of killing the funny): there are two major political parties in the United States, Republicans and Democrats. Organized labor and, in particular, the national teachers unions are inseparable from the Democratic Party.
I wouldnt be surprised if there's a few kids at that very same school making 100k a year. I was hacking for 30/hr in my spare time in high school (10 years ago), and these days, all a kid needs is a bit of motivation to learn all the web development stack and start consulting.
Downmodded because 100k is quite a stretch. 30$/hr in your spare time != 100k. And most college graduates aren't even making that much.
First, senior teachers control the unions and take care of themselves at the expense of younger teachers -- it's disgusting. A salary spread of $50k to $100k is too much for the same job, and I never noticed older teachers being much more effective than teachers with five years of experience.
Second, the unions have convinced teachers that any measurement of quality will be inaccurate, arbitrary, and a front for administrators' political and personal animosity. Hey, welcome to the real world! Most professionals work in jobs where performance is subjective and difficult to measure. It isn't as bad as you imagine, except when it is, and then you get a different job. It wouldn't ruin education any more than it has ruined law, medicine, engineering, or any other profession where objective measurements of performance are problematic.