Corruption in the education system

[SilentScope001]

/sigh. Teachers don't get paid much because anyone can teach. Lawmakers need a raise, however, due to the fact that we need to attract better lawmakers. It's expensive to campagin, and state lawmakers has to go and give up their dayjob to work, and are not paid a lot. I think I remember meeting a State Senator who entered into politics, and ran for election, to raise money for her school.

 

This is their line. Agree or not. Be glad that they GOT a raise.

 

This is exactly why I am an anarchist.

 

So be it. Though, here's the thing...how can you overthrow the government? If you can form an anarachical commune, I'd be glad to join up with you guys, but until then, you need to score some sort of victory. Talk is meaningless, it's action that matters.

 

(If there is some way to get out of the social contract that binds us all, I'd happily burn that contract of slavery. I find it nonsencial how we are 'free', when we are merely enlsaved to the majority. How can we be 'freed' when our money is being used to fund wars, fund teachers, fund politicans, fund roads, fund envirometnal protections, fund sactions, fund programs, fund liberals, fund conservatives, fund Social Security, fund good, fund evil...NO! I never authroized my money to be plundered to be used for the good of society, and I want the right to leave the social contract, if only on principle.

 

Yes, I realize true anarachy, letting everyone have the ability to harm each other, creates an Hobbean State of Nature where everyone gets harmed, and progress is halted...but at least we would be free, free to kill or to be killed. If a person is willing to give up freedom in order for this "security", then I think he makes a very good baragin...but he also deserves neither.)

 

Just provide people with a plan, a way to establish your "utopia"...otherwise, your hatred is, in a word, nothing.

[Jae Onasi]

You ever tried to teach, Silent?

I have. It's darn hard to do, and do well.

[JediMaster12]

Teachers don't get paid much because anyone can teach.

That is not true. As someone who works in the academic scheduling office, I'm in charge of keeping paperwork on programs organized. I have seen the stuff the College of Ed puts their students through and that is because they have to keep up with govt standards. Not just anyone can teach. With No Child Left Behind and the other legislation. There are strict standards but there are also some flaws. You have to be credentialed and meet competency, at least as how I know it in the state of California.

[SilentScope001]

You ever tried to teach, Silent?

I have. It's darn hard to do, and do well.

 

I'm not saying that it really is easy to teach, it's just common preception that teaching is easy. I actually taught classes in Sunday School, tutorted students at my high school, and I found it fun and somewhat, but not always, easy.

[Jae Onasi]

And how many hours did you put into the Sunday school class in order to be prepared? If you want to make the class interesting and informative, you can't just throw something together at the last minute.

 

When I was a TA, I had to work my butt off for the few lectures that I had to do, and it was not easy gauging how much material you need for an hour-long lecture. I can't imagine how teachers prepare plans for 6 hour days, 5 days a week, for weeks on end, plus all the other duties they have to do outside of class.

 

One-on-one teaching is very different from classroom teaching. When I taught ophthalmology residents contact lens skills, it was one-on-one with patients, and there wasn't a good way to plan because we never knew what kinds of contact lens patients we were going to see that day. However, I'd done the work on the back end in school, probably thousands of hours put in both in school work and seeing patients after completing school, in order to be able to teach the basic skills to the residents. The hardest part for me at that point was that I'd been doing those skills for enough years that a lot of it was now second nature--I had to sit and think about how to break that down in a way that was understandable for someone who'd never fit a lens ever.

 

Lecturing to a group of students takes a ton of work in and out of the class and requires a ton of prep-work. Not only do you have to prepare the lecture (which took me a long time), you have to know your subject extremely well, and you have to anticipate potential questions and be prepared for those, too. That's a challenging task.

[SilentScope001]

That's a challenging task.

 

Alright, alright. I did put in a lot of effort, and a lot of time.

 

Okay, let me change what I say. Society sees teaching as an easy job, relatively, to other more important jobs, like movie stardom. Plus, society demands movie stars more than teachers, since its preceived relative easiness. Maybe it's a supply gult problem? (I'm trying to determine why teachers get low pay...not, oh, teachers should get higher pay.)

[igyman]

In my country teachers are very well paid, especially college professors. This is another reason for my being stunned by the fact that there are corrupt teachers.

[Emperor Devon]

it isn't a gamble if you truly want to see yourself for what you are. Some people discover too little, too late what they have become.

 

"If" being the key word there. You will find that not everyone wants to take classes they would get poorer marks in. Self-discovery can be put aside for later - college grades can't.

 

And you wonder why immigrants know this things better than our own citizens. It's because we tell them they have to know this if they want to be a citizen of the US.

 

I'd question the usefulness of some of some of the things immigrants are required to know, but that's a separate topic.

 

Not necessarily if you want the higher education to get a higher paying job. Universities are now looking as far back as freshman year when they accept applicants. In the end you got to be honest with yourself and ask if it truly is worth it.

 

And following that they have no use. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue, but that wasn't the main point of the quote you addressed.

 

High school grades are merely a means to an end (in this case, a career). At that point, they're irrelevant. If you do a competent job and are an honest employee, whether you cheated through tests on the most trivial of subjects is irrelevant.

[Kas'!m]

/sigh. Teachers don't get paid much because anyone can teach. Lawmakers need a raise, however, due to the fact that we need to attract better lawmakers. It's expensive to campagin, and state lawmakers has to go and give up their dayjob to work, and are not paid a lot. I think I remember meeting a State Senator who entered into politics, and ran for election, to raise money for her school.

 

This is their line. Agree or not. Be glad that they GOT a raise.

 

 

 

So be it. Though, here's the thing...how can you overthrow the government? If you can form an anarachical commune, I'd be glad to join up with you guys, but until then, you need to score some sort of victory. Talk is meaningless, it's action that matters.

 

(If there is some way to get out of the social contract that binds us all, I'd happily burn that contract of slavery. I find it nonsencial how we are 'free', when we are merely enlsaved to the majority. How can we be 'freed' when our money is being used to fund wars, fund teachers, fund politicans, fund roads, fund envirometnal protections, fund sactions, fund programs, fund liberals, fund conservatives, fund Social Security, fund good, fund evil...NO! I never authroized my money to be plundered to be used for the good of society, and I want the right to leave the social contract, if only on principle.

 

Yes, I realize true anarachy, letting everyone have the ability to harm each other, creates an Hobbean State of Nature where everyone gets harmed, and progress is halted...but at least we would be free, free to kill or to be killed. If a person is willing to give up freedom in order for this "security", then I think he makes a very good baragin...but he also deserves neither.)

 

Just provide people with a plan, a way to establish your "utopia"...otherwise, your hatred is, in a word, nothing.

 

 

I couldn't care less about overthrowing government. I just don't want them ****ing up my life like they do everyone else's.

[Emperor Devon]

I couldn't care less about overthrowing government. I just don't want them ****ing up my life like they do everyone else's.

 

You'll find your life will be even more f***ed up if there isn't one. Why shouldn't a marauding gang steal your possessions and shoot you dead? It's not as if there's anyone to punish them or any prisons to send them too.

 

Anarchy could be an okay form of gov't if everyone was willing to respect one another's rights to property and livelihood, but I'd be deluding myself to think people are that good-natured.

[SilentScope001]

I couldn't care less about overthrowing government. I just don't want them ****ing up my life like they do everyone else's.

 

Thing is: By doing nothing, you are consenting to the social contract? Is there a way out of the social contract that allows the government to expliot you? Not necersailly overthrow, but a place to flee? Do you want to flee?

 

You'll find your life will be even more f***ed up if there isn't one. Why shouldn't a marauding gang steal your possessions and shoot you dead? It's not as if there's anyone to punish them or any prisons to send them too.

 

Actually, that's what I want. Sure, my life will go down the drain...but so will everyone else's life...and besides, I have freedom to go and try to surivie. I have the freedom to punish the maraduing gang, and to go and steal their stuff...just like they have the freedom to do such a thing. Regardless, I like this Hobbean State of Nature...because, otherwise, you will be oppressed by the government, either slightly or majorly, but still oppressed.

 

But, no, the anarchists of today want a commune where everyone has rights except the rights to go and steal and kill.

 

Anarchy could be an okay form of gov't if everyone was willing to respect one another's rights to property and livelihood, but I'd be deluding myself to think people are that good-natured.

 

It has occured on a small scale, with communes. Prehaps some of them collaspe, I think one exist in Netherlands. Never occured on a large scale though.

 

High school grades are merely a means to an end (in this case, a career). At that point, they're irrelevant. If you do a competent job and are an honest employee, whether you cheated through tests on the most trivial of subjects is irrelevant.

 

...How in the world can you be honest if you cheated, and lied to your teachers? And how can you be compentent if you don't learn the things that is needed to be known, like how the world runs?

[Kas'!m]

You'll find your life will be even more f***ed up if there isn't one. Why shouldn't a marauding gang steal your possessions and shoot you dead? It's not as if there's anyone to punish them or any prisons to send them too.

As a social Darwinist, I don't believe in punishment, and if someone steals my stuff and shoots me with a gun- which wouldn't exist without government- it is my own fault.

[Samuel Dravis]

As a social Darwinist' date=' I don't believe in punishment, and if someone steals my stuff and shoots me with a gun- which wouldn't exist without government- it is my own fault.[/quote']I'm sorry, but I am a little scared of people like you. Particularly because, going by what you said, if there is some percieved benefit to you in killing someone you'd apparently do it, regardless of other considerations. It'd be their own fault for getting in the way, eh?

 

You may not believe in punishment, but I'm sure as hell glad that punishment believes in you...

[JediMaster12]

As a social Darwinist' date=' I don't believe in punishment, and if someone steals my stuff and shoots me with a gun- which wouldn't exist without government- it is my own fault.[/quote']

To tell you the truth, Social Darwinism is nothing but a misconstruation of the concept of evolution. It is from this that people get the idea that it is survival of the fittest which is not the idea behind it. So all you really believe in is a concept that richies have created in order to justify the unequal distribution of wealth.

 

Anarchy could be an okay form of gov't if everyone was willing to respect one another's rights to property and livelihood, but I'd be deluding myself to think people are that good-natured.

We all know from experience that isn't so. Even I'd like to believe that there is some good in people but that just isn't true. With the corruption in education like the college professors that igyman mentioned, it is a good example of why we need some form of law and order in our lives.

 

I'm sorry, but I am a little scared of people like you. Particularly because, going by what you said, if there is some percieved benefit to you in killing someone you'd apparently do it, regardless of other considerations. It'd be their own fault for getting in the way, eh?

 

You may not believe in punishment, but I'm sure as hell glad that punishment believes in you...

As I mentioned before, Social Darwinism is nothing more than a mistaken attempt to justify the unequal distribution of wealth. If anyone should know about economic policies it is ED.

[Jae Onasi]

Saw this article: MBAs Are the Biggest Cheaters

 

And these are the people we'll be trusting to handle our money in the future.

[Achilles]

*is glad he decided to get his Masters in organizational management rather than business administration*

 

Thanks for the link, Jae.

[Jae Onasi]

The stat on those who've cheated in the medical field was particularly disturbing to me.

[Achilles]

Based on what I've read, it really shouldn't be. It's relatively easy to get lousy methodologies past the peer-review process. If x methodology produces y result and it's repeatable, then everything is hunky-dory. Nevermind that the scope for problem z was poorly framed and might not have anything to do with actual medical science.

 

EDIT: Because I have a hunch that you're going to ask me for a source...Link

[Jae Onasi]

Yeah, when the study came out allegedly linking prayer to poorer outcomes in heart bypass surgery patients, people made a huge deal out of it. When I looked at the methodology, however, I found out that while they had a control group that did not receive prayer through their program and 2 other experimental groups that did receive prayer through their program, the researchers did not eliminate prayer in the control group entirely. In fact, something like 97% of people in the control group did receive prayer, they just didn't receive prayer through the study. So much for control.

[Achilles]

Which one was that? I seem to recall there being at least a couple.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Yeah, when the study came out allegedly linking prayer to poorer outcomes in heart bypass surgery patients, people made a huge deal out of it.

 

 

You would not even need to look at the methodology to see that it's bogus. It may be true that there's a correlation between prayer and poorer outcomes in heart bypass surgery patients. The two variables move together. However there is no causation so it might as well be coincidence.

 

Like another example I used recently in a paper I wrote about a study liking breast cancer and wearing a bra. It was demonstrate that indeed, the number of women who had cancer and wore bras was higher then those who did not wear anything. We can all agree that it's a ridiculous joke to believe that a bra can be a cause for breast cancer. The makers of the study had evacuated every other possible cause and kept only bras and breasts as the variables. Fun for the gullible folks isn't it? Causation was never demonstrated, but correlation was.

[Jae Onasi]

Which one was that? I seem to recall there being at least a couple.

 

The Harvard study that came out in '06. I'll see if I can locate it again.

 

Edit:

http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

 

What they don't mention in the press release is that about 96% of _all_ patients believed they received prayer from outside sources--their family/friends/pastoral staff, and so on. In fact, group 2, the group supposedly not receiving prayer, actually had the highest percentage of patients believing they were receiving prayer from family/friends--96.8% as opposed to 95.0% for group 1 and 96.0% for group 3.

 

Patient Characteristics

 

Patients were enrolled between January 1998 and November 2000. Of 3295 eligible patients, 1493 did not wish to participate, and 1802 patients enrolled (Oklahoma, 548; Massachusetts, 492; Washington, DC, 284; Tennessee, 256; Minnesota, 200; Florida, 22) (Figure 1). Intercessory prayer was provided according to the protocol to 99% (1192/1205) of patients randomized to groups 1 and 3, over the course of the study period (1046 days). The overall daily mean of intercessors was 33 (range 10-58). Intercessors reported praying from 30 seconds to several hours, from 1 to 4 times per day.

 

Click to zoom

Figure 1. (click image to zoom)

 

STEP flow chart.

 

 

There were no important differences in baseline or operative characteristics ( Table I ) across the 3 groups. These characteristics are similar to those reported by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database,[24] the New York State Cardiac Surgery Reporting System,[25] and both characteristics, and our 45% refusal rate are comparable to the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation.[26]

 

Similar proportions in group 1 (68.2% [412/604]), group 2 (63.0% [376/597]), and group 3 (64.4% [387/601]) strongly agreed with the statement, “I believe in spiritual healing.” Almost all subjects believed that friends, relatives, and/or members of their religious institution would be praying for them—group 1 (95.0% [574/604]), group 2 (96.8% [579/597]), and group 3 (96.0% [577/601]).

 

Unless they were able to create a group that received absolutely no prayer whatsoever, it's impossible for the study to have any validity.