Gdanning
3yr ago
Under the facts as you state them, no. Because you have not mentioned any benefits to anyone from disclosure. If an action only results in harm, then it seems to me that the action is wrongful. Your hypothetical would be more interesting if you posited some benefit from disclosure.
Gdanning
3yr ago
These changes can be confusing, I confess that I still have to catch myself when I start saying "Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" rather than the newfangled "Libya."
Gdanning
3yr ago
Smart & lazy (which is what I said)
Huh? If it doesn't matter, why did you offer it as a solution?
This is the part that you offered no evidence for
And yet this is the first time you have made that claim. Probably because it isn't true, because I gave examples of why a lazy teacher would likely be less effective than a nonlazy one, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.
Gdanning
3yr ago
I don't fucking care -- I would take the teacher with deep knowledge and passion for the subject
Dude, again, I am asking about what you would prefer, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. Yes, I understand that you think a teacher with deep knowledge and passion would be more effective than one without. So do I. But that isn't the question; the question is about a lazy teacher with deep knowledge and passion, versus a non-lazy teacher with deep knowledge and passion.
But a B.Ed (or whatever they call it in the US these days) in no way selects for people with deep knowledge and passion
Again, that is not what we are talking about. No one has argued in favor of requiring an education degree, or passing a credential program, or whatever. As a reminder, the OP said we need smarter teachers in order to improve education. I said, to attract smarter teachers, we need to pay more. You suggested that that would not be necessary, because smart slackers could be attracted to teaching by making it easy to become a teacher. I then responded that slackers would not make effective teachers, and that my strategy, which would attract smart non-slackers, is therefore superior. That is what we are talking about, and I still don't see anyplace where you explain why a smart slacker would be as good a teacher as a smart nonslacker.
Gdanning
3yr ago
No, they didn't. Their "point" is infantile. "Why did they mention this guy's political views but not this other guy's religious views" is a terrible argument, because they are different categories. People generally do not condemn the religious views of others; the political views of others is much more fair game. Hence, it is hardly surprising that reviews did not mention Cruise's religious views.* It is no less inane than people claiming racial bias when police crack down on gang violence but not Wall Street fraud.
I would prefer that a filmmaker's views not be mentioned at all, but OP's "argument" is pathetic..
*Assuming that they didn't. But it seems that Rolling Stone -- the very magazine that OP complained of, published this article yesterday.
Gdanning
3yr ago
In the USA, AP classes are normally offered as part of the regular curriculum. A class offered outside of school for the express purpose getting students college credit through passing AP courses is different; it is obviously going to emphasize getting college credit through passing AP courses.
it depends on the teacher, not the assignment style. Yes, but again, we are holding everything else equal. The teaching style, the curriculum; the lesson plans; everything except the work that is assigned. You have a choice between a teacher who requires students to write, and one who is otherwise identical except that he is too lazy to grade papers, so just gives scantron tests.
Gdanning
3yr ago
Again, I already agreed with this. I said that the clerks should have read the original research study.
Gdanning
3yr ago
I note that the person who made the tweet to which you link has a more charitable take, which is that "a game of telephone" will ensue.
Gdanning
3yr ago
It’s not about being “charitable” because professionals do not make these sort of mistakes.
Well, again, no one else caught the (ostensible) mistake. So, apparently, they do. But, I know that you have already made up your mind that those who you, for whatever reason, see as your "enemies" are malevolent.
Gdanning
3yr ago
the whole point of taking AP classes is getting the credit for your college application. If a teacher doesn't enable that, he is doing a bad job.
I understand that that is what some people think, but they are wrong. The point of taking AP classes is to learn more, both more content and more skills. For example, when I taught AP World History, I could have spent the last month before the test doing test review. Instead, I required students to research and write a term paper. I am very, very, skeptical that my students would have been better served by doing the former. Similarly, I did not spend class time on "how to game a multiple choice test", despite the fact that doing so would enhance AP test scores. I also required students to do a lot of writing, especially document-based questions, which required students to use evidence to support an argument, and also to identify and suggest ways to address weaknesses, lacunae, and potential biases in their evidence. I did that even though it meant that topic coverage had to be reduced. Again, I am skeptical that my students interests were not best served thereby.
And I don't know why you think that I think I'm talking about my own child exclusively
I don't. I mean the exact opposite: I asked which teacher you would chose for your own child, but your response was re which teacher might be best for the mass of students.
Gdanning
3yr ago
Let me be 100% clear. I do not agree with you
Yes, I understand that you do not agree re the broader issue. Nevertheless, the things you said in your last comment are exactly what I said. So, we agree on that. Why are you so resistant to recognizing where we agree?
They essentially wrote 2+2 = 6 in this
Again, that depends on the meaning of "high risk." And again, no one else caught it, either.
With the talent available to her the only plausible belief is she just didn’t care about accuracy and want to put absurd quotable stats on the record.
Except that a statement that having a black doctor halved mortality would have served just as well, esp for one sentence on page 23 of a 27 page concurrence. I would like to suggest that if you truly believe that that is the only plausible conclusion, then perhaps you are being insufficiently charitable towards those with whom you disagree.
Gdanning
3yr ago
You do understand, don't you, that at this point you are agreeing with me? As I said, the clerks should have double-checked the original study. And, as I said, it is very likely that "Some researcher published a paper on some obscure syndrome with tiny numbers, and the advocates writing the brief that was cited in the opinion labeled infants born therewith "high risk infants.""
Though how you know that the original paper didn’t involve "any uniform 'risks standard'" or doesn’t reproduce is unclear to me. I just looked at the original paper, and it does not use the term, "high risk" at all. Rather, it looks at the presence or absence of any of a set of comorbidities.
And that is why I am skeptical of so much of the discourse here. You seem to be so eager to dunk on your outgroup that you don't hesitate to make empirical claims that are unsupported by evidence.
Gdanning
3yr ago
As predicted, too sweeping for conservatives.
But this isn't even that, is it? According to your link, it is a "temporary hold on an issue of great importance until a panel of the court can consider the motion for a stay on the merits." So, they haven't yet considered the merits of the injunction, nor its scope, have they?
Gdanning
3yr ago
No, the vast, vast, vast majority of lawyers are paid a salary. Some can earn bonuses, but that is not where the median salary number is coming from. Besides, why does that matter: A smart hardworking lawyer can make 250k, whether that be salary or bonuses. A smart, hardworking teacher can't.
What lawyers earn in the public sector is irrelevant. The point is that smart people can earn much more in jobs other than education. Also, as noted in my reply to your other comment, the upside of lawyer salaries in the public sector is much higher than for teachers. See the linked database.
Gdanning
3yr ago
Yes, everyone knows that some get paid less. That is why I referred to median salaries.
But, for the record, the salary range for a District Attorney III in Los Angeles County is 118,000 - 163,000 per year. Moreover, of the 1000 people listed here with the job title of district attorney, it looks like 700 made base pay of 125k plus, 600 made 150k plus, and 300 made 190k plus.
Gdanning
3yr ago
I thought it was fairly clear that my answer was 'mu'?
I understood your answer to be re students en masse, as opposed to re your own child,
Neither of those teaching methods are bad per se -- it mostly depends on the teacher's knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject.
I didn't ask whether one was bad per se; I asked which is better. And, since we are only talking about the effect of slackerness, we can hold all other factors constant, including knowledge and enthusiasm.
But as AP History is (mostly? I forget) a scantron test, he taught us how to get fives on that first and foremost.
- Multiple choice is currently 40 percent of the grade. The short answer section is relatively new; there used to be one MC section and three essays. But MC was never the majority if the test.
- If he truly taught you how to get 5s, first and foremost, then he was not doing his job properly, IMHO.
Gdanning
3yr ago
And I think you are being uncharitable. Because a bunch of people did miss it. Including, apparently, Justice Thomas, who spent pages and pages criticizing Jackson's opinion.
As for high risk, it is trivially easy to think of a population that qualifies: infants born with syndrome X. And that is a very likely explanation: Some researcher published a paper on some obscure syndrome with tiny numbers, and the advocates writing the brief that was cited in the opinion labeled infants born therewith "high risk infants."
Of course, the most likely explanation is that the source that is the basis for the claim in the brief that is the basis for the claim in the opinion showed that mortality was halved, not that survial was doubled, and the clerks should have caught that, IMHO, but my HO might be wrong, because numerous people didn't catch it.
Finally, I find it suspicious, but hardly surprising given the usual level of discourse on here, that no one here has attempted to engage with the substance of her opinion (nor, for that matter, any of the opinions) and instead are focusing one one sentence on page 23 of a 29-page opinion.
Gdanning
3yr ago
Again, the citation was correct. The citation is to the amicus brief, and the amicus brief says exactly what the opinion says it does, so the citation is accurate. Whether they should have double checked the original source cited by the brief, I would say yes, but of course perhaps the original source sats that as well. And, I am entirely sure that it was the clerks who came up with the examples in the first place. She almost certainly wrote a draft and asked them to find examples to cite. That is basically what their job entails. (Sometimes, clerks write the entire first draft)
As for the claim that it is facially absurd, leaving aside that we don’t know that, since it refers to "high risk" newborns, and we don’t know what that means, the opinion was joined by two other justices, including Kagan. Which means that they, and their clerks, read it. Are they stupid, too?
Gdanning
3yr ago
QAnon being in the news of late is very much a function of who makes the news, and this is largely the same cohort that writes movie reviews for major publications
That's the point. QAnon is the flavor of the month, so a filmmaker's association with QAnon is more likely to be mentioned. Scientology is yesterday's news, the legal travails of a has-been actor notwithstanding, so a filmmaker's association with Scientology is less likely to be mentioned. This is not a new phenomenon.
in fact several governments have refused to consider it a religion, classifying it variously as a scam, a cult and even an organized criminal enterprise
- Not in the United States.
- Regardless of whether it is a cult, it is not a political organization. So, the whataboutism still doesn't work.
Gdanning
3yr ago
Bob's approach seems like either a waste of time
Well, slackers always convince themselves that hard work is a waste of time
or a way to fail 90% of the history class And what is wrong with that, if 90 percent do failing work?
the important point is that when he's like, y'know, teaching he may be able to bring some depth to the curriculum for the 10% who would benefit from it.
You seem to think that I am advocating for dumb, hardworking teachers in lieu of smart slackers. I'm not. I am advocating for smart, hardworking teachers. Because that is what you would get if teachers were paid like lawyers.
Who's a better history teacher -- someone with a history degree who did summers digging up native archeological sites, or a teaching degree and a few 2-300 level history courses?
This is a complete red herring. As I just said, I am not advocating for or against teaching degrees. I am arguing against encouraging slackers to become teachers.
Finally, I note that you did not answer my question.
Gdanning
3yr ago
Again, my point is that slackers are unlikely to be effective teachers, so a "more slackers" policy is unlikely to improve education. I an not arguing for requiring teacher training. I am arguing against encouraging slackers to become teachers.
Eg: Bob teaches history. He requires students to write 10 papers per year. With 150 students and 10 minutes to grade each paper, that is 15000 minutes of grading per year. In contrast, Joe, a slacker, gives multiple choice scantron tests. Total grading time:3000 seconds. Which teacher would you choose for your kid?
Gdanning
3yr ago
Perhaps there are 2 movies, but there are hundreds of critics to observe. n(umber of relevant entities) != 2. Yes, but I don't have that evidence. At best, I have the claim of some guy on the internet re what the evidence shows.
Oh well obviously one actor has politics they disagree with, so we should definitely control for that before determining whether critics care about actors' political opinions."
But, again, the example you raised -- Tom Cruise -- is about religious belief, not political beliefs. So, you seem to be saying that that example is not germane.Which I agree is the case.
Gdanning
3yr ago
Again, you seem to be ignoring the Teach for America examples.
Besides, I am not saying that increasing salaries is sufficient for improvement, but rather that it is necessary. After all, if you increase standards first, you will have a shortage of qualified applicants unless you also increase salaries.
And, again. I am addressing OP's complaint about dumb teachers. If smart people have lucrative options like law and medicine, few are going to go into teaching, regardless of whether standards are high, low, or in the middle.
That hasn't seemed to have harmed Häagen-Dazs, so I am not too worried.
More options
Context Copy link