site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   32636 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am more qualified than the average high school teacher to teach any of math, physics, or computer science, at least -- I have a BSc, and therefore would need at least 2 years of indoctrination at the Education department before I would be allowed to teach high school in my jurisdiction.

I am a smart slacker, and could certainly get into earning ~80k p.a. for short days and summers off -- indeed I considered it prior to getting into remote software development. (yes I know most teachers do a lot of work outside of school hours -- they are not smart slackers)

But two more years of university is a bridge too far, so I find something else to do -- I submit that the population of people like me is much larger than the one that pursued teachers certificates -- so much so that even if there is no selection effect against being smart and nuanced in the teacher's certificate population, you would have many more such people considering teaching if you removed the need for an education diploma.

I hope this is clear?

Two more years is probably too long, and there's too damn much indoctrination going on, but in reality you can't just walk out of your college degree course and into a classroom and start teaching.

You can try, and this is the fun part of seeing student teachers doing practical work becasue the twenty or thirty eager little blossoms sitting before them in the classroom are quite likely to try and drive them crazy just for fun, but you do need practical instruction in pedagogical methods, supervision by experienced teachers, and learning how to control the little - darlings so they'll sit down, shut up, and learn something.

Two more years is probably too long, and there's too damn much indoctrination going on, but in reality you can't just walk out of your college degree course and into a classroom and start teaching.

What about 10-20 years in industry? I would be an excellent CS teacher, and I'm quite sure I could wrangle math/physics to at the very least the low bar set by teaching diploma recipients who happened to take a couple of such courses at the 1-200 level during their four year indoctrination.

If you're talking about further/continuing education for adults, I'd agree. (Even 20 year olds might or might not be capable of sitting down, shutting up and learning).

But if we mean "average bunch of 12-15 year old kids, particularly boys" then nope. You can't use "your job depends on you not openly sassing your boss, which is me" against them to get them to sit down, shut up, and learn.

But I have a secret superweapon -- I was a 12-15 y.o. boy, and know what kind of thing they are interested in. This allows me to manipulate them into learning stuff without making the mistake of trying to be bossy. (which was pretty common with the teacher-teachers at my high school anyways, as I recall)

I do think that 'actual deep knowledge of the material' is a pretty significant advantage here -- kids can tell when you are just regurgitating the textbook at them and don't actually know what you are talking about -- which I would think would be quite common in someone who has a four-year teaching degree with a couple of STEM electives in the mix teaching grade 11/12 physics/math/CS/Chemistry/etc.

Yes, I understand that your suggestion would increase the supply of teachers. But what I expressed skepticism about was that it would improve education. How is it that attracting slackers will improve education? I taught high school for many years, and there is no way that a slacker is going to be an effective teacher, with the possible exception of someone who is a genius.

I did specify smart slackers -- the goal is to provide some diversity of thought. Based on what I'm seeing with my kid that's going through this right now, this would be much more impactful than any 'quality' boost provided by teacher training. You think that I need two years of diploma to teach high school algebra? I'm already teaching it to my kid because his actual teachers seem to be failing miserably.

The teaching certificate may provide some sort of quality control, so you'd want to replace it with IQ and subject-matter tests (although those might be racist).

I (and probably gdanning) agree this would be a net benefit. But I think it'd close more like 5% of the gap between 'very intelligent teachers' and 'where we are now'. There are a four million teachers in the united states!

Also, why do we want very-smart teachers teaching not-smart students? It's probably better for 'society' that your time be used developing software, even if that software is p=.3 useful and p=.7 optimizing ads for video games or something.

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?

High school students seem by and large incapable of writing papers these days, so Bob's approach seems like either a waste of time or a way to fail 90% of the history class. (or both) The scantrons at least will teach the students to get a decent grade on their AP exams.

A smart slacker will probably find some sort of middle ground -- but 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.

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?

The scantrons at least will teach the students to get a decent grade on their AP exams.

They'll teach the students how to best guess and get a reasonable result on a mechanised test. They won't teach them anything about the subject.

If we want to produce kids who are "I can just look it up on Google anyway" when they go to work, okay. This may even work 'good enough' for some things. But it's not education.

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.

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.

Well I am mostly advocating against teaching degrees -- strike the 'slacker' comment from the preceeding conversation if you like; it was mostly playful rhetoric anyways. Maybe you will get hardworking history grads who's other option is baristadom.

Finally, I note that you did not answer my question.

I thought it was fairly clear that my answer was 'mu'?

Neither of those teaching methods are bad per se -- it mostly depends on the teacher's knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject.

My AP Western Civ teacher was no dummy, and not lazy -- I think he taught his other history classes in a Bob-ish way. (although I doubt he ever had 150 essays to grade, and I'm absolutely positive that he didn't spend 6*40 hour weeks per year on that.) But as AP History is (mostly? I forget) a scantron test, he taught us how to get fives on that first and foremost. He also had an amazing depth of knowledge on European history, and was happy to go down whatever rabbitholes in class time. The test/assignment balance was irrelevant to whether he was a good teacher or not -- as was his teaching degree.

But as AP History is (mostly? I forget) a scantron test, he taught us how to get fives on that first and foremost.

I had no idea of the state of American education. I'm not intimately familiar with how Irish education in the classroom is today, but at least we have not yet moved to scantron tests. Not yet. Some of them are used for job assessments in some areas (I did one for a civil service application) but those are more "weeding out the vast pool of applicants to get a list to further trim down to call for interview".

Scantron test for the advanced subject where you don't learn the deeper level of the subject sounds a nightmare. At least when I did Honours subjects for our national exams, it really was 'learn at a deeper level'.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. If he truly taught you how to get 5s, first and foremost, then he was not doing his job properly, IMHO.

Then we disagree -- 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.

The point of that story is that the two are not mutually exclusive -- pretty much everything I know about non-Canadian history is because of that guy; he was an excellent teacher, and capable of teaching both ways. Neither way was 'better'.

And I don't know why you think that I think I'm talking about my own child exclusively -- AFAICT almost all of the kids are pretty bad at math (and writing essays) these days.

More comments

teachers were paid like lawyers

In the private sector lawyers are frequently paid on their performance / success.

In the public sector, the median doesn't look too different from public education.

https://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/median/1/desc/MSPrivate

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.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats