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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't fucking care -- I would take the teacher with deep knowledge and passion for the subject (my AP Western Civ guy) 10 times out of ten even if he's giving scantrons. If he's masochistic and wants to spend six full working weeks of his year grading papers, that would also be fine.
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 for particular subjects -- those people exist, and some of them would be willing to teach as a fallback (like me!) -- putting barriers in front of that is an antipattern. (and fairly new I think? there have been a lot of teachers in my family over the years, and if I'm not wrong of the ones that started pre-1950 or so around 20% of them had any kind of education degree. My grandpa has been dead fifteen years and I still run into people at the store who want to gush about how he was the best teacher they ever had -- he was a working chemist during the war and more or less walked into 'high school science teacher' in his hometown in the early fifties)
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.
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.
Smart & lazy (which is what I said) -- doesn't matter. Dumb & lazy -- doesn't matter. IT DOESN'T MATTER.
This is the part that you offered no evidence for -- that which is introduced without evidence, yadda yadda yadda
Huh? If it doesn't matter, why did you offer it as a solution?
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link