There's a cynical part of me that wonders why the bother here.

Society rewards good connections, as well as good social skills, and intellectual stuff is generally left to the campuses.

And reading lately the various NYT items and such, and Ross Douthat's book on Harvard, makes me think that the Big Push of the 1980s toward a meritocratic society has simply failed.

Perhaps better networking, rather than better grades, is the way to go.

The push for meritocracy here is pretty simple to understand... since our kids have higher abilities, it only stands to reason that, through merit, they'd inherit the earth.

The wealthy use their wealth to promote their children above others. The well-connected use their connections.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Big Push." If you're referring to the economic theory of the name, I don't think there has been an example of that in the US on a national scale since the Apollo program... unless you count the military buildup of the 1980s, which was quickly reversed towards the end of the decade.

Well the 'big push' neatly side stepped an entire cohort of young low income white men born in the 70s onward.

If you were fortunate to not be born a low income white male then I think you benefited greatly from preferential college admissions and grade inflation etc. However, a huge chunk of the population has indeed been excluded from preferential treatment due to their unfortunate accident of birth.

If 'affirmative action' looked at familial SES alone then it would get 100% of my support - it steadfastly refuses too and so it doesn't.

Certainly an interesting point for extraverts to consider; however, us poor introverts need to maintain certain delusions.

Then again some technical fields are a much more meritocratic subset of society in general where you can wallow away in the very low six figures independent of social networks, because you are just that good. In full simulation of larger society, you can also create the next big thing and catapult into entrepreneurship with very minimal capital expenditure.

What magical "rewards" are we talking about here?

Yay IT!

I also think that society rewards good connections and social skills. I think my daughter's IQ would probably be in the optimally gifted range but she was never tested. She is smart, socially connected, outgoing, attractive, and makes more money than my highly gifted stepson. Because she makes more money she can afford to travel and enjoy life. My daughter always seemed to have rich friends even in middle school when she was a cheerleader. When I was a single parent and couldn't afford vacations, her rich friends would invite her to go along with them on vacations. She meets a lot of interesting people and gets to travel. She has doctor friends, lawyer friends, older friends, younger friends, and if she has a problem with anything she has a friend she can ask for help.

I hope she can teach her little brother how to become more socially connected because I think it is just as valuable as a college degree.

Good thing, too.

I'm only bitter because lack of meritocracy that actually delivers what it promises hurts introverts disproportionately... and since a majority of super-bright people are introverts, it hurts us all as a society as well.

I don't see the shift toward non-meritocratic selection mechanisms as:
a) anything new, or
b) truly separate from the related issue of the narrowing definition of "success" and
c) of "normative" (which also throws away not only HG+ people-- but increasingly, BOYS) in classrooms.

It's all of a piece in my estimation. We are selecting for people who have been wise enough to choose their parents well, and for those who are compliant, complacent, and obedient, but gregarious schmoozers.

But I'm none of those things, and I'm pretty cynical as well.

Leaving the thinking to the academy isn't how cultures make economic advances. Just noting that.

By the way, my socially connected daughter has been telling my son that she thinks he should go to law school because her lawyer friends seemed to have the most time for travel and enjoying life. Her doctor friends make good money but are always on call.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Sadly, I have to reluctantly agree with Jon. My DD was born to be an attorney. Seriously. But we are NOT encouraging her in that direction. We have our reasons.

Be sure to check out two numbers, Lori--

1. Annual numbers of graduates from US Law schools, (or for that matter, bar exam pass rates) and--

2. Employment projections in the field for the next decade or so.

It's pretty easy math from there. Unfortunately.

A fun read: Why Smart People Have Poor Communication Skills – and What to Do About It

What good is it to have money, if you can’t buy influence? If I had money I would use it to best suit my family. I blame my parents for being poor.
But, really money does buy influence and it should. Communication skills will always matter and they should. Introverts can communicate just as well as extroverts, they can take on leadership roles, and they can be successful.
Another good read is Emotional Intelligence; I believe that if you place to a high a value on Intelligence and not enough on interpersonal skills you are only looking at a small part of the picture.

hee - i came here to say the same thing!

i think i've learned to value both skills - it's quite a mixed bag round our house. my husband has the IQ, but not the EQ - i started life with no EQ at all, but realized early on that i had no friends and learned to cheat it. our kid seems to have been born with both IQ/EQ, almost to a fault - getting her to ease up on her EQ skills so she doesn't totally blend in (and devalue herself/brains in the process) is apparently going to be the challenge of my lifetime.

but i'd still love a meritocracy - mostly for my husband, who would love to just stop playing "the game" all the time and get on with it. and i guess for my kid, so she could just relax for a minute - it's probably a lot to manage for a 5-year old.

Okay, I'll play... why should it?

Okay, I thought you would say that and I already told my daughter that there would be people on this board who would disagree with her advice. My husband has lawyers working for him, definitely not making enough money to make all the hard work and student loans worth it. My husband had to compete with a lawyer for the management job he has now. My husband with his management degree, experience, and the right social connections got the job. His experience as an office manager for a social service agency which required a lot of legal knowledge and the ability to work with lawyers and to argue effectively for positive changes won him a lot of respect from coworkers and administrators. He has often been mistaken for a lawyer because he has the same acting ability that my son has but has never taken acting classes. If he is talking to a lawyer he talks like a lawyer. If he is talking to a farmer, he talks like a farmer. If he is talking to a biker, he talks just like a biker. People like him because they think he is just like them and he is able to get information from them that other people can't get and he knows how to best use that information to come up with really good ideas and then he has the ability to sell those ideas to his supervisor. He is a problem solver and he can work under pressure, even with pain. He is a Vietnam vet and a cancer survivor but looks and acts younger than he is. He is a good role model for our son because he didn't let pain stop him. He took very little time off work when he went through cancer treatment.

I think my son has a lot of his dad's personality traits and would do well with a more versatile degree like management or information technology. His brother and a cousin are IT people, but I want my son to be around more people and have more friends. I think legal knowledge would be a big plus but I wonder if he could learn some of this on his own, maybe online. Does anyone know of any good online resources? He seems to be interested in law, especially copyright law and constitutional law (also very interested in politics) and often reads law related articles to me that he found interesting, but I haven't really looked into any of this because of the medical issues. We are hoping that after he recovers from the scoliosis surgery in June that he will be able to do a lot more than he has been able to do this last year. He will probably be in a lot of pain for at least four weeks and full recovery will take a year. He won't be able to push himself physically, but I think he can mentally if he gets past the pain issues.

I think it is common for lawyers and people who work with social service agencies of any kind to become cynical and my husband did pick up that same cynicism. I don't want that for my son. He is already cynical enough.

We need to think positive, even as we deal with all life's tornados.

I found this little list on this website that describes those who lack EQ:

People who are low in emotional intelligence:
·Are abrasive, arrogant, or hostile
·Are perfectionists who hold themselves and everyone else back
·Lose their tempers and pollute the work field with negative emotions
·Shut down under pressure and become rigid
·Alienate coworkers, customers and clients
·Mismanage themselves and others
·Lose focus when swamped with emotions they can’t handle
·Operate from a fear-based perspective
·Fail to get in the loop because of low social skills, and ‘the loop’ is where it all happens
·Have no leadership skills
·Lack the creativity and flexibility to generate alternative solutions and problem-solve effectively
·Cannot cope with the unpredictable
·Are unable to communicate effectively with those around them
·Do not have the resilience necessary to withstand the rejections, losses and failures or everyday work life
·Are cynical and pessimistic, an attitude which discourages any kind of positive action and accomplishment both in them and in others
·Can’t handle stress and anxiety
·Take more sick days and produce less when they’re present
·Agitate, gossip, bully and harass others
·Are too afraid to take the risks that bring results

I'm willing to admit I see myself in many of these traits.

Lori, your description of your DH is very much the way that DD and I both tend to be:


People like him because they think he is just like them and he is able to get information from them that other people can't get and he knows how to best use that information to come up with really good ideas and then he has the ability to sell those ideas to his supervisor. He is a problem solver and he can work under pressure, even with pain.

I've been 'used' by every organization that I've ever been associated with because of those characteristics. I'm a natural mother confessor (so to speak) so I'm always the last person to handle an interviewing candidate-- when they are tired and then the guard comes down, see... I just feed them line and let the true human trolls reveal themselves as they relax enough to talk ever-more freely to me. I feel safe and unintimidating, I guess.

I'm also usually the "handler" for very difficult people. It's stressful and I don't like it, but I seem to be better at it than most people. I don't respond emotionally in general terms-- or at least I don't actually ACT on those responses precipitously.

My DD is the same way.

Going by some traits on that list, I have the EQ of a rock.

And thus it is a bad idea for people to equate EQ with introversion. Often it is quite the opposite. People can be exhausting for me partially because I can't not give 100% attention and focus to someone.

Dermatology.

The world desperately needs high quality dermatologists.

Right-- and my DH, the extravert, has no trouble at all giving some percentage of his attention to others... and he has... er... squishys' self-confessed EQ. I have trouble handling multiple inputs when human input is put on the table, because I tend to be the 100% type.

He's not a total clod (obviously) but he does struggle some because of being an extravert (and therefore dependent upon social interactions as personal fuel) but with difficulty concerning aspects of effective communication with others. He has the communication range of-- a lion. Other creatures confuse and distress him, and he doesn't respond well.

He's somewhere in negative territory when it comes to actual empathy. I mean, it's not that he's callous-- far from it. He just can't actually identify what another person's motivations/feelings are behind their words, body language, or other behavioral expressions very well unless they are quite like himself.

It has taken him over two decades to realize that as an introvert, I am not "depressed" or "withdrawn" just because I find a couple of nights of "social time" plenty each week. I can spend a week alone and not be 'starved' for human interaction.

Of course, I'm also his major adviser when it comes to EQ problems, and have been for years. He can't always follow through with my advice very well, but I'm seldom wrong. Which burns him up in some ways, because he's the social one of us. LOL. I'm not social. I'm just a student of those who are. Jane Goodall of the humanoids.

I'm probably somewhere in the middle in EQ. On one hand, I'm the ambassador type, easily able to move amongst different social groups and be accepted without pretending to be someone I'm not. And like HK, I'm viewed as a confessor more often than makes me entirely comfortable.

On the other hand, I'm known to broadcast emotional signals at a volume far out of proportion to the intensity at which I'm actually feeling them. Especially anger. That can be... problematic... particularly when you're an intense person to begin with.

Then again, used carefully, being perceived as a homicidal maniac is sometimes a good way to cut through a whole mess of red tape. My DW, whose most forceful voice can barely be heard across the room, occasionally sics me on difficult people.

Meanwhile, I've been teaching her how to be more assertive, she's been teaching me to be less reactive, so we've been pretty good for each other in EQ terms.

Hi Dude, Not sure I can play well on this topic, to many people see money as evil. I believe that if you have earned your money (Or been even given it, or won it) most people have placed the effort needed to earn it, and/or taken the risk needed to gain it that others have not. If I can afford to send my kids to an exclusive school, I should be able to. Many believe it is unfair that their kids cannot go. I disagree, it’s not about fairness. Their seems to be a belief that because others have its unfair to those that don't, I don't agree with that. You would think by my belief system, I am one who has, I don't. I have not been willing to pay the price in time or in risk to get in a better situation. Our son is currently not in the best fit school for him because I cannot afford to move into the area of the school. I do not see this as an issue of others having, and I deserve what they have. People who have taken the risks and sacrificed deserve what money can purchase. If you are referring to undue influence, arguing against human nature would be difficult, and who defines undue influence anyway?

If it were true that wealth and hard work were related, then we'd see a lot of social mobility, because nobody is more motivated to work hard than someone who is poor. Yet statistically, we see the opposite: social mobility, particularly upward mobility, is reaching historic lows. We also see that childhood SES is a better predictor of future wealth than any other factor... including IQ.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17036544
http://www.economist.com/node/15908469

Think of it like running a 100-yard dash, where the contestants are all starting at different places. The ones starting at the back can never get ahead, no matter how hard they run. There are others who start so far up that they can finish by merely falling across the line. And everyone else is scattered in between.

In this case, it's hard to point to the top finishers and say, "They earned it."

You do realize that the entire global financial system is currently completely off it's rocker, right?

I'm thinking that you don't spend much time representing "the poor".

Ah...the question of the hour, JonLaw...

Don't expect many, even here, to realize the lateness of said hour.

{shudders}

My DH is a person who doesn't really understand the concept that Dude illustrates above. It is inherently unfair to the next generation when THIS generation exerts influence in jockeying for starting positions on the way to that finish line.

Because it is human nature to give our offspring any advantage that we can leverage, however, there isn't really a way to level the starting line. Not really. Any attempt just results in a loophole that the already-advantaged seem to find a way to take increasingly revolting advantage of. I'm certainly AWARE of the advantages that we are providing to our DD, and I have no intention of halting those efforts just so that she is in the same poor starting position as others. But I do feel badly for those kids, and I worry that we're throwing away a lot of raw talent that way.


My DD, at 13, is already profoundly aware that she is starting at a very different place than many of her peers. It disquiets her-- because she knows that it begs the question of how much of her achievement is due to opportunities that she's been GIVEN (as opposed to "earned") and how much is merit which belongs to HER... and whether or not there is even a way to tease those things apart on some level.

DH, on the other hand, still bristles at the notion that his "starting line" was vastly different than-- well, than mine, even. His parents actually told him "anywhere you get in and want to go-- we'll pay. No worries." They took him to visit multiple colleges, paid for test prep, etc.

Sheesh-- I can't.even.imagine. I was so far from that place that I can't even put myself there. Rather than being worried about my next midterm, I was worried about my skanky roommate's probable substance abuse problems, and paying utilities by not ticking my boss off such that he'd stiff me for enough hours to earn the money.

So yeah, he had SIGNIFICANT advantages-- advantages that mattered. When he says, indignantly, "I've earned EVERYTHING I have. Nobody ever GAVE me anything," I think-- sure they did. They gave you a full set of tools to make it so, and they showed you how to USE each one of those tools properly.

Disadvantaged kids are picking them up at thrift stores and yard sales, and figuring out everything the hard way. It's only obvious how calipers or a socket wrench work once you've seen someone else use them.

Which one of those people is going to be the more "successful" mechanic? Which of them has "earned" it more? Which one of them is more "talented?" Hard questions that relate to what meritocracy even means in light of human nature.

I'm a genuine moderate and even test right in the middle of the extroversion/introversion dynamic.

So I tend to feel in my gut that an introvert can "do" extroversion. . . probably more easily than an extrovert can act as an introvert.

Context also counts for much.

Dude. I agree that SES plays a huge role, (Even biblically it says 6 generations) so I still can still blame my parents. I do agree with the effect SES plays on children, opportunities and education, both from the family and provided by the family. I am not sure about the government's role in shaping this, perhaps more for the bad then for the good. I am trying to avoid absolutes, because they all tend to lead in the wrong direction. I still see a good portion of people that look to the government for answers, rather then to themselves. When I speak with the WWII generation it's very different then mine or my children's, I believe they where more independent and looked to make things on their own. It all may be cycletic (is this a real word, darn High School education), I don't get to speak to people from the civil war. I do believe that if equal opportunity should not mean equal results. The so called war on poverty will not be won, through re-distribution, nor will it be won by every man for himself. It can't be won, the yard stick can only be moved. A funny side note about wealth, most wealthy people I know say it's harder to keep money then to make it. I agree with Howler, it's not so easy to quatify merotocracy given Human Nature, and how we define things. Jon, in regards to the World Economy, it's above my pay grade. I just try to make a difference where I can, when I can.

You realize that they are lying through their teeth, right?

Although there might be some measure of self delusion...

My answer to restoring meritocracyy?

1. Govt pays for university - they'll get more money back in taxes than they will end up spending
2. End quotas including preference for legacy applicants - these were actually put into place to try to exclude Jews from the Ivys - so hardly started with the noblest of intents
3. Instead make university admission merit.based
4. For students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a one year 'ramp up' class where the deficit between their high school education and a real entry to university level can be made up - those that don't demonstrate the work ethic or smarts to make the grade get cut - this will maintain academic standards at universities and stop the actual university calibre students from being slowed down which in turn ought to halt the current degree inflation.

No, but I spent a lot of time being "the poor," though. Does that count?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Bother-generation-doesnt-want-work.html

I think part of the problem is that there's probably not anyone on this board who has spent any real amount of time around anyone who is TRULY wealthy. The disparity in this country between the bottom 99.8% of the population and the top .2% is MASSIVE.

Mathematically, there is less difference between the plastic surgeon pulling down $1million after taxes, and the person living at the poverty line than there is between that plastic surgeon and some of the folks in the top 0.2% in this country. That 0.2-0.1% hold a MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE amount of wealth. To the point that most people cannot even fathom it. It's literally beyond most people comprehension.

We sit down here in what we think of as "middle" class not even realizing the divide we face.

I agree with EPOH. Do a search on the World's ten richest persons and you'll be amazed at the amount of filthy lucre accreting to the lucrous filthy. . . trying to be humorous there but failing, really.

I mean that anyone who has read any Kevin Phillips will realize the Great GREAT Boon the past ten or so years have been. The super-rich are now hyper-rich, while some merely wealthy (say, less than $50 m.) are just treading water. We need to feel sad about the millionaires losing out to the multi-millionaires.

I didn't say I'd spent any time being "the poor" in Britain. The social safety net here is quite different.

It's probably worth pointing out at this point that no generation ever received so much direct investment from their government than the WWII generation.

And that makes you the God appointed representative of The Poor? I myself grew up in poverty and everything that I have was not given to me. I 100% support the right to work hard and have the chance to accumulate enough to have financial security without having the Government deny me that by taxing the crap out of me in an apparent effort to ensure that none of my progeny get to college or for me to have an actual retirement.

A lot of people that actually did grew up poor as opposed to spoiled MC and UMC people who can only imagine what it is like to grow up without advantages feel exactly as I do.

Some posters here need to become more evolved and let go of the chip on their collective shoulders that they obviously have against those that have striven to rise above their beginnings. All this 'tax high earners' nonsense, is just a smoke screen raised by the Actual Rich Establishment to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Bring on the flat tax on all types of income!

Somehow the percentages called this translation to mind.

I *am* the social safety net here.

I also *am* the valedictorian and the 0.1%.

I wonder if that sentence was grammatically correct.

Yes, but by the nature of your job, you see the worst of the worst, right? That experience would affect your perceptions, because that group isn't representative of the whole.

Not that my experiences would represent the whole, either, because the working poor tend to shun people like those you represent. Nobody hates a welfare queen more than the woman with three jobs.

Mostly it's people over 50 who have been thrown on the industrial scrap-heap, so to speak.

Many of the multi-generational issues tend to be mentally retarded people or psychiatric impairments. Apple. Tree.

However, in addition to that, there's the amusing fact that future investment returns across all asset classes are being driven toward zero over all timeframes.

Then there's the generational element. Charles Hugh Smith, my favorite pessimistic permabear, has a really nice blog post today:

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmay13/genX5-13.html

Thanks for the article. Unfortunately, this kind of analysis is not on the front pages of the mainstream media.

ETA the cartoon in the article is definitely pessimistic/disconcerting.

Totally random thought...


We should SO start a punk band with this name.

The equity risk premium (expected return differential between stocks and bonds) is positive, so it does not make sense to be a "pessimistic permabear". In general I would not like to be the source of a gloomy outlook on life for my children. They will need to develop pessimism and cynicism on their own.

Please be respectful and try to keep the topic on education, or else we will be forced to lock the thread.

Thank you,
Mark

Correct, assuming US spending doesn't continue massively unchecked into eternity.

SialSL, I only wish I was deluded, I work with investors of all income levels and it seems to be a preoccupation of retaining wealth for the more wealthy.

Madeinuk, Universities are still a business (Not in the traditional sense) they compete for money, resources, talent, and students. You have some noble ideas, but the system in place will not support it. On government paying for higher education, I am not so sure about that. The current system for public education is broken, and no matter how much money is thrown at it, the system still does not work well.

Epoh, why is disparity a problem? Is there some unknown fairness issue, or do you believe that the rich get rich on the back of the poor? I would agree that great disparity can be used for political gain, by those that do not have wealth. BTW, love flat tax or consumption tax.

Dude, Good point about the WWII with the GI bill, timing can matter a lot. Glad we bought our home in the 90s, neighbor purchased in late 50s. Nice appreciation and great security. I wonder how much the percentages are for home ownership by decade. Loan availability is also a big part. Even credit cards opening up to the populace has affected the numbers. It’s never a very clear picture when comparing groups.

Jon, great article

Mark, Back to education and the mediocrity of our nation’s students. It’s funny that when I speak to the WWII generation how much more articulate and funny they are. Perhaps they read and wrote more and watched TV less. I have been reading about our nation’s founders and the depth of their understanding was incredible, but they were not the common man. I have also been reading a little of Ovid’s work from ancient Rome, funny some of same type of social problems today. Does this mean we should not try and improve things, no just that mediocrity is not a single time issue.

+1

I don't agree. Adequate money seems to work wonders. In communities where public schools have money, the results are often quite positive. Where can money go with proven results?
- Summer programs
- Smaller class sizes
- Better technology
- More skilled teachers (from salary and merit based increases)
- More gifted certified teachers
- Full time gifted programs

Just look at summer programs... some great research out there showing that low SES and high SES students make similar gains throughout the school year which are then lost over the summer by the low SES groups. We aren't really agrarian anymore. Year round school takes serious money, but can work and be a positive benefit for two income households in addition to learning outcomes.

Council Rock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Rock_School_District

Or, Camp Hill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Hill,_Pennsylvania

Hey, look, a public high school valedictorian Nobel prize winner!

If a longer school year causes students to forget less over summer break, there should be less need for review in the fall, and teachers should be able to cover more new material in the school year. I would support a shorter summer break if paired with a system that shortens K-12 by one year -- after 11th grade students would go to college, trade school, or work. I would not support merely extending the school year without increasing academic standards in some way.

I disagree strongly with your point and agree with Edwin. In general, our system is broken. Many of the points you raise are mendacious talking points pushed by the educational establishment. IF they repeat them often enough, people start to believe them.

Throwing money at the problem doesn't make it better overall. Sure, summer programs are nice, but they're also dessert. The state of California spends over half the state budget on education, which is in the neighborhood of $50 billion ( link here). How much more do the schools need before they can say they have enough? A HUGE problem is mismanagement of funds. Please don't argue per-student spending: Catholic schools spend way less and get better results, and so do many other countries.

Countries with schools that are much better than ours have much bigger classes. Am in the middle of meeting a deadline right now and can't post links, but I've done so before on this board.

Technology is largely irrelevant to learning how to read or do math. I still don't understand the iPad obsession, TBH.

Teacher's unions resist merit pay as though it was akin to being forced to eat plutonium. Increasing salaries isn't the problem (again, no time to post links but some searching might turn up my old messages on this subject). As for paying them more to get skilled teachers, I also disagree. Teaching is a dumping ground for poor-performing students (look up SAT and GRE scores for future teachers; they are ALWAYS at the bottom). Paying them more won't solve the problem. The problem is a culture that discourages excellence overall (yes, there are great teachers, but those test scores don't lie).

Thanks, Jon. Good examples. The school district I went to is also a great example as it was a very top-rated school and it spent a lot per student. But unlike the confusing SES aspect for many public school results, my school district was exceedingly lower income as it was 75% of us came from the military base. And the government payed quite well per child to the schools.

Personally, I don't have a great source of mendacious talking points to form a belief about them and am forced to rely on research.

Then I am sorry to say (and I was a low SES student that this did not happen to) that we have to question the capacity for learning that those low SES students that appear to have lost what they learned during the year have.

Gross income is an incomplete indicator of SES for military families, though, because of the significant non-monetary compensations they receive.

Capacity for learning? What part of "similar gains" confused you?

Ahhhhhh... but making the profession higher-PAYING does result in smarter people seeking it out-- as opposed to the current state of affairs, in which it is all too often the case that those who can't do wind up teaching it instead.

Competition for relatively rare slots in programs or positions afterwards could easily take care of the rest, as long as that competition truly favored the best and brightest (see, Mark-- meritocracy again! Yay, me, staying on topic! )

The real money problems do seem to be about gross mismanagement of funds, though. That much is certainly true. But I've seen exactly zero evidence that running a school like-- er, or even "by"-- a corporation results in anything good coming of the resulting arrangement. In the one instance, funds are funneled to pork and administration, and in the other funds are siphoned into profits.

If anything, the latter seems to exacerbate the already bad problems.

Merit pay is a total nonstarter unless teachers actually regain the ability to say "no" to stupid curriculum components and edicts from on high that do nothing but make less time available in classrooms for real learning.

We have one of those local kids made VERY good, too!

My favorite bumper sticker of all time...

My kid won the Nobel Prize in Physics<-- real bumper sticker, as we've seen it around town and know who it belongs to.

DD says if she ever wins, she'll buy me a car to go with my bumper sticker. Since, you know... she can afford it then.

A green car. But not a real green car, that's cruel...

Seriously. We've had this conversation. Because that bumper sticker just delights us both. Almost as much as picking out awesome names for punk bands. Maybe Moral Turpitude is best reserved for a string quartet.

Indeed, the teaching profession has always been underpaid, but at least in years past, it was considered a noble profession. That has changed dramatically in the last decade or so. Anti-teacher sentiment is widespread.

Add in soaring tuition and increasing amounts of college requirements necessary, and you've got a formula that repulses the best candidates.

Private school teachers have higher test scores and genearlly earn less than public school teachers. A huge part of the problem is a system that refuses to reward based on merit and instead pays on seniority, and that alone.

Not to mention that teachers in California are pretty well paid. Average salaries in California are $68,000 (plus pensions and other benefits). In my district, it's over $75K. That's a lot of money for working a 180-day year plus a couple days tacked on at the beginning and end, especially given the fact that teachers overall have generally very low qualifications.

Not to mention that school here ends at 2:20 except on Wednesdays when it ends right after lunch and on other "minimum days" (three or four in the next couple weeks here, for example).

How much more do they need for so few hours worked compared to people who work 40+ hours per week on salary for 49 or 50 weeks of the year (that's 245-250 days, 9-5 or later!)? And why do people let them get away with claiming they're underpaid, when the reality is that they're not?

Where I live teacher salaries often start at 30K/year. I'm guessing you live in a very high COL area (I don't).

The "out at 2:20" thing is not true, as you must know. Grading, planning, etc.

Yeah, my mom never worked less than 50 hours a week during that 9 month contract.

She was at work at 7 most mornings, and never-- ever-- home before 4:45 in my memory. She also worked an additional 2-4 weeks a year completely UNPAID in order to set up her room for various things, or to mothball for the summer, etc.

Average teacher pay here is something approaching median income for the state, which is probably pretty good... particularly when you add in the benefits package.

Private schools serve student bodies whose parents are much more heavily invested in their children's educations (literally and figuratively), so there's an element of self-selection involved. Low SES students don't apply, either. Plus, there's an element of selection on the part of the schools, because problem kids can be easily kicked out... and the definition of "problem kids" is rather loosely defined.

So there's no point in comparing.


Low qualifications? Obtaining a teaching credential is essentially a five-year degree, since you need a bachelor's, plus other educational requirements and a student teaching gig. That's just to get in on the entry level. There are continuing educational requirements, basically throughout a teacher's career... and the tuition requirements that go with them.

Those average salaries are heavily influenced by teachers with master's degrees. Nearly every teacher in my high school (in CA) had one. How many careers do you know where the average salary of a master's degree holder is $75k/year?

The average salaries are also heavily influenced by teachers who are receiving stipends for extra duties, like sports coaches.

Another thing not mentioned in those averages is how much those teachers are spending their own money on classroom supplies.


Lesson plans, grading papers, leading extracurricular activities... it's a pretty rare teacher that puts in only 40 hours a week.

Okay, we'll say that many or most teachers work a full week.

Even so, they still work ~75% of the days that other people work; if they choose to work for no pay, that's their choice. I do this, my husband does this, my friends do it, so there's nothing uncommon there. Lots of people work on the weekend, and some even work during vaccation (read email/reply to it, etc.).

This means if they got paid the same hourly rate for working 245 days a year, teachers around here would be getting $100,000. This is simply not underpaid in any sense of the word for that job. It's not even underpaid for a mid-range software engineer, which is a high-paying job. And the average in the whole state of California would be ~$91K. Again, this is good money, and their hourly rate is very good.

Yet our public schools in this state are bottom-performers.

How much more money do California teachers need before they'll decide it's enough, if a $90-100K equivalent isn't?

There's a reason for why education schools are called diploma mills. Education degrees are about as fluffy as a degree can get. There is no way you can compare a degree in education with any other real degree. They have to be: the students are drawn from the bottom of the barrel (again, see GRE and SAT scores). Most US education students wouldn't get through a real degree program (sciences, English, other humanities, etc.).

These are people who struggle to pass watered-down qualification exams and complain about having meaningful standards or evaluations applied to them.

Let's not.

Absolutely nothing confused me.

The fact that they lost what they apparently learned in just 10 weeks leads me to conclude that they cannot have actually learned it.

I'm going with: they just didn't have any learning activities all summer.

Link

... I don't know.


I have another hypothesis about that. I suspect that being operant conditioning subjects with a good capacity for learning, they have learned that it is inefficient to retain material that isn't being rotated through their lives at the moment...

after all, they'll see it again soon enough.

Without the reinforcement, what IS the loss rate for primate conditioned responses when removed from the Skinner box?




Just a hypothesis, mind.

Jon,
Glen Seaborg (Seaborgium is named after him) was a graduate of David Starr HS, not a great school now or then.
Teacher salary is not the whole issue. SES does matter overall, what you live is what you learn. The entire public system as a whole needs work. There are bright spots out there and some incredible teachers and administrators. I see the biggest issue is lack of competition. There is no perfect fix, but having no real accountability that involves parental input takes the responsibility off of parents and places it on the state. Parents (overall) need to have the ability to choose the best school based upon the merit of the school. Money will still buy a so called better education, but money in each persons hand rather than this is the school you must attend, will drive the schools to perform better. Public schools will always have a problem because they must serve all students, this is a tough one. If it was based upon misbehavior perhaps an easier dilemma, but what of special needs, of 2E. Not so easy, costs are higher and results can be lower. A 100% economic model does not work so well. No answers hear, I just know what we are currently doing is not working well.

+1

In all seriousness, my more-than-slightly-snarky hypothesis does basically suggest the same thing that Dude's more formal analysis does.

Higher SES kids get continuous reinforcement...

and the low SES kids don't.

But it's entirely consistent with madeinuk's observation that they didn't really "learn" anything. Neither did the higher SES kids, but that is masked by the continuous reinforcement of the conditioned responses, so it appears that they retain it all.

It's not really about retained learning. It's about non-extinguished operant conditioning.

Which is what NCLB has given us.

Maybe I am alone in this but I loved having summers off from the tedium of school. I could work to earn money once old enough, I could fish, I could spend the entire day reading whatever I wanted for as long as I wanted - the list goes on. And I never, just on principle ever completed any make work projects that were assigned to me over the summer.

I would hate to see kids losing their summers off - perhaps I am the only one here that feels this way, so be it ( shrug).

I feel the same way. My kids spend the summer running around in the sun and swimming, as I did. I see a lot of value in these activities.

Maybe this is where that long term memory skill Zen Scanner was mentioning comes in? My kids don't get much "re-enforcing" in the summer, and don't back slide. But they have memories like elephants, especially miss working-memory-impaired. The stuff she's going to lose she loses fast (while school is in session)... The stuff she keeps is THERE.

Many programs that give poor people stuff to put them on the same footing as the middle class don't have the desired effects. A recent example is

http://www.nber.org/papers/w19060
Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Home Computers on Academic Achievement among Schoolchildren
Robert W. Fairlie, Jonathan Robinson
NBER Working Paper No. 19060
Issued in May 2013
NBER Program(s): DEV ED
Computers are an important part of modern education, yet many schoolchildren lack access to a computer at home. We test whether this impedes educational achievement by conducting the largest-ever field experiment that randomly provides free home computers to students. Although computer ownership and use increased substantially, we find no effects on any educational outcomes, including grades, test scores, credits earned, attendance and disciplinary actions. Our estimates are precise enough to rule out even modestly-sized positive or negative impacts. The estimated null effect is consistent with survey evidence showing no change in homework time or other "intermediate" inputs in education.

discussed at

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...n_computers_and_education_no_change.html
Giving Poor Kids Computers Does Nothing Whatsoever To Their Educational Outcomes
By Matthew Yglesias | Posted Thursday, May 23, 2013, at 2:10 PM

Studies of how rich and poor kids use the internet found that the latter do so less productively:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/us/new-digital-divide-seen-in-wasting-time-online.html
Wasting Time Is New Divide in Digital Era
By MATT RICHTEL
New York Times
May 29, 2012


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/business/11digi.html
Computers at Home: Educational Hope vs. Teenage Reality
By RANDALL STROSS
New York Times
July 10, 2010

Y'don't say?

NOT news to anyone with a child who has a laptop of his/her own between the ages of 10 and 16, I'd say.

Add in a dash of "parents don't have the resources (skills/time/energy) to manage it," and the outcome is hardly surprising.

I'm not sure why we're talking about this at all, though, as I thought we were talking about opportunity, not "giving poor people stuff."

You mean that parenting style and not the evil 1% is to blame?

The fact that these studies were even needed in the first place utterly debunks the Flynn theory - we are getting stupider as a society!

LOL.