With Finance Disgraced, Which Career Will Be King?

bluechimp said:
Let me address your specific questions: TFA applications this year reaches 35,000, a sizeable number, no? Why would you need an Ivy League degree? You don't. But it doesn't hurt to have one. Having a teacher that has gone to a great school inspires the students, much alike we are inspired by our professors who have done great things. Think of your professors.. Jim Simons?
Click to expand...
You may need an Ivy degree to get a teacher job paying $125K/year in this NYC school. When the pay is high, teaching will attract the best.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/education/05charter.html?hpw
 
Andy said:
You may need an Ivy degree to get a teacher job paying $125K/year in this NYC school. When the pay is high, teaching will attract the best.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/education/05charter.html?hpw
Click to expand...

I don't know about the "best," as the criteria are often subjective, and after reading the article I think this is just another piece of hype, another circus spectacle, that will fizzle away into obscurity. Americans look for quick fixes and miracle cures.
 
Hm. Haven't posted in a while. Maybe I'll get back in the game a bit.

Having browsed these posts, though skipping the second half of the first page, it seems some people really do overvalue money. Sorry if that twists the brain.

Max pretty much has it right regarding the finance industry in his first post. If money is your goal, then finance is a suitable profession. If money is the means to your goal, be mindful of when to stop chasing! Finance has a way of sucking you in, occupying all your time, and making it hard to escape.

When I think of who has influence to make changes, I can't think of any profession more influential than teachers. Every great leader had teachers. Sure, some sucked, but those few good ones really stick with a person. Teaching is enjoyable and rewarding.
 
woody said:
When I think of who has influence to make changes, I can't think of any profession more influential than teachers. Every great leader had teachers. Sure, some sucked, but those few good ones really stick with a person. Teaching is enjoyable and rewarding.
Click to expand...

Not in a venal society like the USA, Woody. The teacher is seen as a low-paid low-status loser who teaches because he couldn't find anything better to do. Additionally it is not enjoyable in perhaps a majority of US public schools: it is stressful, frustrating, and unrewarding professionally. Many American schools are just vast holding pens where lip service is paid to teaching but the real purpose of which is to provide a glorified child-minding service, or to keep youngsters off the streets. Not trying to be cynical but merely objective.
 
Assuming you are commenting on my 'Teaching is enjoyable and rewarding' comment, I should have said 'I find that...' Indeed, many enjoy teaching and teach even though they don't have to, like professionals who are part of this community.
 
woody said:
Teaching is enjoyable and rewarding.
Click to expand...

Not in New York City, that's for sure... well may be in a very few schools.

I have a substitute teacher license in Math and Physics from NY Department of Ed. I was really shocked when I went to some schools in Brooklyn and Manhattan (and those schools were in relatively good neighborhoods). Only the fact that to enter inside you have to take off your shoes, put them with the rest of your stuff through the screening machine and then pass metal detector tells how bad things are now days.

On average teacher spends 95% of class time on discipline and 5% on teaching. This is horrible. Even brightest kids don't have any chance for a good future after attending those schools.

I don't know, maybe this situations is specific for New York, but something is telling me that in the rest of the country things are not any better.

Of course, there are private schools available but they are very expensive. And on a top of that, private school tuition is not tax deductible! But this is a topic for another big conversation.
 
Teaching is not just in inner city high schools.

Btw, if you are teaching high school seniors in these bad schools, many of your students are willing to learn, since if they were bad students, they probably already dropped out.
 
Having attended and graduated from this type of high school, I can say high school physics was a course for seniors and I would say the highest drop out rates were the students who didn't get through freshman or sophmore year. I have to sadly agree that it was not easy to learn much, however, 4 years of high school can be made up with 1-2 college years. To be honest, I failed a math course in high school but its only because I was too addicted to hookie parties. I know a few guys who dropped out at 16, did their GED and went to college a year early to escape the conditions and get a head start. Bright kids do in fact have a chance but they have to first realize their potential and remain focused.
 
maxrum said:
On average teacher spends 95% of class time on discipline and 5% on teaching. This is horrible. Even brightest kids don't have any chance for a good future after attending those schools.
Click to expand...

Maxrun, you are bang on target with your figures. I taught for a year in Minneapolis and aged about three years. It's too stressful. That's why about 9% of new teachers quite within their first year (i.e., they don't even complete their first year contract) and why 50% of teachers quit within three years (quoting from memory and I hope I'm right). In NYC the exceptions would be Stuyvesant, Bronx High School of Science, and Brooklyn College -- but these are flagship schools and not representative. If you can get a teaching job in some nice suburb, and teaching AP calculus and the like, it's bearable. Otherwise it's a living nightmare.
 
Jonathan said:
Bright kids do in fact have a chance but they have to first realize their potential and remain focused.
Click to expand...

If parents can't afford private schools, they should try home-schooling and have their children take the GED and if possible, some APs (calculus, physics, statistics, English) that will ease the way into college. I think there was a study some years back that the average high-school dropout had a higher IQ than those who stayed on. What a deadening and desensitising experience American high schools are, both for teachers and for the (few) students who want to learn anything.
 
Ever wonder why a large percentage of the population in those specialized science highschools (Bronx science, brooklyn tech, stuy) is Asian, jewish or other white kids.
While the parent's bank account has a lot to do with how far their kids can go, it also has something to do with how each culture regards study and hard work.
I also like to point out that you don't have to be filthy rich for your kids to have a great education. There are enough merit-based and need-based opportunities for talented kids from not rich families. The trick is the parents have to be involved in their children education from a very young age and in this regard, culture and how well educated the parents are play a big role.
 
Andy said:
Ever wonder why a large percentage of the population in those specialized science highschools (Bronx science, brooklyn tech, stuy) is Asian, jewish or other white kids.
Click to expand...

A mixture of culture and genetics. Average East Asian IQ is 106 (with strength in mathematical); average Jewish IQ is 114 (with strength in verbal); average European-American IQ is 100. In contrast, average African-American IQ is 84 and average Mexican-American IQ is 89. Those actually in the trenches and frontlines of school teaching know these realities -- if only viscerally -- but can't speak them out loud ("racist!"). This is why schooling is de facto degregated -- and will remain so as long as different ethnicities have different abilities.
 
Its my understanding that the IQ tests are under some criticism because they don't reflect your innate intelligence, as is supposed, but more a combination of your innate ability AND of course your social circumstances.

Or do you have figures that suggest these average values regardless of socioeconomic standing?
 
daleholborow said:
Its my understanding that the IQ tests are under some criticism because they don't reflect your innate intelligence, as is supposed, but more a combination of your innate ability AND of course your social circumstances.

Or do you have figures that suggest these average values regardless of socioeconomic standing?
Click to expand...

You are quite correct. But disentangling environment from innate intelligence is difficult. Do intelligent people naturaly drift into superior socio-economic conditions in the same way a cork rises to the surface? Or do poor social circumstances stunt intellectual growth? It probably works both ways. Nontheless it is curious that Jews and East Asians migrated to the USA -- many in straitened circumstances -- and have gradually risen to the top of the heap (though often taking more than one generation to do so). Thus Jewish people account for 2% of the population but 20% of the professorships. And since the quota system in prestigious US universities was lifted in the late '60s, the percentage of Jewish students has steadily risen. For examply, I believe 60% of the students at Columbia are now Jewish. Likewise for East Asian, where some universities have now instituted discrimination against them: it's said that an East Asian needs a SAT score at least 50 points higher than a European-American to have the same chance of admission. These are the same universities that will cheerfuly admit African-American students with SAT score hundreds of points lower than what is required for European-Americans and East Asians.

Discussing these things is a minefield because of the chilling impact of political correctness and the accusations of racism. So people employ the euphemisms of the "challenges of the inner city," of "motivating" inner-city youngsters where peer pressure supposedly stops them studying, and the stunting impact of impoverished environments.

For more reading on the subject I might recommend -- with some trepidation -- Michael Levin's "Why Race Matters." Levin is a professor of philosophy at CUNY. This working paper by Rushton and Jensen might be worth a look as well. These are of course deeply controversial topics.
 
A mixture of culture and genetics. Average East Asian IQ is 106 (with strength in mathematical); average Jewish IQ is 114 (with strength in verbal); average European-American IQ is 100. In contrast, average African-American IQ is 84 and average Mexican-American IQ is 89. Those actually in the trenches and frontlines of school teaching know these realities -- if only viscerally -- but can't speak them out loud ("racist!"). This is why schooling is de facto degregated -- and will remain so as long as different ethnicities have different abilities.
Click to expand...

I don't believe any of this for one simple fact. All these tests were applied in US. So they were testing people that decided to emigrate to US. If we do the same test in the original countries, are we going to get the same results?

Also, these are not really races we are talking here but country of origin or religion.
 
Put some minorities in the rich neighborhoods and some Jews/Asians in the ghetto. After a few years in Junior High and High School, I would expect that this has nothing to do with IQ.
 
What about the Puerto Ricans? What is their IQ? I need to know so that I can adjust how slowly I speak to my local Bodega owners.

I put absolutely zero weight on IQ as a measure of intelligence. Ever read Guns, Germs and Steel? I got about a third of the way through (not that enjoyable) but his basic point was that various cultures' development has more to do with their environment than genetics.
 
daleholborow said:
Its my understanding that the IQ tests are under some criticism because they don't reflect your innate intelligence, as is supposed, but more a combination of your innate ability AND of course your social circumstances.

Or do you have figures that suggest these average values regardless of socioeconomic standing?
Click to expand...

I'd like to quickly debunk this myth with a little bit of introspection.

If you attribute socioeconomic status to those figures, please explain that the Chinese, who probably immigrated here from extremely poor socioeconomic statuses, are second highest among that average IQ statistic. Ditto Jews, who may come from a lot of different places (such as this one, and last time I took an online IQ test, I believe it registered me in the 130s...though it doesn't seem to matter), and perhaps still not be in very high socioeconomic statuses.

So while socioeconomic status may be a factor, it shouldn't be the instant go-to for why these statistics are what they are. I think there may very well be a lot of cultural differences. From all of the Jews I know and all of the Asians I know, they value educational opportunities very much.

Edit: in fact, I just took this IQ test http://www.iqtest.com/prep.html and scored 145.

So while the statistics may be correct, it doesn't seem that IQ accounts for much these days anyway, at least judging anecdotally.
 
woody said:
I put absolutely zero weight on IQ as a measure of intelligence. Ever read Guns, Germs and Steel? I got about a third of the way through (not that enjoyable) but his basic point was that various cultures' development has more to do with their environment than genetics.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know what intelligence is. But I do know IQ scores are correlated with academic performance. And also performance more generally -- which is why the US army eventually made IQ 80 the cutoff point for recruitment (they were simply spending too much time trying to teach simple things to very limited people.

Not everyone agrees with Jared Diamond. You might like to glance at Rushton's review here. I bought a copy of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" some years back.
 
Back
Top Bottom