Disclaimer: I’m college educated etc. no strawmen or ad-homs please, thanks. In the old days, educators were treated as little better than dog **** – as they should be. To me, being a professor (or primary-level educator equally so) says one thing: “I didn’t have the egg rolls to take the risk involved in the private sector. I.e. I had the inkling I couldn’t do well in the natural world – namely some variation of capitalism by which Social Darwinism rules – so I opted for an easier life as an educator.” In that famous phrase, 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.' That’s fine, of course. We need educators to teach our kids etc. It’s important to have a balance of personality types in a society. The said educators don’t have to be very capable, just good enough to, you know, teach kids (and in the case of college, young adults). The problem arises, however, when these people “get out of line” – they start assuming, believe it or not, that they are actually the inverse of the career path they chose. I.e. that their life decisions should be held in esteem, as opposed to what their choice really represents – taking the easy route. The virtue of Humility goes out the window. And thus, they assume (falsely) that they have the right to impose their docile world view on the pupils whom they are ‘educating’. -- > what I’m saying is they are responsible for spreading the Liberal Scourge more than any other group in society. This presents a serious conundrum – on the one hand education is a prerequisite for most people to do well in society. If you don’t have at least a Bachelor’s degree – in a useful field – you are *probably* going to struggle. But on the other hand, we have what could be described as among the worst people in our society teaching their values unto successive generations of students. See the issue? If you don’t, you’re probably either a. an educator yourself (and thus blind to the Issue) or b. a mewling Liberal. To put it more succinctly, we shouldn’t be rewarding people who make easy choices in life. Their views should be suppressed or, at least, marginalized. They definitely shouldn’t be passing on their values to the next generation. Lest we find ourselves in…the present situation of moral decay in American society
Welcome Komrade, whatever commie country you are from. Here in America, we are willing to listen to your point of view, as atrocious and misguided as it might be. BTW, in America, dogs are revered. It follows by your logic, teachers are to be put on a pedestal.
We got all kinds of educators here. Great ones, good uns, average ones, mediocre ones, bad uns, real bad uns, and some who couldn't pour liquid out of a boot with the directions stamped on the heel.
Only someone who has never taught would think it is an easy profession. I don't know if you realize this, but teaching is probably one of the most vital jobs in society. Good teachers make an enormous difference. It seems to me that you have some preconceived notion that teachers are pressuring students into becoming Democrats. There is no evidence for this. It's just that education and liberalism tend to go hand in hand. To clarify I am referring to small 'l' liberalism. People with higher levels of education are more open minded and more accepting of others and their way of life. They also pretty much want to be left alone, but since you're "college educated" I am sure you understand that.
OK, you start your post by asserting that you don't actually want to debate your observations. Of course you couch it in objecting to ad hominum arguments, or "staw men", a phrase that right wingers misuse constantly on this forum. Then you post a lengthly and totally fact free and baseless rant attacking anyone and everyone who is in education. All you did you advertise your own prejudices, make an extended appeal to ignorance, and announce taht you are not going to fall for being confused with any facts! Oh, and you announced that you have no idea what you're talking about and you're totally invested in clinging to your stereotypes. After all, it's much easier and less challenging than thinking.
"Only someone who has never taught would think it is an easy profession." Truer words were never spoken. I sit on our Board of Education. (I think I'm the only elected official here). I know hundreds of teachers. We have 3800 of them in our system. I've forgotten more about education that the OP will ever know. Lucky for him that he announced up front that he is not intrested in being educated!
Since all we're doing is personal attacks (which is fine, they can be fun so no big deal): I was interested in being educated as a youth and, I guess, am grateful for that Hallowed education I received because it's been helpful to me in avoiding a parasitical line of work such as "sitting on the Board of Education." What's more, I don't have to be a locally elected official - another leech job - and instead can be a contributor in the private sector. In other words, people in the private sector like myself are the ones who are probably paying your salary. So show some gratitude. In other words, you shouldn't be proud of being on the Board of Education. Much less arrogant about it lol...
Sounds like you're jealous But let's be honest here. You're just here to troll....aren't you, Trollll Out!
Perhaps there is another dynamic at play here. Once upon a time, children were cared for at home by their parents. Or at least one parent was in the home to manage their care. As the dynamic evolved towards dual career families, or worse, single parent families, child care was shunted to the back seat while their career minded parent/s dove into their careers. Some would argue that the "social contract" then required that child care shift to the state. And why not? Programs designed to make it easier for single or dual career parents to drop their kids off to pursue their careers also meant that kids spent more and more time outside of the house and away from their parents. (An entirely tangential conversation about helicopter parenting as a result can also be had). And kids became wards of the state. Well, at least for most of their waking hours of the day. That just has to have an impact. Parents become less likely to become the major influencers in their kids lives, and kids being kids may be more likely then to adopt the path shown them by, wait for it..... their teachers/day care social workers, etc. Surprise parents. Perhaps I just look, nostalgically back to an era where the priority was the production of smart, well mannered children who understood the social world around them. Today, clearly not so much. We spend a decade and a half ignoring these kids, shoving them into the state system for grooming, and just now we're surprised by the results? I'm not surprised. I am simply so disappointed.
This sounds like excuses. Sorry not buying it. Parents always have and always will be the major influence in their kids lives....the parents just have to ACTUALLY do it. Blame the 'system' all you like. At the end of the day....it's still up to the parents to parent their kids.
Excuses? Hardly. These are outcomes. Observable, testable outcomes. Cause equals observable outcome. Shunting your kids off to be wards of the state shouldn't then surprise us that said kids adopt, or emulate, or otherwise channel the morality, teachings of those they have been left with. You can yearn all you want about where and who you want to be responsible. That yearning is unfortunately trumped by those who effectively become the influencers in the kids lives, teachers, social workers, etc.
Is it? Ok so who is "parenting" the kids? Clearly not the parents. Who said anything about teachers being "evil" except you?
There are plenty of parents who actually parent their kids. For those who aren't good parents, they only have themselves to blame if their kids are messed up.
How puritanical of you.... And while I don't disagree, the wonders of socialism are taking their (parents) place in raising those kids. Of course, this isn't problematic, unless you disagree with the messages or the tactics of the state employees who are doing the actual teaching of these kids.
The correct term would be doesn't it. That is the singular form. Don't would be used with they which is the plural form. Your college failed you.
He wasn't expressing pride. He was expressing his understanding of the importance of education. The arrogance is all yours.