yeah right

yeah right

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 9:24 pm

November 30th, 2017, 6:07 am #1

yeah right
by easylangs (Login easylangs)
Python and FIG Forum

the colours and contrast on here are altered to make the signs legible.

for all their higher education (which im all for on paper, but its not too difficult to figure out whats wrong with it in practice) they cant figure out how to make a sign that people can read.

the one on the right gets really close-- most of her sign you can tell what it says. but on the bottom... well, who cares?



this is actually about the one on the left (you can make your own jokes there.)

i want to live in a society with MORE CRITICAL THINKING, not LESS!

and thats why you want more money (tax breaks) going to schools?


since she wants "more critical thinking," not less, heres some:


* people that look exactly like the ones in this picture have constantly been at war with free speech on campus, open discussion and debate, and critical thinking. (but its possible the ones in the photo are different. is it likely?)


* they probably also claim to be against corporate tax cuts-- dont blame them-- have they figured out that their school gets most of its funding from corporate sponsors, and that when you throw in the tax breaks for the school, they amount to government-subsidised advertising for corporate sponsors?

i mean the school is a business that runs on corporate money. if they want tax breaks and corporate sponsors for it, why not just let silicon valley continue taking over through people like bill gates? but they argue against that, too. (as they probably should.)


* the left wants everyone else to be taxed extra, except for the things they like... oh yeah-- tax the rich! tax the middle class, they wont feel it-- tax the schools-- WAIT! DONT TAX SCHOOLS!

can we just tax the new building coca cola put in?

NO, SCHOOLS ARE SACRED!

ok coca cola, i know where all your moneys going now--

lets continue making LOCAL tax havens for corporations, for the socialists who only want corporations to be taxed. then when they complain about loopholes, they can say "well of course we mean the loopholes we didnt stand around outside with signs defending..."

right...


i dont care, tax the schools, dont tax the schools. this is really about the look on the girls face on the left.

does that look like:

a. a girl who wants more critical thinking, like her sign says

b. a girl studying for a liberal arts degree so she can learn new ways to become more entrenched in her existing positions, without examining them critically (or freely allowing others to?)


im saying b. for now. but you know what? i dont generally LIKE being right.

theres no fun in it-- when im right, the world sucks.

please, tell me im wrong. show me im wrong. show me these 3 sign-holders arent idiots.


I VALUE HIGHER ED BECAUSE i want to live in a society with MORE cognitive dissonance, NOT LESS!

time to raise that tuition again...



tl;dr: is there MORE critical thinking on campus than 10 years ago, or less?

do the people responsible for that lack look more like men in suits, or more like the people in the photo?

do tax breaks somehow increase critical thinking?

reliably?

Posted on Nov 29, 2017, 9:32 PM
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 14th, 2017, 2:44 am

November 30th, 2017, 6:09 am #2

* thanks mc. ive got you next time
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 14th, 2017, 2:44 am

November 30th, 2017, 6:14 am #3

yeah right
by easylangs (Login easylangs)
Python and FIG Forum

the colours and contrast on here are altered to make the signs legible.

for all their higher education (which im all for on paper, but its not too difficult to figure out whats wrong with it in practice) they cant figure out how to make a sign that people can read.

the one on the right gets really close-- most of her sign you can tell what it says. but on the bottom... well, who cares?



this is actually about the one on the left (you can make your own jokes there.)

i want to live in a society with MORE CRITICAL THINKING, not LESS!

and thats why you want more money (tax breaks) going to schools?


since she wants "more critical thinking," not less, heres some:


* people that look exactly like the ones in this picture have constantly been at war with free speech on campus, open discussion and debate, and critical thinking. (but its possible the ones in the photo are different. is it likely?)


* they probably also claim to be against corporate tax cuts-- dont blame them-- have they figured out that their school gets most of its funding from corporate sponsors, and that when you throw in the tax breaks for the school, they amount to government-subsidised advertising for corporate sponsors?

i mean the school is a business that runs on corporate money. if they want tax breaks and corporate sponsors for it, why not just let silicon valley continue taking over through people like bill gates? but they argue against that, too. (as they probably should.)


* the left wants everyone else to be taxed extra, except for the things they like... oh yeah-- tax the rich! tax the middle class, they wont feel it-- tax the schools-- WAIT! DONT TAX SCHOOLS!

can we just tax the new building coca cola put in?

NO, SCHOOLS ARE SACRED!

ok coca cola, i know where all your moneys going now--

lets continue making LOCAL tax havens for corporations, for the socialists who only want corporations to be taxed. then when they complain about loopholes, they can say "well of course we mean the loopholes we didnt stand around outside with signs defending..."

right...


i dont care, tax the schools, dont tax the schools. this is really about the look on the girls face on the left.

does that look like:

a. a girl who wants more critical thinking, like her sign says

b. a girl studying for a liberal arts degree so she can learn new ways to become more entrenched in her existing positions, without examining them critically (or freely allowing others to?)


im saying b. for now. but you know what? i dont generally LIKE being right.

theres no fun in it-- when im right, the world sucks.

please, tell me im wrong. show me im wrong. show me these 3 sign-holders arent idiots.


I VALUE HIGHER ED BECAUSE i want to live in a society with MORE cognitive dissonance, NOT LESS!

time to raise that tuition again...



tl;dr: is there MORE critical thinking on campus than 10 years ago, or less?

do the people responsible for that lack look more like men in suits, or more like the people in the photo?

do tax breaks somehow increase critical thinking?

reliably?

Posted on Nov 29, 2017, 9:32 PM
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 23rd, 2007, 4:01 pm

November 30th, 2017, 2:46 pm #4

yeah right
by easylangs (Login easylangs)
Python and FIG Forum

the colours and contrast on here are altered to make the signs legible.

for all their higher education (which im all for on paper, but its not too difficult to figure out whats wrong with it in practice) they cant figure out how to make a sign that people can read.

the one on the right gets really close-- most of her sign you can tell what it says. but on the bottom... well, who cares?



this is actually about the one on the left (you can make your own jokes there.)

i want to live in a society with MORE CRITICAL THINKING, not LESS!

and thats why you want more money (tax breaks) going to schools?


since she wants "more critical thinking," not less, heres some:


* people that look exactly like the ones in this picture have constantly been at war with free speech on campus, open discussion and debate, and critical thinking. (but its possible the ones in the photo are different. is it likely?)


* they probably also claim to be against corporate tax cuts-- dont blame them-- have they figured out that their school gets most of its funding from corporate sponsors, and that when you throw in the tax breaks for the school, they amount to government-subsidised advertising for corporate sponsors?

i mean the school is a business that runs on corporate money. if they want tax breaks and corporate sponsors for it, why not just let silicon valley continue taking over through people like bill gates? but they argue against that, too. (as they probably should.)


* the left wants everyone else to be taxed extra, except for the things they like... oh yeah-- tax the rich! tax the middle class, they wont feel it-- tax the schools-- WAIT! DONT TAX SCHOOLS!

can we just tax the new building coca cola put in?

NO, SCHOOLS ARE SACRED!

ok coca cola, i know where all your moneys going now--

lets continue making LOCAL tax havens for corporations, for the socialists who only want corporations to be taxed. then when they complain about loopholes, they can say "well of course we mean the loopholes we didnt stand around outside with signs defending..."

right...


i dont care, tax the schools, dont tax the schools. this is really about the look on the girls face on the left.

does that look like:

a. a girl who wants more critical thinking, like her sign says

b. a girl studying for a liberal arts degree so she can learn new ways to become more entrenched in her existing positions, without examining them critically (or freely allowing others to?)


im saying b. for now. but you know what? i dont generally LIKE being right.

theres no fun in it-- when im right, the world sucks.

please, tell me im wrong. show me im wrong. show me these 3 sign-holders arent idiots.


I VALUE HIGHER ED BECAUSE i want to live in a society with MORE cognitive dissonance, NOT LESS!

time to raise that tuition again...



tl;dr: is there MORE critical thinking on campus than 10 years ago, or less?

do the people responsible for that lack look more like men in suits, or more like the people in the photo?

do tax breaks somehow increase critical thinking?

reliably?

Posted on Nov 29, 2017, 9:32 PM
Unfortunately most "teachers" get into higher education because they can't stand younger kids, can't make it in the field of what they end up teaching, have lackluster grades for their own time in school, are lazy and unmotivated, took the easy way out, and then for some reason because teaching is considered a profession, they think they should be paid a lot more money for all the things they are not good enough at to make that amount of money in the first place.

Good teachers relate well to others. They know their material because they are excited by their material. They probably did very well while in school because of that motivation. So these types are teachers because they love teaching.

Merritt raises would make a lot more sense, than across the board salary increases, when considering the two examples listed above. It would put the good ones on the top most of the time and either force the bad ones out or at least get them to put forth an effort for better pay and greater recognition.

Pete
Last edited by The-Universe on November 30th, 2017, 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 14th, 2017, 2:44 am

November 30th, 2017, 3:10 pm #5

"Unfortunately most "teachers" get into higher education because they can't stand younger kids, can't make it in the field of what they end up teaching, have lackluster grades for their own time in school, are lazy and unmotivated, took the easy way out, and then for some reason because teaching is considered a profession, they think they should be paid a lot more money for all the things they are not good enough at to make that amount of money in the first place."

and here i just thought it was the administration and a good subset of teachers. i wouldnt have considered the majority.

campus administrations have really bent over every which way-- they cave to demands from students that prohibit the school from BEING a school, they bend over for sponsors, and they spend a lot of time bending over for corporations while still clutching that image of being "independent" of such things in philosophy and deed. follow the money, it would laugh at the whole thing. theres no reason (at this point) that these schools shouldnt be taxed like any other business, because they take so much money from corporations.

BUT, if they really qualify for a status that lets them avoid more taxes-- fine. im not saying that i think they should go after the schools per se.

im saying that if they did, theres no great reason not to. at least not anymore. the way theyre structured i dont know why universities arent considered for-profit corporations. anything sacred going on there is a thing of the past-- nothing is sacred for a university these days, except its image.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 31st, 2004, 10:14 am

November 30th, 2017, 11:33 pm #6

Unfortunately most "teachers" get into higher education because they can't stand younger kids, can't make it in the field of what they end up teaching, have lackluster grades for their own time in school, are lazy and unmotivated, took the easy way out, and then for some reason because teaching is considered a profession, they think they should be paid a lot more money for all the things they are not good enough at to make that amount of money in the first place.

Good teachers relate well to others. They know their material because they are excited by their material. They probably did very well while in school because of that motivation. So these types are teachers because they love teaching.

Merritt raises would make a lot more sense, than across the board salary increases, when considering the two examples listed above. It would put the good ones on the top most of the time and either force the bad ones out or at least get them to put forth an effort for better pay and greater recognition.

Pete
That would be a good one for all professions if such a system could be implemented. Many professions attract people simply for the money they can earn or the prestige, but how many are actually good at it? ...or even try? With the merit-raise plan, they'd have to shape up or ship out, and others considering such a profession would have to think twice. Some might argue that there'd be fewer doctors and teachers, etc., but at least you'd know that the ones there were would be of a higher calibre. And even if there were a few around of lower calibre, at least you could afford them.

-Bob
Last edited by qb432l on December 1st, 2017, 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 14th, 2017, 2:44 am

December 1st, 2017, 2:05 am #7

after all with a merit raise, thats where youre going to get the biggest savings up front...

the problem is calculating merit-- if we just do standard test scores then we are worse off then when we started. every time weve ramped up how much a school or teacher is paid based on that, the quality of instruction has dropped. its like a recipe for failure.

measuring the quality of instruction in a class based on standard test scores is sort of like measuring how happy people in a country are based on gdp. good luck with that. note i never suggested you said anything of the sort-- just that we need a better method of figuring out who to give raises to.

start with doctors and it could get messy-- the work of a bad teacher can often be undone-- i dont want to try that plan in the o.r. first, you know?

another thing to consider: will merit raises for doctors lead to a race to the bottom in terms of quality? if theyre proctologists, yes, but for everyone else thats a problem. its really better to start with teachers-- because like proctologists, theyre already at the bottom.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 31st, 2004, 10:14 am

December 1st, 2017, 8:32 am #8

I believe over a long period of time, the relative capability of teachers, doctors, etc., can be determined, but a merit-raise couldn't be based on long-term data. And even then, much of it would be subjective. For example, was "Chips" a <em>good</em> teacher or just a popular one?

It all boils down to perfect-world thinking, and unfortunately, we live in a broken one.

-Bob
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 2nd, 2006, 10:38 pm

December 7th, 2017, 5:03 am #9

after all with a merit raise, thats where youre going to get the biggest savings up front...

the problem is calculating merit-- if we just do standard test scores then we are worse off then when we started. every time weve ramped up how much a school or teacher is paid based on that, the quality of instruction has dropped. its like a recipe for failure.

measuring the quality of instruction in a class based on standard test scores is sort of like measuring how happy people in a country are based on gdp. good luck with that. note i never suggested you said anything of the sort-- just that we need a better method of figuring out who to give raises to.

start with doctors and it could get messy-- the work of a bad teacher can often be undone-- i dont want to try that plan in the o.r. first, you know?

another thing to consider: will merit raises for doctors lead to a race to the bottom in terms of quality? if theyre proctologists, yes, but for everyone else thats a problem. its really better to start with teachers-- because like proctologists, theyre already at the bottom.
Do no harm you ignorant fool!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 14th, 2017, 2:44 am

December 7th, 2017, 5:13 am #10

i mustve sat too hard on santas lap this year.

yeah, yeah, thats what she said!
Quote
Like
Share