taks

uh, the discussion about college level teaching was mostly off topic even for our otherwise off-topic discussion about teaching in general. taks

hehe, liberal arts teachers get degrees so they can teach other people to get liberal arts degrees, too. btw, the stipend i get for teaching is equivalent to slave labor. taks

what on earth do you do that results in your own staff? i thought you went into the military not too long ago? taks

working counterparts would be people with similar educations in the industry. i would be a working counterpart, for example, with the same level of education and experience as a full (tenured) professor. you are correct, they aren't doing that bad, but given their education, they could easily be doing a lot better if they worked in industry. supposedly there is an offset for "in demand" professorships, e.g., engineering, so they make a bit more, but from what i understand, at UCCS the engineering professors are getting right around what is listed as the colorado average (probably more up in boulder for cost of living). these guys work at least 60 hours a week, btw. i do believe private schools pay better, but i don't know what the difference would be. most of the high-end private schools are also in high cost of living areas (like cambridge, for example), so it would be difficult to strip out without more details. taks

ok, not a surprise and what i would have expected... i'm guessing the high-end private schools, i.e., the ones that presidents send their children, hire credentialed teachers, and probably pay more as well. there aren't many of that type, however. i just got off the phone with my "boss" at the college where i teach (lab instructor, hardly teaching, more like baby-sitting). i may pick up a class next semester, too, which would be cool since it is a hands-on class. i know from experience that college professors, tenured, with a PhD obviously, make significantly less than their working counterparts. they work waaaay more than 40 hours per week, and are expected to pick up a certain amount of work over the summers as well, but often do a lot of contract work to help their bottom line. taks

hey, i wasn't niggling hours. i think the WSJ incorrectly assigns hours worked, in general, on an assumption that "all professions take work home" (or most), which is disingenuous, and that they all have 3 months off over the summer. first, i think that the "second job" of working over the summer is part of what gets reported as "teacher salary," regardless of what the WSJ author thinks. second, no way they put in less than 40-hour work week, at least, the good ones don't. take into account everything, the assertion that teachers make, on average, $34/hour is ridiculous. the article also assumes that teachers only have a BS or BA degree, which is disingenuous as well, as hurlshot noted. i think, btw, that the purpose of the article was to shoot down attempts to provide more funding for teachers*, so there may be some political bias in the piece (conservative in this case, or libertarian at least). lies, damn lies and statistics and all that, IMO. i agree the problems with our education system can't be solved with more money, we need to fix how the money that's available is spent, which is poorly at the moment. there's only one way to make it efficient. taks * i'm curious: do private school teachers make more/less/the same as public school teachers?

downloading at 500 kB/s. very early impression: i'm bored of watching the DL screen, which is at 17%. taks

samm's right, btw. cooler = better, in general, but there's no magic point at which everything starts to decay. in fact, there are some things that require hotter temps, but that's not really a concern for what we're discussing. taks

probably the biggest after school activity for teachers is grading homework. for me (i'm a lab instructor), grading labs takes twice as long as time spent in class. taks

my position is that a) they work more than 40 per week, but not enough to cover 480 hours and b) they really do work over the summer, in spite of what the bureau of labor statistics says. just from the teachers that i know, they typically work summers in some fashion or another, which adds to their salaries as reported in the census/tax base numbers (which you linked to earlier). taks

i read that link. the average teacher is not the same as an "average bachelor's degreed" individual, either. that's sort of the point that hurlshot made (they have more education, in other words). i also don't buy the stats in the WSJ article that you linked. the numbers are for only a pure 40-hour work week for 9 months (in 2007) which actually works out to $53k/year. they really don't make any distinction on summer hours, btw, which i contend are required for their pay numbers to hold (every teacher i've ever known works summers, though certainly not to the same level). they also make the claim that all professions take work home, which is a cop-out. first, i rarely take work home. i guarantee my stock-broker brother never takes work home. second, i don't buy that teachers are at work only 40 hours a week at the school, let alone only working 9 months (your article makes the contention that they get summer breaks, but without supporting evidence). don't get me wrong, i don't disagree with the article's conclusions that the way we pay teachers is incorrect. seniority being the only determinant is, well, a joke, particularly for a profession as important as teaching. taks

teaching is also not a 40-hour/week job. it is much more than that, and i don't recall ever hearing that teachers really "have the summer off" in general. i always got the impression that they end up working those months for extra pay, which is what brings their average salary up, but i may be mistaken on that. either way, their pay is way behind given the level of skill/education they are required to have compared to other similarly skilled/educated occupations. an average starting engineer, with only a 4-year degree, can expect to earn $10k more than than the average teacher. the average engineer (experienced) is also making twice the average teacher's salary. no unions is much worse only if you assume the current system stays in place. i don't advocate that, obviously. it's like we used flawed methods to "fix" known flawed systems. the wolf is always in charge of the hen-house for some reason. the solution, unfortunately, does not support the establishment's desire for more power and more control over our (citizens') livelihood. taks

i was in both the oil, chemical and atomic workers union (OCAW) as well as the teamsters. bad is an understatement. they do more to damage the economy, and contrary to popular opinion, keep wages low, than just about any force in the country. taks

sigh... you're basing your opinion of competition on a corrupted system in which competition cannot exist. your previous statement highlights the problem perfectly: there is no advantage to being a better teacher. unions do not improve that, they simply put everyone on the same low level. it doesn't matter how good you are, you are all treated the same. you are also doing what i abhor: mis-characterizing my position. in other words, you have erected a strawman. "performance goals" are not what i suggest, not in the least. competition is what i suggest, but that can only happen if education is privatized. taks

that's how i got the witcher enhanced. worked out well. only took a few hours and i kicked it off before i went to bed one night. i'll have to check this out! taks

that's the problem, hurlshot. everyone excuses a crappy system because of the conditions that the crappy system itself created. if there was genuine competition, this would not be an issue. taks

word of advice: PS3. great player plus the added bonus that you also get to spend $50-$70 a whack for all them nifty games you're gonna soon desire. i'm not sure there are any "dirt cheap" blu-ray players, but it seems we had a thread on this somewhere and somebody (mkreku, or samm?) linked to some that are definitely getting cheaper. not sure how much cheaper tough. the bummer with the PS3 is that you can only have 1 disc in at a time, but i'm not sure the multi-disc players exist at all (and i'm sure they'd be ridiculously expensive either way). i'm torn on blu-ray vs. dvd, btw. for home use, blu-ray is clearly the choice. however, we also take movies with us on the road since we have a portable dvd player we bought for my wife's car, and my xterra has one of those built-in dvd players. if i stop buying dvds, then we won't have anything new for the kid when we travel. but if i buy everything in dvd format, then i won't get that HD uberness that i am now addicted to... no way i'm buying both. i'm thinking kid shows on dvd, daddy shows on blu-ray. wonder if pr0n has made the blu-ray step yet? taks

nonsense. those people wouldn't have needed handouts if it weren't for his socialist policies, and certainly FDR didn't solve the depression, WWII did. policies like those FDR advocated are what caused the depression in the first place. c'mon man. that's a weak argument even for you. ^wrath: no kidding. there's a very good reason that unions only enjoy single digit percentage existence now: the general populace doesn't want them and they are all but unnecessary. why on earth do liberals in control want this when the people clearly don't? control. go ahead, peanut gallery, tell me how i don't know what i'm talking about. then tell me how many unions you've been in. i've been in two, btw. taks

no, that's not true at all. the problem facing any would be welfare program in general is an inability to deal with demand. it's that simple. throttling in any direction does not work and should not even be attempted. and, btw, the recession would not happen in the absence of government intervention in the first place. it is a result of such intervention. there's no mechanism for "recession" in the absence of government control. enoch likes to point out that government intervention was put in place to prevent such things as recessions, yet can offer not one bit of evidence that such a thing existed before government control. obama favors increasing that control, which, not unlike FDR's failed socialist policies extended the depression, will only serve to drag this problem out. FDR got "lucky" with the war that instantly put 12 million americans to work. taks

it's based on his own freaking quotes. that's what he intentionally painted himself as, particularly his autobiography. sheesh. that's not at all subjective. for god's sake, open your eyes. taks

keep in mind that no "socialist" can ever win the US presidency. instead, they make up this "third way" crap* and insist that it's viable and can overcome the problems with socialism. the "third way" is not new as von mises was writing about it long ago. it's a way to hide the truth. to fool the masses that don't really understand that collectivist is collectivist no matter what you call it. it suffers from the same problems as any collectivist system: an inability to adjust for demand. taks

you don't make any sense. there's no "bundling." obama's positions are marxist, period. that makes him a statist, which is no different than any of the "ists" relative to capitalist. the "details" are immaterial. that you don't understand why this is true is not a surprise. taks

you must be basing your opinion on the way he campaigned, not where he actually stands. he's a marxist, actually, which makes him socialist even if the system he works within does not allow fully socialist policies. of course, just about all politicians that make it into the limelight are socialist. let's now hear from the peanut gallery about how taks doesn't understand socialism, and i get to yet again point out that the gallery doesn't understand what statism or collectivism is, and how all statist/collectivist systems are the same under the hood. variations on a theme are not only immaterial, but point out how little the peanut critics actually understand, which is exactly why statist policies continue to destroy our society. wrap them in a "third way" package and suddenly morons come out of the woodwork showing their collective hands. taks

madagascar 2 at the imax saturday. total riot. funnier than the first by a long shot. the king (the nonsense marmoset dude) was played by bernie mac, and his part will be missed if there is a 3rd movie. taks

nice try, but you know how we operate... ahem. btw, my last comment was a cross-post with you. but a joke nonetheless. taks