Capt. Al Haynes sorta OT.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Richard Hertz wrote:
Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
7
hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.

Why not answer his question, Matthew?

Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from the
bottom quartile of their graduating classes?

The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
pant-loads of uneducated youth.

This is a bit of a stretch. There is "retirement", and then there is

My sister, age 54, just retired after teaching 32 years in the same Middle
School. (Actually in the same ROOM, for all those years!)

While this *does* qualify for sainthood, I'm still not sure why she was
eligible for full retirement at at 52 -- fully 13 years before the rest of
society. The taxpayers in Michigan are certainly in no position to pay
this, and should not have to -- especially nowadays, with life expectancy
for women climbing to record levels.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Jeffrey Voight" wrote in message
...
Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
and fully expected. This is the time that the teacher spends building
lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
of the year.

As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.

Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society. It means
that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.

Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
bottom 1/4 of my class'.

And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
of the days that they don't work. Some of them do spread their income
so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.

Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.

Uneducated youth don't make good
incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?

Jeff...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:

Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only

7

hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Why not answer his question, Matthew?

Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the
bottom quartile of their graduating classes?

I am changing careers. After working for 12 years in the computer science
industry I am going to "semi-retire" to teach math and computer science.
Many family members and acquaintances teach and when I compare their
lifestyle and working hours and stress to mine I conclude that the pay cut
is worth the reduced hours and the retirement benefits are almost criminal.
(in my opinion)


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Richard Hertz wrote:
Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
7
hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Matt

"Jeffrey Voight" wrote in message
...
Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
and fully expected. This is the time that the teacher spends building
lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
of the year.

Correct - I asked no questions but made a statement that does seem to
infuriate teachers.
I am sick of teachers who whine about this "take home work." Most salaried
professionals I know also do not work a 40 hour work week. Teachers get to
work from the comfort of their home for those hours. Also, after a few
years the lesson plans are made and very little work is needed after the
work day.


As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.

Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society. It means
that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.

Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
bottom 1/4 of my class'.

And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
of the days that they don't work. Some of them do spread their income
so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.

Yes, and I value my vacation time more than the extra pay. This is why I am
going to switch careers. Note that teaching (as far as I am aware) has far
greater supply than demand. The most locigal presumption is that the
benefits are very desirable compared to the working hours.


Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.

Perhaps - however the benefit packages are way out of line. I also think
that the government run system is less than ideal. Private schools do not
give the same benefits packages, but retain some excellent teachers due to
the better working environment. Private schools also pay less.

I do concede that I am not in a normal situation. After working 11 years
programming I am in a position (not able to retire) that enables me to take
a substantial salary reduction in order to teach.


The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
pant-loads of uneducated youth. Uneducated youth don't make good
incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?


We already have pant-loads of uneducated youth. I know my local school
district is doing an abysmal job. I am horrified at what the administrators
and teachers are forcing on the local taxpayers and children.
(inefficiencies and poor syllabi)


Jeff...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:

Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only

7

hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Why not answer his question, Matthew?

Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the
bottom quartile of their graduating classes?

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
My sister, age 54, just retired after teaching 32 years...

While this *does* qualify for sainthood, I'm still not sure
why she was eligible for full retirement at at 52 -- fully
13 years before the rest of society.

That would have added up to 84 "points" at Honeywell when last I worked
there (1995) - I think it's still figured that way. One more year (2
points) and she would have qualified for full retirement. Many corporate
retitrement plans are similar.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jeffrey Voight" wrote in message
...
Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
and fully expected.

Not in any school district I've seen. At my daughter's HS, any teacher that
has a "0" hour class (7:00AM start) is gone at 2:00 PM. Most of their drudge
work is handled by TA's (student assistants)

This is the time that the teacher spends building
lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
of the year.

See TA's above.



As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.


Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society.

That's your assessment; no one here made that connection except you.

It means
that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.

I wonder why!
Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
bottom 1/4 of my class'.

I can see how the public schools taught you logic....NOT!

And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
of the days that they don't work.

(More examples of public school intellect)
Some of them do spread their income
so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.
(More examples of public school intellect)

We rest our case!


Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.

The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
pant-loads of uneducated youth. Uneducated youth don't make good
incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?

Jeff...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:

Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only

7

hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Why not answer his question, Matthew?

Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the
bottom quartile of their graduating classes?

"Jeffrey Voight" wrote in message
...
--------snip--------- (s/.*//)
I wish that I had the financials in order enough to teach math/comp sci.

My senior-senior ppl at my office always get this "you've just grown
another head" look whenever I tell them that my life goal is to teach
math/comp sci. "But, there's no money in that!" 'no, but there's a
great deal of satisfaction.' "But, all those kids have diseases and
guns!" 'the .mil has immunized me against everything else, what's to
lose?' "But, there's no money in that!" (you see where this is going,
I'm sure).

How about you go back to school to re-take English Composition?

Where do you guys get these statistics - I find both very unlikely...

Michael


"Jeffrey Voight" wrote in message
...
As an aside, don't forget that 50% of all doctors graduated in the
bottom half of their class.


Tom Sixkiller wrote:
Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the bottom quartile of their graduating classes?

LOL - ok, I thought we were talking about high school...

"Jeffrey Voight" wrote in message
...
I made mine up. It *is* correct, though. Half of all _______ would
have to graduate in the bottom half of their class.

The 3/4's one, I don't know where it came from. I don't find it likely,
either.

Jeff...

Michael 182 wrote:
Where do you guys get these statistics - I find both very unlikely...

Michael

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:

Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only

7

hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Why not answer his question, Matthew?

Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from the
bottom quartile of their graduating classes?



Because he didn't ask a question. He made a statement. The only
question in the above is the one I asked.


Matt