Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hours/years/dollars spent teaching or studying ...or test scores/GPA...don't correlate with quality of outcomes....as measured by job relevant skills achieved, self-learning/analytic skills achieved, or eventual career earnings of kids
Uhm what?
Education level absolutely correlates strongly with earning potential. Just look at the latest census data.
And test scores of students absolutely correlate with education level. Those with higher standardized test scores typically have higher education levels.
Quote:
Top ~5% of US students simply dwarf their peers in Germany/Japan or any other country on planet in their career achievements and earnings...almost no >$1MM/yr, <25yo software engineers or hedge fund traders exist anywhere outside PaloAlto or Manhattan
Where US struggles (can blame inept parents/kids, predatory entertainment/sports culture, self-serving unions, etc) is in educating/training craftsmen for advanced mfg like assembling Mercedes or building high-end houses....too many kids with lots of archaic yet costly schooling, empty diplomas and no relevant jobs skills
Consider caliber of US' top engineering schools vs best in RoW...and, more importantly, the demonstrated inability of any other country on planet to create valuable, innovative new cos. like Apple, Google, etc
Before you can have cutting edge tech you need cutting edge science. The lag time is usually 1 to 2 decades. The cutting edge science is moving farther and farther east all the time.
I have no data and that is not my field. I was indicating the study is flawed as it does not gather input from the other actors involved in the education process- students and parents.
Just because its limited its variables does not remotely mean a study is flawed.
As a matter of fact the more variables incorporated the less reliable the findings.
There is no doubting the outcomes of this study, that US teachers work more hours for less money.
What you are quibbling about is the extrapolation people on this forum are making about the application of these findings to student achievement but that by no means means the study is flawed.
Just because its limited its variables does not remotely mean a study is flawed.
As a matter of fact the more variables incorporated the less reliable the findings.
There is no doubting the outcomes of this study, that US teachers work more hours for less money.
What you are quibbling about is the extrapolation people on this forum are making about the application of these findings to student achievement but that by no means means the study is flawed.
Actually....the entire premise shows faulty logic as I wrote in my last sentence in the first reply...if the validity is based on the teacher's effort being the main impetus for what an education represents. Clearly that is not so. It was stretched considerably beyond what you have said above. If it was only that U.S teachers worker longer hours than the other group but the conclusion morphed into another message which cannot be substantiated.
You took the entire OP out of context and disassembled it to do what? Appear more intelligent? You came across as foolish and pedantic.
Actually....the entire premise shows faulty logic as I wrote in my last sentence in the first reply...if the validity is based on the teacher's effort being the main impetus for what an education represents.
Clearly that is not so. It was stretched considerably beyond what you have said above. If it was only that U.S teachers worker longer hours than the other group but the conclusion morphed into another message which cannot be substantiated.[quote
You took the entire OP out of context and disassembled it to do what? Appear more intelligent? You came across as foolish and pedantic.
Your first post implied the studies were not valid and you continued on what you thought was flawed logic. Unfortunately you do not seem to be differentiating between what the OP was extrapolating and what the researchers attempted to find out.
You seem to lack an understanding of scientific validity or did not read what the actual study was about.
One OECD study was looking at the correlation between pay and hours worked per nation. A SEPARATE study also by OECD ranked nations in terms of scores in math science and reading.
"student achievement in the U.S. remains average in reading and science and slightly below average in math when compared to other nations in a separate OECD report. "
Maybe the OP (and various journalists) extrapolated that to make the correlation between hours/pay and student achievement but that was clearly not the SCIENTISTS intent. The SCIENTISTS studies/reports were completely valid because knowing the correlation between hours worked and rate of pay is worth knowing in and of itself.
I am a researcher. I study the effect of invasive species on endangered species. Just because I prove that one (invasive species) has an effect on the other (endangered species) does not mean other variables (i.e. habitat loss) have no effect.
Clearly teachers have an effect on student achievement. No one, not the researchers, OP or the journalists summarizing this article, has said anywhere that it is the only effect or even the largest one. There is no flaw in the study or its validity.
^^^Read what actually was written by the OP not what you want to see. Both in the first paragraph and second there was the implication regarding work invested and overall education without any means to link the two. Poor logic.
Again if was merely what they measured, U.S. teachers vs. counterparts there would be no complaint. But it was stretched more.
I see you are one of those C-D types who cannot admit they made an error. This is becoming a circular argument.
^^^Read what actually was written by the OP not what you want to see. Both in the first paragraph and second there was the implication regarding work invested and overall education without any means to link the two. Poor logic.
Again if was merely what they measured, U.S. teachers vs. counterparts there would be no complaint. But it was stretched more.
I see you are one of those C-D types who cannot admit they made an error. This is becoming a circular argument.
I wasn't making a concrete link, just asking what people's thoughts were on the hours worked by teachers and that despite those long hours our students have not improved. Sorry, should have worded it better. Obviously it's hard to tie in all the factors, but I was looking at the differences in working conditions for our teachers and the differences in student achievement in other countries.
According to the article, US teachers spend 1097 hours a year teaching (1913 hours total, including outside of the classroom). The OECD average is only 786 hours in comparison. However, our student achievement is average in reading and science and below average in math.
Any thoughts on these statistics? The article states that teachers who work fewer hours in other countries produce "better educated students". It also brings up the difference in salary, ie. American teachers spend the most hours teaching but they are the 5th lowest paid. So does this mean that our teachers are overworked and underpaid-which does not help student achievement?
I would question the motivation, passion, and quality of education these teachers possess themselves. Substitute teachers included. If they are over-worked they may be lacking the motivation to teach at their best. So our children suffer as the result. I would say quality over quantity but I'd question the desire and knowledge of the teachers.
Also the children who have learning disabilities that go undetected. These should weigh into the stats as well.
^^^Read what actually was written by the OP not what you want to see. Both in the first paragraph and second there was the implication regarding work invested and overall education without any means to link the two. Poor logic.
Again if was merely what they measured, U.S. teachers vs. counterparts there would be no complaint. But it was stretched more.
I see you are one of those C-D types who cannot admit they made an error. This is becoming a circular argument.
I am not the one in error here.
I can see you are the C-D type who cannot be bothered to read a link posted, neither the one by the OP or me.
Summarize the link and I will read if interested. Otherwise it is a waste of posting. Links are to substantiate a position if called upon for reference not to take the readers time from the thread. C-D is a forum to express ideas across a wide number of subjects. A person who begins a thread (or responds) should post the necessary text to make the point of thread. This is not a link swapping forum.
Last edited by Felix C; 07-01-2011 at 04:50 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
