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.
I actually have my first major interview in a long time tomorrow. It's at an IB magnet elementary school that is expanding to K-8 this fall so they have some openings (I went into a "career change into teaching" program last summer (former careers (yes, careers!) were in IT/network admin and in market research analysis) and got a CT license to teach middle school math.....ironically I had a temp job 3 days/week as a high school resource room teacher for the 2nd half of this school year (in math.....because they were remedial and it was a temporary job through a federal program I qualified to do it with a middle school certificate)).
It's sort of a "2nd interview" (I subbed there and somehow turned it into an impromptu interview at the end of my subbing day), so I'm really hopeful!
Hey that sounds great. If you dont mind me asking, how does the 'career change into teaching' work?
Many states have an "alternate route" program where if you have significant college coursework and/or career mileage in a certain subject you can go either for 5 days/week course for about 3 months or in some cases weekends for about a year plus a month or two of student teacher and come out with a certificate. Now before everyone looks into this, remember:
1) Lots of layoffs right now in teaching. And (south47 you're going to love this and I'm almost in complete agreement with you here) union "last in first out" rules adds a layer of difficulty for you in getting and keeping a job.
2) They are not easy to get into. The only ones I know of in my home state of NY are the NYC Teaching Fellows program and the Rochester Urban Teaching program through Roberts Wesleyan University. People from all over the US go for the NYC Fellows and in "good" times they take in like 1 out of 8 applicants (right now they are taking in maybe half that). Some states like NJ and CT have "statewide" programs, though in CT's case the courses are only in Hartford and people on the corners of the state or just over the border like me either commute 90 minutes each way or had to find a cheap place to stay for 3 months (I went home on the weekends). Even the CT program only takes in about 1 out of 3-4 applicants.
3) In most cases you can only do it for traditional "shortage" subjects (some of which are not as much of a shortage now). Usually that is:
Middle and High School math and science (and increasingly Language Arts)
Foreign Language (quite a few in my program who had the background got jobs teaching Chinese!)
Special Education
Until my year last summer, most of the math people got jobs. Only 3 of the 13 in my group had jobs last September (I don't count what I did as it was temporary p/t and started in January), and only 2 others have so far for this fall (and for one of them it is p/t, though permanent and possibly leading to f/t the next school year). Elementary schools have had multiple applicants per position even in good times so virtually most of these programs don't cover elementary ed.
4) Often only inner city schools that frequently have a hard time filling positions because the jobs are tough will strongly consider an "alternate route" person. Sometimes rural schools as well. Those rich, suburban districts everyone wants to teach at always have (even for math and science) lots of applicants from the "traditional route", so you don't doing this looking for an instant job there.
That said, you'd be surprised who succeeds at these kinds of programs. Of the 125 in my group last summer for all subjects, the median age was 42 (my age now) and we had everyone from mid 20s to mid 60s. And I know quite a few "nerdy white guys" (and women) in their 50s and early 60s who got jobs in "tough" schools and succeeded. You just have to be a little thick-skinned and have an open mind.
Just don't want to make it sound like a "magic bullet", especially in these times.
I searched the term lifelong Republican on that page and guess how many times it appeared?
Zero. As a matter of fact I only read one comment that mentioned switching parties.
A little dishonest, no?
It may not be the exact term but going back now I found at least two just going down the first 1/3 of the comments. OK to be fair one does not note how long they were with that party, but the other says "I've been a Republican all my life and if Obama has an Executive Order, I'm all for it. You've lost my vote, I'm now a Democrat" (I don't know if I have that verbatim, it didn't let me copy/paste it).
The point is that I think this is enough to note that intransigence is going to hurt the Republicans more (and although Harry Reid has a lot to explain too, Angle is on such the extreme fringe (please don't argue this, I think doing completely away with the Dept. of Education, Medicare and Social Security is as extreme as someone on the far left saying that we should have complete nationalization of all businesses and central planning.....I have not seen that equivalent on the left yet at least by someone running for office and no, Obama has not gone as far as that) that I think this is going to hurt her chances, especially with NV having the highest UE rate in the US).
Heh...I'm an independent, and the last thing I'd ever consider is voting for a democrat right about now. And judging by their poll numbers and the direction this country continues to head in, I'm not so sure many are flocking to the democrats these days. These savages need to start working FOR THE PEOPLE and not working towards building more power and money for themselves...and that goes for the democrats AND republicans!
With that said...due to the fact that we have never truly exited this horrendous recession, we need to extend unemployment benefits. No strings attached...no other perks tied to the bill, just extend our benefits. Cut the B.S., they have the votes to extend unemployment benefits as it stands right now...so Harry Reid, if you really care about the unemployed, just get the standalone bill through and stop with the political nonsense!
And while we're at it...why not try to pass legislation that would actually give more incentive to small/medium/large businesses to start hiring again? We can keep extending unemployment til we're blue in the face, the job market remains as toxic as it was last year and nothing is changing.
Heh...I'm an independent, and the last thing I'd ever consider is voting for a democrat right about now. And judging by their poll numbers and the direction this country continues to head in, I'm not so sure many are flocking to the democrats these days. These savages need to start working FOR THE PEOPLE and not working towards building more power and money for themselves...and that goes for the democrats AND republicans!
With that said...due to the fact that we have never truly exited this horrendous recession, we need to extend unemployment benefits. No strings attached...no other perks tied to the bill, just extend our benefits. Cut the B.S., they have the votes to extend unemployment benefits as it stands right now...so Harry Reid, if you really care about the unemployed, just get the standalone bill through and stop with the political nonsense!
And while we're at it...why not try to pass legislation that would actually give more incentive to small/medium/large businesses to start hiring again? We can keep extending unemployment til we're blue in the face, the job market remains as toxic as it was last year and nothing is changing.
Nice post. I agree about the incentive to hire. Makes more sense than tax breaks, IMO. The incentive should be qualified, though. I heard a radio show where a tax credit might have influenced an owner to hire more sales help. I understand the theory where sales would generate other jobs. But there has always been sales jobs in the recession. The owner would probably hire anyway as remuneration is comission with little or no wage.
I really don't think they care one bit about the emails, phone calls, petitions, etc...that's why they have people answering the phones for them...I bet they don't get one message...
I really don't think they care one bit about the emails, phone calls, petitions, etc...that's why they have people answering the phones for them...I bet they don't get one message...
How does this help my chances of getting re-elected in November?
and
What does the opposition think about this issue...whatever it is, I'm the opposite?
Those are the primary questions that arise in their heads when they hear from a taxpayer. Just look at what Joe Biden said yesterday in that ice cream shop. The owner told him that it would be nice if Washington would work on lowering taxes, and Biden called him a smartass.
Politicians are out of control and completely out of touch with reality.
It may not be the exact term but going back now I found at least two just going down the first 1/3 of the comments. OK to be fair one does not note how long they were with that party, but the other says "I've been a Republican all my life and if Obama has an Executive Order, I'm all for it. You've lost my vote, I'm now a Democrat" (I don't know if I have that verbatim, it didn't let me copy/paste it).
The point is that I think this is enough to note that intransigence is going to hurt the Republicans more (and although Harry Reid has a lot to explain too, Angle is on such the extreme fringe (please don't argue this, I think doing completely away with the Dept. of Education, Medicare and Social Security is as extreme as someone on the far left saying that we should have complete nationalization of all businesses and central planning.....I have not seen that equivalent on the left yet at least by someone running for office and no, Obama has not gone as far as that) that I think this is going to hurt her chances, especially with NV having the highest UE rate in the US).
She's up 7% right now, and if your logic holds, then if UE goes down Angle has a better shot. Not only that, but you misrepresented her positions... Badly.
The fact is that NV is a pretty libertarian state, and Angle is pretty libertarian, she fits well. The Reid brand is terrible, Rory Reid is doing far worse than his father. Most political analysts agree with me, that Harry Reid is done, Larry Sabato, Charlie Cook, Scott Rasmussen... Not partisans.
She's up 7% right now, and if your logic holds, then if UE goes down Angle has a better shot. Not only that, but you misrepresented her positions... Badly.
The fact is that NV is a pretty libertarian state, and Angle is pretty libertarian, she fits well. The Reid brand is terrible, Rory Reid is doing far worse than his father. Most political analysts agree with me, that Harry Reid is done, Larry Sabato, Charlie Cook, Scott Rasmussen... Not partisans.
I grant that Nevada's libertarian streak, especially outside Las Vegas (as an example I remember reading in the 1980s when they cleverly challenged the 55-mph speed law with a $5 no-point "energy waste" fine for going under 70.....I actually thought it was pretty clever) is what got Angle past the primaries and may give her a win. But I don't think it's misrepresented. I'll say it in the exact accurate way she did:
1) Completely privatizing Social Security and Medicare is just as bad an idea as would be the reverse idea of doing away with 401-Ks completely and replacing it 100% with SSI. If Social Security were completely privatized (and I grant even Clinton toyed with that idea, let alone Bush), you'd have a lot of homeless seniors right now, which is why it was created to begin with during the Depression. Anyone expecting it to be their full retirement coverage is a fool, but like UI, it's a supplement.
And look at the state of "private" health care today (something that NO other developed country on earth deals with), if you had no Medicare, seniors would be bankrupted by private insurance far far far more than today's middle class families are, even back in 1965 when they created this they saw it coming. By virtue of the definition of insurance, they'd be a very very high risk and have sky-high premiums in the stratosphere.
2) No Dept. of Education in lieu of letting every local community do it's own education standards would be a nightmare. Yes, our public school system needs a lot of fixing, but too many districts would have little or no public education due to budgets.......if we didn't have public schools and a Dept. of Education, only the rich would have much beyond a 6th-10th grade education like in the 1800s. Don't even get me started on the school districts that would teach little science except for Intelligent Design, if you can call that science. I don't want to go back to the Stone Age; name me one developed country that has no Dept. of Education and complete local control of standards and I'll think different.
I realize she'll be just one Senator, but if she were President I honestly think we'd have millions living in the streets and civil unrest/war. Sarah Palin is a godsend compared to her, but I won't get started on that moron.
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.
