• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Who Should Educate the Educators?

September 21, 2011, 2:09 pm

For the first quarter of a millennium after the establishment of Harvard College, teachers with college educations studied the liberal arts or for the ministry. As we approached 1900, that began to change, and state supported normal schools grew up all over the country, from which even today a large proportion of our elementary and secondary teachers come. Was the move to turn the teaching of teachers into a separate “profession” with its own school or college within universities a smart one?

Critics of the education schools, of which I have been one, usually make several arguments. First, the outcomes of students taught by our K-12 teachers is abysmal on average, and while not all of that, or maybe even most of it, can be blamed on the training of the teachers, clearly that training has not worked to promote academic excellence among our children.

Second, there is abundant evidence that colleges of education tend to challenge their students little. Grade data show that typically students average above a 3.5 grade-point average in education courses, markedly higher than in other university offerings (where grade inflation is also a problem in my view). Yet at many schools, the students coming into education on average are weaker than the typical student, with relative poor high-school academic performance, mediocre admission test scores, etc.

Third, in some cases mindless education courses have crowded out study of subject matter that would improve teacher abilities to convey similar knowledge to students. Sometimes the students learn little because the teachers know little.

Fourth, there is something of an anti-knowledge culture in many education schools, where learning facts is disparaged. Worse, the education colleges have been great promoters of the highly dubious idea that self-esteem is critically important. Thus American high-school students think they are pretty good at math, while international test score results suggest that, on average, they are fairly mediocre. The education schools are anti-intellectual, anti-academic, and promote a dangerously overly optimistic mindset amongst students as to their accomplishments.

Fifth, schools of education have worked hand in glove in some cases with teacher unions to convince legislators or state educrats to keep archaic practices regarding teacher certification that prevent some able persons from getting education degrees. I once met a Naval Academy graduate who wanted to switch to becoming a high-school math teacher, but didn’t because of the mindless education courses he would have to take first. I find it amazing that in America we let professors teach 18-year-olds without a day of pedagogical training, often in lectures with 500 or more other students, while, simultaneously, regard a myriad of course requirements  essential before a certificate is given to permit teaching 17-year-old kids.

The bottom line: I have long favored defunding schools of education, disallowing state subsidies to universities for courses taken in them, and even making it a crime for school superintendents to knowingly hire graduates of colleges of education (that may be going too far, I admit).

With all of this in mind, I agreed to be on Steven Roy Goodman’s “Higher Education Today” show recently on WUDC, a Washington-based TV station (broadcast airs on September 25), along with Margaret Crocco, dean of the College of Education at the University of Iowa. I went into the discussion expecting to do battle, so I was really surprised at how much Margaret and I at least partially agreed.

Dean Crocco, for example, actually agreed there were too many schools of education, and seemed to agree that teachers need to have a liberal-arts based major before obtaining teacher certification. She reminded me that within the vast community of college of education leaders there is some diversity of opinion and not a monolithic commitment to defend the status quo. For any of you interested in watching the discussion between Steve (himself a bright, engaging private admissions counselor/adviser), Margaret and me, see us on You Tube.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • segads

    The answer is reasonably simple: no undergraduate Education major. Any “professional” degrees (including Business, Engineering and Nursing, by the way) should be undertaken only at the graduate level. All students should first have a strong academic background in a relevant major. States, too, need to increase the educational requirements, though. I’m a high school English department chair and am often stunned and saddened at the lack of content knowledge — just plain understanding of literature and decent writing skills — that the “English Education” majors possess. Hiring is sometimes depressing.
    I will take exception to some of Vedder’s assertions, however. Not all education courses are mindless. They lack rigor, yes, but those taught by actual, practicing teachers, with excellent knowledge of pedagogy, standards, and children (especially stages of intellectual growth), were very useful. In fact, perhaps all newly-minted college teachers should be required to take a course in teaching methods. 

  • mbelvadi

    “Anti-academic” – take a look at the increasing acceptance of “autoethnography” as a base methodology for producing a Masters in Education thesis/project. To what extent are research methods appropriate for certain humanities fields being co-opted and misused by education majors trying to avoid anything resembling a table of numbers?

  • cwm4c

    There is correlation between your comments:

    “Worse, the education colleges have been great promoters of the highly dubious idea that self-esteem is critically important. Thus American high-school students think they are pretty good at math, while international test score results suggest that, on average, they are fairly mediocre”
    AND,
    “I find it amazing that in America we let professors teach 18-year-olds without a day of pedagogical training, often in lectures with 500 or more other students, while, simultaneously, regard a myriad of course requirements before a certificate is given to permit teaching 17-year-old kids’

    Most professors have zero education & training in how to teach, how humans learn, or means to effectively convey information, yet most also believe they are good teachers!  Actually, most of us are very bad instructors, but being reinforced by those who are also bad through our PhD process, we never realize it.  There is a screaming need for professors to have a baseline knowledge prior to occupying a classroom–we should have a minimum standard.  Without it, we’re left to those smart individuals who seek it on their own.

    There is a path to help.  In my department of our R1, we ask all candidates during the search process what background/education they have in these areas–if none, we thank them for their time and move on.  The quality of our hires has actually increased with this process. Our faculty senate is also considering making it the norm for the entire university.  If more schools looked at this, it could drive a requirement–for now, we are changing where we can.

  • evbiii

    Am I the only one who read Academically Adrift? At least in the college of education students are required to read, write and discuss with diverse peers. In the vocational schools, oops, colleges, students simply do experiments to generate money and are segregated to boot; thinking themselves bright while unable to communicate with respect for those without the science or business background. In my opinion I think we should close and defund all vocational schools and allow their under-read students to apprentice like in the good old days.

  • jeff_winger

    Vedder, you hit the nail on the head here.

  • acorn

    “Edvil” writes  ”At least in the college of education students are required to read, write and discuss with diverse peers.” 
    Yes, but this is just as true for first grade students too. Reading, writing, and discussing are common place at all levels of schooling. It is the quality of these activities that are important. Just recently I reviewed a faculty member’s syllabus for a course on multiculturalism. There were two requirements for the entire semester: (1) write a paper describing an experience you have had with someone who is culturally different than you; (2) Interview someone of a different race or ethnicity regarding obstacles they have encountered in life. This strikes me as dinner party conversation for a group of high school friends; not graduate level education work. Sadly, this is all too often as rigorous as it gets for both undergraduate and graduate level teacher education courses (I do recognize the danger of over generalizing here). I have to agree with “segads” that there should be no specialization at the undergraduate level. If students have a content-rich undergraduate experience, they might enter graduate schools better prepared and with higher expectations for learning. But, of course, undergraduate courses in education, business,  etc. are big money-makers for an institution so they are not likely to be eliminated.

  • trendisnotdestiny

    I read your words and posts often mbelvadi and have respect for your opinion.  However, here you venture into an area that I enjoy and have some knowledge about.  Maybe you have not fully considered the comparison of “anti-intellectual” and “autoethnography”.

    First, in every method, there are a range of practitioners.

    Second, I contest your linking “anti-academic” to the method of autoethnography.  This method can be very useful in answering complex questions that involve individual and group experiences, especially around trauma, death/dying/grief/loss or cultural introspection.  Personally, I think my experience in writing an autoethnography was one of the most rigorous and scholarly experiences I have ever had.  It involves being well read in multiple domains.  It involves constructing ideas that people can engage and are willing to keep reading.  It involves putting together comprehensive literature reviews.  And it involves linking concepts into real world spaces back and forth between scholarship and experience. 

    I think you err in linking a method (autoethnography) to a practice that occurs in some schools of education.  You might find a lot of methodological problems in these schools (not just in some of the more interpretive approaches in qualitative research). 

    In fact, there are some pioneers of autoethnography that are unbelievably rigorous (good evocative writers, masters of a field’s content and able to apply their “graphy” and “auto” into culture (or “ethnos”).   A few come to mind:  Carolyn Ellis, Art Bochner, &  Norm Denzin,

    Thank you for the opportunity to persuade you that autoethnography is not a monolithic process of anti-intellectualism, but that I suspect your experience with it does not include a larger more varied sample size.

  • cwinton

    A major problem for Colleges of Education is that they take their marching orders from State departments of education, who are the ones who set the certification “standards”.  This has led to education faculty whose view of education mirrors that of education bureaucrats.  The problem is one of long standing and its close association with the vested interests of an education bureaucracy has defied any efforts at reform.  I’ve been a faculty member at 3 reputable universities, all of which had colleges of education that simply were shills characterized by bloated, repetitive curricula, greatly inflated GPAs, and faculty whose idea of what constituted good teaching was content-free.  During my service on a committee screening graduate admission exceptions sought by the university’s various colleges, almost all of which came from the College of Education, we routinely had to overrule admission for students with combined GRE scores of less than 500 (the exception trigger being 800, which is not too far above having a pulse).  In this same College of Education, so many students were graduating with 4.0 GPAs, the number of “honors” graduates exceeded those for the rest of the entire university.  While anecdotal, I have found that kind of culture to have infected the College of Education at every university I’ve had any association with. 

    There is very little in Mr. Vedder’s post I would argue with.  Abolishing undergraduate education degrees might be a good first step, but the problems persist at the next level, since the same kind of charade persists there as well.  A dean of education in an unguarded moment once confessed to me that a student could easily complete an MEd in his college in one term if they could somehow schedule all of the required courses, the expectations of the faculty being so low.  This was reinforced some years later when my wife took a “graduate” course in education that consisted of meeting once a week for dinner in a restaurant near the faculty member’s home to tell stories to each other.  If you took the “final” exam (another story telling session) you would receive an A and if you didn’t you would get a B.  She opted for the B in protest and to save the gas money.  This was only the most egregious example she related to me in a course of study that was neither challenging nor enlightening.  With all apologies to the originator (Shaw?), I guess the observation should be “those who can do, those who can’t teach, and those who can’t teach teach teachers.”

  • http://twitter.com/Genovevaamador Genoveva Amador F.

    it seems that problems in education and, paricularly challenges for educators do not have national borders.

  • dank48

    Hear, hear. Of all the mindless, irrelevant, Jell-O-brained courses I had to take to earn a teaching certificate, the only one worth the time was Loraine Strasheim’s marvelous Methods of Teaching German and Russian. But, then, Professor Strasheim had taught in the public schools for nine years and, unlike her colleagues in the school of education, knew what she was talking about. The rest was worse than worthless, when considering the time, effort, and cost.
      Kurt Vonnegut once pointed out that what is a mystery to most professors is obvious to all undergraduates. On any campus, ask students encountered at random where the dumbest students are to be found. They’ll tell you to look in the school of education. Ask where to find the next-dumbest students. They’ll send you to the English department.
     That’s talking about students, not instructors, of course. In fact, all the English-department instructors I encountered were imho excellent.

  • marktropolis

    Since Vedder is an economist, I would expect that he would take into consideration the host of variables involved in student academic achievement. But since taking into account those multiple factors (and the complicated algorithms required to measure any kind of correlation or causation) would torpedo his argument, I’ll take a moment to respond to each of his foregone conclusions (which by the way he provides zero evidence for their existence).

    First, outcomes of students: there is a presumption here that individual teachers are the solely responsible for student outcomes, ignoring things like school environment, home environment (i.e., single parent home? wealthy 22-parent home? Is mom on drugs? Is dad in Jail?)), not to mention the well-known factors or race and socioeconomic status, etc. What about the role of leadership – doesn’t the school principal play a role in educational quality? How about he curriculum which is often beyond the control of teachers, but is forced upon them by elected or appointed (and often politically motivated) individuals. What about working conditions? Is their a paraprofessional in the room? How many special ed kids are in the classroom? Did Johnny eat breakfast on the day of the test? The list goes on. Trying to blame the teachers – and by extension teacher preparation – is a nonstarter.

    Second, regarding the “abundant evidence” that colleges of ed don’t challenge their students. This is a well-trod issue that’s been bounced around for at least 20 years that I know about. I was actually involved in a study of this very issue in the early 90s. But there’s a few things that Vedder is not paying attention to. 1) entry requirements may be determined by the school of ed, but they have to be approved by the university. So… the buck stops with the provost or president. 2) in many states, entry requirements are set by the state (either state department of ed, office of teacher certification, or in some cases the legislature). Meaning, the college of ed in many places has NO control over entry requirements. 

    Third, regarding coursework: again, this is in many cases something that is beyond the control of the college of ed. Coursework requirements are often set at the state level. Also, there is a very real issue of supply and demand at play here (and I would thing the free-market Vedder would have some more sympathy for this), in that if you have the coursework too difficult, you have to few graduates for the number of teaching positions that will be open. If it’s too easy, you have a glut of minimaly qualified individuals. p.s., we can’t all go to Harvard or Yale. Oh, and this does track back to the old “cash cow” business – universities don’t want the entry requirements too high because they make too much money. Cut off that source off revenue, and people start losing their jobs. 

    Fourth about this so-called anti-intellectualism, which is really about content knowledge. Having personally worked with colleges of education around this very issue, often the issue becomes one off turf between colleges of ed and colleges of arts and sciences. To suggest that it’s all about the ed folks is to be ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of college politics. The A&S folks don’t want Ed folks teaching content; the Ed folks don’t want A&S folks teaching pedagogy. 

    Fifth, see numbers three, two and one. While I’m sure Vedder won’t like the medical analogy, but I don’t want a podiatrist working on my heart. Certification requirements are developed within a political environment that includes more than just colleges of ed and unions. And to place the blame on those two parties ignores the roles of school boards (state and local) elected officials, state superintendents, and in same cases governors (since they often appoint the folks who sign off on these rules).

    All of our teachers can’t come out of TFA. And even if they did, the existing data indicate that TFA – and other alternatively certified teachers – are no better or worse than traditionally trained teachers.

    Bottom line, Vedder is simply adding simplistic fodder to his ongoing campaign to defund public education, K-16. Defunding traditional teacher prep is just one tactic, and it’s one these guys have been working on for 30-plus years. And for the most part, they haven’t won because they keep insisting on these simplistic explanations of reality. 

  • marktropolis

    I addressed this in another post, but want to make one comment/question. When the U.S. Department of Education does something (good or bad) who’s the person ultimately responsible? The Secretary of Ed, or the President? Same goes at universities; the president and provost have just as much (if not more) responsibility for what happens at the college of ed. That Dean works for the provost, no? So if something isn’t happening, where does the buck stop?

  • mbelvadi

    I think you missed my quotation marks and second sentence including the word “misused”. I believe I acknowledged the legitimacy of it in principle.  But I appreciate learning more about your rigorous experience with it. By the way, I am not the only critic of the potential (emphasize, “potential”) for abuse of the method. Try Googling “autoethnography critique” for far more authoritatively expressed concerns than my own.

  • mvclibrary

    Things have apparently changed over the past 30 years (who knew?). It used to be that the next-dumbest students were found in the business department.

  • trendisnotdestiny

    Probably over-reacted a bit here mbelvadi, my apologies.  I saw anti-intellectualism and admittedly not much else.  Thanks for your generous reply.  It took me two years to complete mine and I am bit protective of the turf.  Nonetheless, if you have read a few thesis or dissertations on Proquest, you do encounter what may be characterized as interesting attempts at the method. 

  • bscmath78

    Some posters have commented on who are the “dumbest students”.  I refer all those interested in a recent attempt to measure this to the material that accompanied “Academically Adrift”:

    http://highered.ssrc.org/files/SSRC_Report.pdf

    Have a look at Figure 6 which clearly shows that Education/Social Work shares the bottom of predicted CLA scores with Business Majors.  Looming above them all are the Science/Math majors the absolute best of the whole lot. 

    As the report informs us, “. . .natural science, and mathematics, demonstrated significantly higher gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills over time than students in other fields of study.” It also tells us, “The CLA aims to measure general skills-based competencies such as critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and written communication.”
     
    evbiii wrote, “Am I the only one who read Academically Adrift? ” which ignores the fact that the ability to read (or the act of reading) tells one nothing about the ability to engage in “critical thinking, complex reasoning” about what one has read.

    Looking back at Figure 6, people should have noticed that the chart’s Y-axis only starts at 1140, which visually grossly exaggerates the differences in CLA scores.  Figure 6 actually shows that there is only about a 5% difference between the best and worst categories.  This is a difference that is so small that it seems like less than the expected measurement error with an instrument such as the CLA. Somehow 5% doesn’t seem like the claimed “significantly higher”.  This also assumes you actually believe in CLA scores and the report’s methodology.

    I suggest that the failure of most observers to mention the pathetic differences between various majors and the even more pathetic difference (about 5.7%) between “High Selectivity” and “Low Selectivity” institutions is quite disturbing and revealing about the ability of Ph.D’s of various stripes to effectively apply “critical thinking, analytical reasoning” in a real-world, practical context, outside of their narrow area of specialization.

    For further questioning of “Academically Adrift” and what appear to be naive interpretations of it, please see some of my posts starting here:
     
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/richard-vedder-on-the-ills-of-higher-education/28716#comment-156293507

  • marktropolis

    Adding to that, and I’ll admit to not having looked at “Adrift” that closely, you indicate that Education is on the bottom – with BUSINESS. Seeing as how this is one of the datapoints that Vedder uses in his diatribe, perhaps he should also call for the closing of all business schools – a) because business students score the lowest, and b) the evidence from Wall Street over the past few years clearly indicates there are some serious issues with quality in MBA programs.

  • dvacchi

    yes that has changed immensely – management (the term used vice business) typically has some of the best non-hard science students on a given campus

  • acorn

    “Also, there is a very real issue of supply and demand at play here (and I would thing the free-market Vedder would have some more sympathy for this), in that if you have the coursework too difficult, you have to few graduates for the number of teaching positions that will be open.”

    This is an interesting point of view when defending schools of education. Essentially you are saying that it is more important that the position be filled than it is that it be filled by someone who actually has the knowledge and skills to teach.  If I’m in a hospital bed awaiting surgery,  I don’t want to have to think about whether “supply and demand concerns” meant that my doctor went through courses that were not too difficult because there was a fear that there would be too few graduates for the number of medical positions open. I guess you could say the same about graduates of police and fire academies, dance teachers, martial arts teachers, policy makers, dentists, lawyers, etc. If there’s a large demand for these graduates, better to not make the coursework too difficult so that we’re assured the positions can be filled.

  • dvacchi

    I think you’ll notice an interesting article in the Chronicle by Alexander Astin recently debunking the most noteworthy conclusion in Academically Adrift.

  • bscmath78

    marktropolis, yes, the location of Business Majors is quite amusing and was noted by a guest columnist provided by Professor Bauerlein.  You can read my comments starting here:

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/rigor-in-the-business-school-guest-post-jason-fertig/32657#comment-157246585

    I agree that “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

    The ex-management consultant, current philosopher, Matthew Stewart discusses some of the problems with business schools, business education and management consultants in his book “The Management Myth: Why the Experts Keep Getting it Wrong”.  There are other books that raise similar issues with management/business education.

  • dvacchi

    I like Vedder’s 5th point about the inane teacher certification requirements.  Not only is this one of many absurd obstacles which discourage well-qualified military folks from entering mainstream society for work after service (thereby increasing diversity), it discourages non-military folks who might consider joining the K-12 system as teachers (thereby missing another opportunity for diversity).  

  • dank48

    Yes, I believe Vonnegut was writing before the current plethora of Mediocre But Arrogants.

  • bscmath78

    An important point is that I am not defending Education Majors, I am casting doubt on some of Professor Vedder’s previously stated positions based on “Academically Adrift”, which might cast doubt here.  Also I dislike people picking on groups without the proper data to back it up. 

    I am also questioning CLA and “Academically Adrift”, but in fairness they actually did some research and published some charts that can be examined at least crudely if one actually has an interest in what is actually happening instead of grabbing any stick that can be adapted for use for beating the opponent.

  • bscmath78

    marktropolis, previously I questioned Professor Vedder’s belief in campus CFOs who I felt were likely to be Business Majors or MBAs.  I referred to his apparent appreciation of “Academically Adrift” in one of my posts in that thread:

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/campus-cfos-are-right/29787#comment-246697433

    I also noted that Professor Vedder had written elsewhere, “It is clear that business majors typically study and learn little, but party a lot.” which also caused me to doubt the wisdom of believing campus CFOs.

  • bscmath78

    If one takes marktropolis’s comments and the report related to “Academically Adrift” at face value, it appears that teachers, schools, majors and colleges don’t make much of a difference in actual learning of critical thinking, complex analysis or anything of lasting educational value for 80-90% of students.  This is ignoring the practical benefits of paper credentials, certification, formal qualifications, status, prestige, etc.

    The educational factions are quite adept at providing excuses, but whether it is NCLB or charter schools lots of money gets spent to provide nothing of lasting value (excluding random variations) for 80-90% of students.  They do seem to succeed in “pump and dump” parrot training that improves results on dumbed-down standardized tests that tell nothing of lasting real value. Teachers do seem adept at gaming the system even if they don’t engage in blatant cheating. 

    SAT/ACT were originally deliberately picked by universities based on the claim that schooling did not affect them (beyond the the 3Rs), they were supposedly curriculum independent.  They supposedly provided a level playing field no matter how bad the local school was. They supposedly measured talent or merit no matter how poor the teaching.

    marktropolis wrote, “. . . the existing data indicate that TFA – and other alternatively certified
    teachers – are no better or worse than traditionally trained teachers.”  This is most telling.  If it is true, then why not get rid of “traditionally trained teachers” as quickly as possible?  Things would be no worse. ;-)

    There are a lots of retirees, involuntary retirees, under-employed and unemployed who with 3 months of training would be better than most of the teachers that I had.  Many parents are already well trained from doing the homework and projects of their children as well as tutoring their children.  It is also very interesting that children in families above a certain economic level typically improve their knowledge and skills during summer vacation.  They get better without teachers!  Maybe teachers are bad for 50% of children after the 5th grade if the child has learned the 3Rs well? ;-)

    50 or more years ago it required far less in formal qualifications to teach in school or in a college.  The great increase in requirements for formal education, formal qualifications and formal credentials seems to correlate with stagnation or decline with no evidence of improvements in long term education results for 80-90% of students. Sputnik-aided efforts like PSSC, Chem Study and the New Math were defeated by the schools and teachers. 

    This supports the view that the real purpose of the later part of K-12 is simply as a holding pen, imprisoning children so they bother adults less and don’t compete in the job market thus keeping down the unemployment rate.  A smart 5th grader (as demonstrated on the TV show) is smarter than a lot of adults.  Many adults know this and don’t want the competition. ;-)

  • marktropolis

    You may want to see how many graduates of the various medical schools in the Virgin Islands are practicing at your local hospital. And I didn’t raise the put to defend ed schools per se, but merely point out that there are a variety of factors that come into play when determining entry and exit requirements. And given the fact that we *still* don’t really know how to measure effective teaching, this is all rather academic anyway. And I say that knowing that there are school districts across the country that are banking on the use of value-added models to gauge teacher quality – at the same time that the folks who actually know how those systems work keep telling everyone that you should use them for that purpose. At least not now. But I digress. A bit.

    Yes, Stanford has a world-class teacher prep program. The put out about 20 a year (rough guess). UC Northridge puts out about 2,000. If you want UC Northridge to start looking like Stanford, you better start getting more money in the state coffers to pay for it. It’s not going to come out off tuition.

  • marktropolis

    Just what I need: an army drill instructor teaching my 3rd grader. 

    I’m not a big fan of some certification requirements, but I understand their purpose. Just because you know math doesn’t mean you can teach it. Do I want some special forces sharp shooter who spent the last 9 months sitting on a mountain teaching your kid social studies?

  • bscmath78

    The careful reader would have noticed that I started off with, “If one takes marktropolis’s comments and the report related to ‘Academically Adrift’ at face value”.

    They would have remembered that I don’t take “Academically Adrift” at face value and have questioned it in part because of the lack of much difference observed between college majors or between college selectivity.  This does not preclude the possibility that nothing really makes a significant difference.  Which leads one to wonder if nothing makes a significant difference then why waste the time and money?  This is the challenge to all the various education factions and special interest groups.  Of course, if you don’t actually care about making a difference for children and students, you will ignore the challenge.

    I guess political footballs are much more fun and much more profitable.

  • dqualters

    Who should educate the educators?  Those who understand how people learn, what motivates learners, how to be a reflective practitioner for continuous improvement, how to create a learning environment that begins with knowledge and expands to critical thinking about that knowledge, how to give feedback to learners that increases learning not shuts it down, those who understand the value of the affective domain in the classroom, those who can step back to their consciously competent state and teach from there.. and a continuing endless list…….. If knowing a subject was all it took to be an educator then anyone with content knowledge and a degree could do it.  Think of the great teachers in your life, sure they knew their subject but they knew how to help you know their subject and most importantly they understood you as a person with great potential and cared if you learned.

    So let’s stop bashing and blaming education schools and think of a way to increase their value to make all our educators great teachers.

  • bscmath78

    marktropolis, just because you have a teaching certification doesn’t mean you can or should teach math. If you fear Math you will teach your fear to the children.  

    It would have been interesting to have the front-line combat veteran Paul Fussell teach social studies.  He would later write “The Boys’ Crusade: The American Infantry in Northwestern Europe, 1944-1945.”  So it is unlikely that school authorities would approve of what he might have said , which may explain why he became a professor.

  • bscmath78

    dqualters, you wrote, “. . . to make all our educators great teachers.” This is a convenient fantasy that has been promoted for a long time without results.  It seems as likely a prospect as making all of us the next Richard Feynman. 

    Which is interesting, since Richard Feynman was considered a great teacher — by his peers.  But it appears he was a great teacher of just graduate students and other professors.  He considered that he failed in his one course teaching undergraduates.  The common view (one source disputed this after his death) is that many Caltech undergrads deserted his course, replaced by grad students and professors. He also felt doubts because his graduate students did not get Nobel Prizes.  He felt Oppenheimer and Sommerfeld had done better jobs with their graduate students.  None of them had Education degrees.  Then there is the issue of the “Feynman effect”:
    http://books.google.ca/books?id=7vcjIbuQbaQC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=%22feynman+effect%22+%22is+the+supposed+evidence%22&source=bl&ots=Ed9gtkpWJN&sig=7Q86VE39EoANx5GXIjEs6pwnTLU&hl=en&ei=8Zp7TvTnDaPW0QGvhKClAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22feynman%20effect%22%20%22is%20the%20supposed%20evidence%22&f=false

  • bscmath78

    Are you referring to his February 14, 2011 article that focused on the handling of the null hypothesis testing and CLA measurement error?  I started commenting on it here:
    http://chronicle.com/article/Academically-Adrift-a/126371/#comment-156687418

    The whole thread of comments is very interesting. Even more interesting is that I have seen no evidence of any rebuttal of any of the issues raised by Alexander Astin or the commenters.

    Or are you referring to something newer?  If so then please provide the URL.

  • dreamman

    Are there too many law schools or medical schools or business schools? Why is it that people who have gone to school for 12 or more years think they know how to teach? If it’s merely a matter of going to school then I should also be able to get a medical degree because I’ve been going to the doctor all of my life so I know the protocol.

    I am a teacher educator now after teaching in both public and private schools for eight years. Teaching continues to be the fall back career “I don’t know what I so to do so I know I’ll teach for a while.” Anyone who wants to teach should first get a B.A. or B.S in the subject they want to teach then get a teaching degree. If you are going to teach you need to know and understand how children, pre teens, teenagers or adults learn. You need to know who you are teaching and you need to know HOW to impart information in a why which is understandable to your students so that they learn. Most importantly you need to have the mindset that all children CAN learn. Teaching is part art and part science there are some people who should never be allowed anywhere near a classroom especially one with children and there are people whose hearts are in the right place, but should consider another career other than teaching.

    Yes the standards for teaching need to be more rigous I can’t you tell the number of people who claimed to be “premed” at the university where I earned my B.A. Schools of education also need to be flexible and not depend solely on GPA and GRE scores to allow for much needed diversity sometimes people with the  highest GPAs are not the best teacher candidates because they don’t know how to make information meaningful for their students.

    Teacher candidates need two years of training then a full year not just a quarter or twelve weeks student teaching then they should intern for a year. Give them a small salary while they intern with an capable mentor. It takes three years before teachers hit their stride. Learning to teach while you are teaching is not optimal for the teacher or the students. The reason why the turnover rate is so high for teachers is 1) sometimes their training and their knowledge of the subject is not sufficient 2) the pay is too low for what teachers are asked to do 3) they never should have been accepted into the college of education in the first place. I could write a book on the reasons why people say they want to teach from “My boyfriend and I are in the same Spanish class so I help him with his Spanish” to “I want to have babies.” Teaching is a profession and needs to be treated as such and the pay should be in line with what other professionals make otherwise anyone could simply go to the McCollege of Education and get their teaching license and truly make it to where anyone can teach.

    I work hard and my classes are not easy and my students don’t like me while they are in the M. Ed program as my SEIs will show. The students who were most critical of me are the ones who come back after they have been teaching for a year and tell me how much they learned from my classes. Not all teachers educators are incompetent nor are all schools of education a sham.

  • richardtaborgreene

    The above bitchy article is grossly unfair.   

    Teachers in the USA deal with such LOW quality parents and kids that getting them to not kill each other is a major daily accomplishment.    In East Asia parents POWERFULLY push learning on their kids, every every every every every single hour of each day.  ANY hour not dedicated ONLY to study gets the 3rd degree from BOTH parents—what do YOU think this world is like, stupid kid, if you fall behind in math, in ten years you will be servant to everyone around you earning on tenth what they earn and blah blah blah.   American teachers get tens of millions of parents and kids who are at best blaze about learning if not demonically opposed to it because it makes conservatives liberals.  

  • sci_case

    So Vedder gets this piece in CHE by rehearsing arguments critics typically make against ed. schools, and tacking on an anecdote that despite his own extreme views, he has some common ground with an ed. school dean.

    He doesn’t seem to be adding much to the conversation here, except that at least some ed. school faculty are critically engaged in making those schools better.

  • bscmath78

    In “The Boys’ Crusade”, Paul Fussell is critical of the military training/education received by the combat infantry. One is sometimes left with the impression that he felt this “education” was often useless or counter-productive in the slaughter yards of 44-45.

  • cwm4c

    bscmath,

    see also the book “Wrong” by Scientist David Freeman.  He also documents why almost every expert, including those in Science, business, and pretty much every walk of life, continually get it wrong.  Business/Management don’t have a monopoly on bad education or thinking.

  • cwm4c

    No, but you might like my colleague at my university, who is a retired Colonel, with 4 Master’s degrees in history, education, political science, and math, and a PhD in International relations/Political Science teaching social studies (or Math).  Oh, while in the military he was a guest lecturer at Harvard, Princeton, and 3 state flagships also.  There are plenty like him with bachelors and advanced degrees in the military who might have done a little more than “sit on a mountain.”  Did you just sit in an office or classroom?  Of course not.

  • dpmccain

    Thank you.  I freely admit I was a marginal undergraduate student (many moons ago).  I spent many years in retail and wholesale management before deciding to enter the “family business” which is teaching.  I passed the old “real” CBEST in CA (it took me two times) and when complaints were lodged that the test was too difficult, the test was “modified” so that more people could pass.  This was the tip of the iceberg.  I was hired on an intern credential with a district supported program, but when I was “exited” from the school because the new principal needed a place for someone who wanted to return…I was told I would have to enter (on my own) on academic probation even though I had classes through the same university (under the supported program).  Did I charge racism, bias, or any other victicratic excuse for marginal academic performance in my undergraduate studies?  Nope.  I entered the school of education on academic probation. 

    After one quarter, I was admitted clear…because I worked.  Even though grades were inflated, professors remarked that I worked too hard and was too detailed on the assignments (hurting the self-esteem of classmates during presentations), I knew I needed to earn my way off of probation.

    There were only two instructors through the school of education who challenged, expected, demanded excellence…and they left the school.  Rumors circulated that they expected too much.  These were the professors who knew what real teaching would bring.  Not a classroom of shiny faces waiting to learn, and parents who attend conferences, and sat with their children during homework time.

    After completing one credential, I moved to the Master’s program, believing that my due diligence would be rewarded.  Nope, again.  I was shut out, along with some of my colleagues.  We were tagged “elitist” because of where we lived, rather than how we taught.  One of the Principals under whom I “toiled” remarked that teachers should live in the community where they teach.  Funny from someone who lived in an upper SES development, and was the Principal of a school in a low SES community. 

    Not able to secure an administrative position (and family tragedy resulted in temporary early retirement)…BIG MISTAKE leaving (but that’s another story) I decided I needed to augment my skills with a second teaching credential.  I sat for (in one sitting) the CSET English (five hours, four tests).. and I passed with darn good scores..althought ETS is not allowed to show how well you did numerically lest someone hire you on your scores. huh?  The scores are dots…1-4 of them showing how “well” you did.  THEN..figuring I had the bull by the horns, I applied for my second credential.  Even though I had taught English for 6 years (with combined disciplines) and two 8 month long-term substitute positions, (secondary).  I was required to enter a school of education and take a 4 credit course in teaching pedagogy.  There were 8 students in the class, one dropped to go into nursing, and the professor, who may have been a darn good public school teacher seemed  so beaten down that class was often rather dysfunctional.  BUT, there were reading assignments that were graded with detail, and overall, aside from self proclaimed “mental instability” of the instructor, I learned a great deal  He is no longer teaching through the school of education. One of the assistant professors through the school of education just lost her teaching position due to blatant and repeated plagiarism.  Great…our suspicions in that class turned out to be accurate…This doesn’t make the school of education look great, does it?

    I just scrolled back through my paragraphs, and I seem to be on a rant.  Do schools of education teach the reality of public education?  Has student teaching (now called professional practicum) reduced new teachers to fetch and carry slaves for “mentor” teachers who send them to the copy and coffee machine?  I dropped out of a program (see the plagiarizing professor) where student teaching was mandated,  but because I could not financially commit to a 7 hour day for 18 weeks with no pay (the mentor to whom I had been assigned whined excessively in her emails)…that was enough for me.  The school argues that placement of  teachers is difficult, and student teaching may be valuable, but why not mentor teachers as they substitute?  Compensation is there, for the most part the lesson plans are adjustable, and if you want to be thrown into the fire..substitute teaching is the way to learn if you have what it takes to be a teacher in contemporary schools. 

    Having just spent over two years in a for-profit school (now there’s a story), I witnessed that with the current economy, alot of MBAs decided to teach…but not having credentials, and not wanting to take/pass the CBEST, they flock to the for-profit schools…Now there is something to watch.  Education driven by metrics, people who think a graduate degree, syllabus, and a textbook makes you a teacher, and that teaching is easy…all you have to do is mark students present and give them A’s for participation, and of course, they will all do the assigned homework.  hahahaha…. But just try and tell those folks that teaching is an art, to be crafted over time.   You will be laughed out of there. 

    Back to graduate school I go. . A PhD is looking good..and gee, I am only 59.  Sigh.

  • dreamman

    Dear dpnmccain it appears as if you were treated unfairly to say the least. I must disagree with what you say about substitute teaching. Substitute teaching is not the best way to learn how to teach in fact it may be the worst. I do not advocate the sink or swim method of learning how to teach as I said I would not want someone who does not know what they are doing in the classroom practicing on my child or any child until they did. Would you want a substitute doctor or a substitute lawyer? I think not. To improve teaching the myth that anyone can teach must be destroyed. 

  • dpmccain

    I know a great many substitute teachers who are frustrated because they were denied a contracted teaching position within a particular district, but when they substituted, they found classrooms where the instructors were often absent for dubious reasons (yes, classified and certificated talk, and I once substituted in an economics class because the instructor didn’t want to miss the Ethan Allen furniture sale). 

    Perhaps I could have phrased my argument differently.  If someone is going to student teach, perhaps he/she should be compensated at substitute pay, even though the contracted teacher remains nearby.  I have a vague recollection though that Student teaching was sometimes called practice teaching.  In order to develop mastery, one must practice.  But perhaps I am splitting hairs. 

    Further, I have substituted for some absolutely inept teachers who gained (and retained) their position due to nepotism or general favortism.  I remember a first year teacher, the daughter-in law-of the Asst Superindentent.  The woman was dreadul on so many levels, and her students beside themselves.  Several asked me when “she” could be absent again, and when I could come back.  This isn’t because I played games or gave them candy…I taught, both from the text and from previous experience.  The teacher’s contract was renewed (like there was ever a question), and a few other new teachers who struggled, but were not connected, were let go.

    Yes, the myth that anyone can teach should be destroyed,  but it is perpetuated by the belief that anyone with a degree can teach. It’s right up there with you need to be young to understand the young.  Which may explain why I wasn’t able (although I still try) to return to public education after a 5 year absence.  But who knows?

    Some of the most brilliant people I know were the worst teachers, because they didn’t understand what it was like not to “get” something on the first go round.  Those of use who struggled with the “logic” of abstract mathematics could teach it as a lesson in tenacious resolve (I still don’t understand why we need the Distributive Property) but I could teach it with passionate enthusiasm. 

    Thank you for your supportive comments.  I do believe I have been wronged (on so many levels), but somewhere there’s a book or an article that needs to be written, but first, I really do need to find a job.  Substitute teaching I guess…and graduate school at night. Huzzah.

    oh..many of these folks who wander into teaching as an after thought insist that students call them Professor…to my mind a violation on so many levels.

  • tardigrade

    ” I have to agree with “segads” that there should be no specialization at the undergraduate level.”

    Yeah, yeah.  What’s good in your mind is good for everyone.  People shouldn’t have goals or motivations before they get to college, they should just be blank slates for a bunch of others’ ideas, because others’ semi-informed opinions on what makes a good education will best prepare them for real education.

    I realize what I wrote is extreme and an exaggeration for most, but that is what your ideals come off as.  If it wasn’t for the jack### liberal requirements I *MIGHT* have graduated with a B.S. in something less than 16 years.  University is unsuited for those who know what they want to do and have known this since they were elementary school kids.  It’s unsuited for the mono-focused and mono-driven.

    This attitude of “breadth” did nothing more than reinforce my worst stress-relieving, dissipative, escapist tendencies (studying psych or reading philosophy instead of studying what the course I’m enrolled in requires).  What’s worse is that I now have a “liberal education” thanks to these dissipative tendencies, but now don’t have the MFing credit hours indicating I’m overqualified for your further stress-inducing (thanks to its dumbed down nature and socializing aspects) 100-level required course.  Nice job with your good intentions oh Liberal Artists and Liberal Scientists.

    *MIGHT* = Have to be honest here, there’s enough wrong from my POV with university (and primary/secondary) school in the US I might not have made it in under 16 years even without the liberal requirements.

  • tardigrade

    cwm4c below mentioned the book “Wrong”:

    “What have you learned about bad advice?

    Bad advice tends to be simplistic. It tends to be definite, universal and certain. But, of course, that’s the advice we love to hear.

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1998644,00.html#ixzz1YzBek58Y

  • bscmath78

    cwm4c wrote
    “bscmath,

    see also the book “Wrong” by Scientist David Freeman. He also documents why almost every expert, including those in Science, business, and pretty much every walk of life, continually get it wrong.  Business/Management don’t have a monopoly on bad education or thinking.”

    Unfortunately for you, I decided to check your facts.  What I find is that “Wrong” is actually written by David H. Freedman NOT “Freeman”.  And according to his Amazon bio he is an editor, writer and author, but no mention of “Scientist”. 

    Also the word “Scientists” in the title (“Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us–and how to know when not to trust them *Scientists, finance wizards, doctors, relationship gurus, celebrity CEOs, … consultants, health officials and more”) is kind of broad and these days includes social, life, medical, pharmaceutical sciences and various others who typically have a vested ideological, policy or financial interest in providing certain answers.

    Plus even in public school (at least back 40 years ago) you were taught that the story of the real sciences is about error, after error, after error with some of the true greats working as patent clerk (Einstein), abbot (Mendel), diplomat (Leibniz), captain’s companion (Darwin) or hunter collector (Alfred Russel Wallace).

    No doubt my posts are full of errors especially spelling, grammar, punctuation and stylistic.

    I haven’t read the book, but I agree that “Business/Management don’t have a monopoly on bad education or thinking.”   But as long as entry-level management consultants get several times the pay of physics postdocs there is a need for people to read books like:
     
    * “The Management Myth: Why the Experts Keep Getting it Wrong”
    * “House of Lies: How Management Consultants Steal Your Watch and Then Tell You the Time : a true story”
    * “Consulting Demons: Inside the Unscrupulous World of Global Corporate Consulting”  

    But for those interested in some of the errors in the real sciences there are:

    * “Einstein’s Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius”
    * “Einstein’s Luck: The Truth behind Some of the Greatest Scientific Discoveries”
    * “Leaps in the Dark: The Making of Scientific Reputations”
    * “How the Laws of Physics Lie” which seemed to require remembering Hamiltonians, Lagrangians and too much other physics.

  • bscmath78

    cwm4c wrote in an earlier post:
    “bscmath,

    see also the book “Wrong” by Scientist David Freeman. He also documents why almost every expert, including those in Science, business, and pretty much every walk of life, continually get it wrong.  Business/Management don’t have a monopoly on bad education or thinking.”

    Unfortunately for you, I decided to check your facts.  What I find is that “Wrong” is actually written by David H. Freedman NOT “Freeman”.  And according to his Amazon bio he is an editor, writer and author, but no mention of “Scientist”. 

    Also the word “Scientists” in the title (“Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us–and how to know when not to trust them *Scientists, finance wizards, doctors, relationship gurus, celebrity CEOs, … consultants, health officials and more”) is kind of broad and these days includes social, life, medical, pharmaceutical sciences and various others who typically have a vested ideological, policy or financial interest in providing certain answers. 

    Plus even in public school (at least back 40 years ago) you were taught that the story of the real sciences is about error, after error, after error with some of the true greats working as patent clerk (Einstein), abbot (Mendel), diplomat (Leibniz), captain’s companion (Darwin) or hunter collector (Alfred Russel Wallace).

    No doubt my posts are full of errors especially spelling, grammar, punctuation and stylistic.

    I haven’t read the book, but I agree that “Business/Management don’t have a monopoly on bad education or thinking.”   But as long as entry level management consultants get several times the pay of physics postdocs there is a need for people to read books like:
     
    * “The Management Myth: Why the Experts Keep Getting it Wrong”
    * “House of Lies: How Management Consultants Steal Your Watch and Then Tell You the Time : a true story”
    * “Consulting Demons: Inside the Unscrupulous World of Global Corporate Consulting”  

    But for those interested in some of the errors in the real sciences there are:

    * “Einstein’s Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius”
    * “Einstein’s Luck: The Truth behind Some of the Greatest Scientific Discoveries”
    * “Leaps in the Dark: The Making of Scientific Reputations”
    * “How the Laws of Physics Lie” which seemed to require remembering Hamiltonians, Lagrangians and too much other physics.

  • bscmath78

    tardigrade how do these fit in your model?
    - “Look before you leap”
    - “Haste makes waste”
    - “A stitch in time, saves nine”
    - “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
    - “What is hateful to you, do not do to another”
    - “When you are in a hole, stop digging”

    This is not the kind of “simplistic” advice that people actually “love to hear” or often choose to act on.

    Plus what do you think about the errors in cwm4c’s post that I comment on here:

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/who-should-educate-the-educators/30362#comment-319689428

  • cwm4c

    bscmath78,

    Not “unfortunate for me”–I am actually agreeing with you and providing another book that documents many other areas of this world where experts get it wrong.  Sorry for the typo on Freedman, but you figured it out.  I would recommend you read the book–I’ve utilized it and a few of the ones you mentioned to teach the point that experts, in general, are not

  • RedWell

    cwm4c: Thanks for discriminating against grad students coming from the majority of programs in which there are clear disincentives against pedagogical training. I agree that teaching quality should matter at R1 institutions just as anywhere else, but your approach seems oversimplified.

  • cwm4c

    I’d argue that almost all universities have disincentives against pedagogical training.  We have to start somehow to attack the problem

  • bscmath78

    cwm4c, thanks for the Sept 26 clarification.  I don’t get the Reply button for your post, so I am trying here.

  • bscmath78
  • marka

    Don’t think it -grossly- unfair.  In fact, not ‘unfair’ at all.  He doesn’t say -all- teachers are bad/poor, nor does he discount the role of parents & others.

    Plenty of challenges for American teachers – including our major shifts in parenting resulting in even more demands on our teachers.  Unfortunately, teachers – collectively – have not demonstrated any particular desire to change anything, other than increasing their compensation, increasing seniority rights – including the right to opt out of teaching in poor schools or mentoring young teachers; and decreasing their workload & accountability.Where the author does hit the nail on the head is the mediocre quality of education curricula, as measured any which way you want – outcomes of public education, or the inputs (lower quality students as measured with standard metrics – GPA, test scores, etc.).  Slice it or dice it any which way, but one objectively would have to say, as does this author “ clearly that training has not worked to promote academic excellence among our children.”We’ve had decades of experience with teacher college grads, and haven’t seen much improvement in public ed.  All while the rest of the world has caught up & surpassed us on many different measures.

  • marka

    Hmm … “Certification requirements are developed within a political environment that includes more than just colleges of ed and unions. And to place the blame on those two parties ignores the roles of school boards (state and local) elected officials, state superintendents, and in same cases governors (since they often appoint the folks who sign off on these rules).”

    I sincerely doubt that – in my state – Oregon – the public teachers union, along with SEIU – have indeed dominated state education politics for decades.  They are – by far – the largest $ contributors to political campaigns, and even more important, supply the armies of volunteers during campaigns, from dialing for $, to knocking on doors.  Any Democrat that brooks the teachers union position finds he or she out of $ & volunteers, and likely out of office, next time around.

    Hence, in Oregon, the public teachers unions have – indeed – set most, if not all, of the criteria for teaching credentials & curricula for the past few decades.

    And given the numbers I’ve seen for national teachers’ unions, I wouldn’t be surprized if this was likewise true nationwide – teachers unions, along with other unions, have by far been the biggest contributors to education politics.

  • marka

    Its not a matter of ‘where the buck’ stops.  It ‘stops’ with all of us, ultimately.  In a back-handed way, I take this comment as a tacit admission that – indeed – education schools have fallen down on the job:  ”but its not my fault … ”  The same litany, different words:  its parents’ fault, its society’s fault, its those blankety-blank tight-fisted budgeters/bean-counter’s fault, …

    Hmm … well, if I was the one whose major life/career focus were on teaching, and professed to be a professional who should be well paid for working in this area, I’d have to take major responsibility for results, however measured.  If its all someone else’s responsibility, why should I get paid anything, much less a professional’s compensation, while still getting lousy results?  I could put just about anyone in that position, if the position doesn’t have any responsibility or accountability.

  • suujaan

    অতি আনন্দের সাথে জানাচ্ছি যে পাথি দিয়ে আমি একটা ব্লগ তৈরি করেছি । এখন কাজ সম্পূর্ন শেষ হয়নি
    তবুও আপনাদের সাথে শেয়ার করলাম।নিচে লিংক দিলাম দয়াকরে সবাই ঘুরে দেখে আপনাদের মূল্যবান
    মতামত জানাবেন।
    http://thebirdss.weebly.com/index.html

  • suujaan

    অতি আনন্দের সাথে জানাচ্ছি যে পাথি দিয়ে আমি একটা ব্লগ তৈরি করেছি । এখন কাজ সম্পূর্ন শেষ হয়নি
    তবুও আপনাদের সাথে শেয়ার করলাম।নিচে লিংক দিলাম দয়াকরে সবাই ঘুরে দেখে আপনাদের মূল্যবান
    মতামত জানাবেন।
    http://thebirdss.weebly.com/index.html

  • shanthiramanujam

    I am a teacher of English in India. What you are saying about what you call the anti-knowledge culture in most of the schools of education in the USA is interesting.  The opposite of it is happening in the Indian education system in general and schools of education in particular.  Facts and theories are given a lot of importance, and there is a great deal of cramming.  Given that the examination is memory-oriented and content-based, it cannot be otherwise.  A typical Indian learner may not be good at critical thinking and may not have a questioning attitude, but they know a lot of textbook information.  Well, the pendulum seems to be swinging from one extreme position to another.

  • tardigrade

    - “Look before you leap”
    Can lead to paralysis of action as the person tries to conceive of every possible effect of their action.

    - “Haste makes waste”
    Ditto.  Slowness can also lead to waste, as the world is still chugging along and using resources while you are being slow.

    - “A stitch in time, saves nine”
    Agree with this one.  But even then stitching has an opportunity cost.  And how many “stitches in time” save nine, versus saving none at all?

    - “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
    No.  Do unto others as you best think they would like to be done upon.  While my advice is also short, it isn’t simplistic.  It’s very hard to do.  But the golden rule leads to too many violations of others, simply because ‘you’ haven’t given enough thought to the other person’s perspective. To the extent it’s easier to follow the golden rule than this more difficult version, I think many people would “love to hear” the golden rule over the more difficult version.

    - “What is hateful to you, do not do to another”
    Ditto.  Understand the other person as best you can, or just flat out ask them.  There’s a book titled “Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help” that I have yet to read, but seems like it may be appropriate to these last two sayings.

    - “When you are in a hole, stop digging”
    Sure.  Unless you are motivated enough to dig all the way through. What lesson is more important for the person at this time: knowing when to move on, or learning how to push through to the other side?

    Giving up on a task, or abandoning a point of view you hold dear, even if it currently seems like a bad idea, can lead to a more general ‘giving up’ attitude in some people. The point here is to measure whether the potential for catastrophic failure, and the time wasted in the pursuit of something, is a greater negative than the giving up.

    I think why some may hate to hear this “simplistic” advice is because it indicates the other person does not see their chosen task as worthwhile.

    Thanks for pointing out simplistic, and bad, advice that doesn’t fully follow the rubric of the author I quoted.

    I’m happy to give my take on any other sayings you post.  I will read the response to cwm4c’s post after work.

  • bscmath78

    tardigrade, thank you for taking the time to provide your assessment. You have provided thoughtful potential downsides to the proverbs/advice I listed. 

    It is certainly true that there are some people who want to be lied to, want to hear the lie right now and do not want to wait to hear anything else.   And there are those who just want you to agree with them immediately or give them money immediately.  So in a bureaucracy or other such circumstances the items I listed may doom you. 

    I have let my personal tastes bias my choices. I was going to write: I still think that considering these ideas typically involves less risk. But upon reflection, I realize that I can’t say that, since I don’t know the various situations, people and circumstances. 

    I listed the items that leaped to mind.  No other items leap to mind at the moment.

  • tardigrade

    Thanks.  Like cwm4c I agree with many of your points too.

    “I have let my personal tastes bias my choices.”

    I think probably every living creature has done this at some point, and usually pretty frequently. It’s hard not to, but at least we humans can become aware of our biases. :)

  • 99911187

    Thanks for your observation, which clarifies Steinbeck’s rather confusing comment in a report from December 31, 1966, a few days after he arrived in the war zone: “Yesterday we took a chopper out to the 23rd Artillery Group, which guards one approach to the city. These are 105-mm. howitzers and they airlift them around the way Santa Claus delivers packages. Anyway, their air spotter called in some activity and they honored me by letting me fire the first round from the No.4 tube. It was a proud moment and they gave me the shell casing to take home. That will be a logistical problem but I’ll manage it.” – pm