I don’t think the problem is ego. I think the problem is tenure (in US schools at least).
My wife is a Jr. High SPED Teacher. I’ve worked at hospitals for the majority of my career in IT (big egos there) and I’ve never seen the toxicity and incompetence she shares with me on a daily basis. She previously worked in retail management and continues (after 3 years) to be shocked by the laziness and entitlement of her coworkers.
I was surprised by how much teachers make. I wonder if people look at the dollar amount of their annual contracts without taking into account they are only working for 9 months. I don’t think they’re underpaid at all.
The first sentence is probably confirmation bias on your part. The second statement holds true sometimes, even most times, but is far more of a problem when it doesn’t. Dr. precedes almost every name on the very long list of tragically stupid experts.
Well, this doesn’t count the people who don’t pretend to know what they don’t. But if you scratch your average flat earther, moon landing denier or creationist, you will find someone who is sure they know it all and laugh at the experts.
And I said expert, not PhD. There are plenty of PhDs who get told what to do, do it, get their degree, and never think again. Some of them are even smart.
And again, the aims of their professional efforts are very different in scope. Plumbers, for example, achieve their aims by solving specific, material, (hopefully) short-term problems, such as replacing a broken sink.
That is absolutely a worthwhile and important professional aim, and I respect and support the work and knowledge that achieves it. But I don’t think it’s really possible to compare it with the professional aims that educators are expected to implement.
A plumber is considered to have done a good job when they successfully replace a broken sink, for example. But a teacher is not considered to have done a good job when they successfully carry out a similar-sized task, such as proctoring and grading one test. Teachers get assessed on whether they’ve managed to influence multiple students’ thoughts and lives over the course of many weeks or months to the extent that the students can demonstrate significantly more knowledge on a large and complicated subject than they previously had.
That’s not the same type of project as replacing a broken sink. It’s not even the same type of project as replacing many broken sinks and fixing many other plumbing problems over the course of many weeks or months.
And, again, I don’t think the OP has given us a clear idea of what sorts of professional-training programs he’s trying to compare to academia here. If he got down to specifics, I doubt we’d find that the workplace cultures he’s lauding are that much better than the ones he’s criticizing, at least on an industry-wide scale.
Ah. Well, this might explain some of your negative views of academic workplace culture. If the sociology of education as an entire field strikes you as an ideologically distasteful approach that you equate with “thinly-veiled Marxist propaganda”, then I can see why you wouldn’t have found it fulfilling.
Which, as I said, is also very important and valuable knowledge. But if what’s bothering you is the fact that training somebody how to solve those specific concrete problems is intrinsically, fundamentally different from providing universal compulsory childhood education, or providing tertiary education for young adults, then I think you need to recalibrate your expectations to be more in line with reality.
ISTM that the OP has some ideological bones to pick with academic education in general, and a romanticized view of the realities of non-academic trades education. Hence the poisoned well of this thread.
Please explain to me how a plumber goes about plumbing a new house or building. Go into detail please. Tell me about the gas connections as well as water supply and drainage. You should be able to explain this easily, it’s just the kind of thing dumb plumbers do. Just as easy as replacing a sink.
Please don’t refer to plumbers as “dumb”, it’s insulting and inaccurate. Just because their professional activities involve more concrete specifiable material outcomes than those of teachers does not make them in any way “dumb”.
As for how to create and implement a new construction plumbing diagram, of course I personally can’t explain to you how to do it, because as a non-plumber I don’t have the required knowledge. But there are plenty of sources all over the internet that explain in detail how to do just that, including what design software to use and what symbols stand for in the various diagrams. So I don’t think that example is quite the “gotcha” you were hoping for.
IMO your last two posts nailed it. OP has lots of baggage about personal failures that is being misrepresented here as legit dispassionate observations about an industry.
The thread has lost most of its interest for me at this point. Most.
It’s not really an “and/or” thing. For the most part, large companies are exceedingly complex organizations. I don’t know that I’ve seen a consistent answer who is the best at running them. Which of these candidates is the best one for running that new division?
a) The person who spent 30 years with the company, starting on the factory floor, working their way to floor manager, etc, etc, who knows the minutiae of the operations but has never set foot outside the company?
b) Someone with a strong sales and marketing background who really knows the industry?
c) A Harvard educated former Mckinsey consultant who has effectively run similar sized companies, but in different industries?
Each one has their pros and cons and various blind spots, based on what they’ve learned is “critical” to the success of the company.
I don’t know much about working in academics, but it strikes me as a very individualistic profession where there are not a lot of market forces to weed out incompetent or ineffective employees. Particularly after someone makes tenure. So while a lot of toxic behavior might be “frowned upon” by ones peers, there probably isn’t much that can be done if one doesn’t give two shits.
You were the one calling them dumb and continue doing so because you think you could learn to do what they do by watching videos online. This is the kind of sneering being discussed in another thread. It’s not about the material outcome, it’s about the base of knowledge and experience necessary to do the job which is no less than that of a teacher, or most other professions. A plumbers job is no more as simple as replacing a broken sink than a teacher’s job is as simple as grading a multiple choice test. Next time you need a plumber I hope you explain to them how easy their job is.
You are massively projecting onto me things I never said or thought. I definitely don’t think, and did not claim, that teaching requires more intelligence or more knowledge, or more work, than skilled trades such as plumbing.
The claim I was making, which you have not in any way refuted, is that the type of outcome expected from the work of skilled tradespeople is fundamentally, qualitatively different from the type of outcome expected from teaching. The latter is a lot less reliably plannable, and a lot less objectively measurable.
If you think that that observation is implying any kind of “sneer” at the intelligence, knowledge, or industriousness of trades professionals, that’s coming out of your head, not mine.
To be honest, the best leaders I’ve seen have qualities that are somewhat separate from those mentioned in your your options.
Such as, the ability to attract and keep good people that fill in the gaps in their own knowledge. Confidence and self awareness enough to let those people get on and do the job (no micromanaging). The clarity of thought to give clear direction.
I think any of your a), b), c) people could be the best choice as long as they have those other qualities.
That’s the thing. Companies often promote people as a sort of reward for doing a good job. But managing a group of people and running a business is a different job from being an individual contributor.
A big part of leadership is establishing a culture within the organization. That doesn’t have to be creepy corporate cult-stuff. But it is important for people to have a shared vision and set of behaviors and expectations. Academia strikes me as very individualistic.
Interestingly, my school’s culture has taken a huge hit in recent years, and part of that is due to efforts to establish a shared vision across the district.
I’m at a magnet school focused on experiential education. Teachers and staff worked together in lots of ways for this: we organize tons of field trips, invite speakers, develop projects and units that emphasize collaboration and inquiry, build outdoor ovens with students, set up meaningful interactions between differently-aged classes, and a lot more.
Our district thinks that hands-on learning is good, so they’ve purchased a couple of huge curricula, one for English Language Arts and the other for mathematics, that incorporate some stuff vaguely akin to what we’ve been doing; and all teachers are required to teach these curricula with fidelity. That’s the shared vision, the shared expectations.
As a result, teachers no longer have the time in the day, or the freedom, to create amazing projects tailored to student needs. Guest speakers aren’t a part of the purchased curricula. Inquiry is only possible within the confines of the canned lessons. There’s less real collaboration, and students are less delighted with their education. To the extent that we’re still doing the things that are engaging and that maintain our culture, we’re doing so against the culture that is getting handed down from certain district leaders.
Elementary teaching is weird, less like coding computers and more like playing jazz in a band full of musicians who are also the audience and most of whom are three sheets to the wind. You absolutely can build a culture there–but if you don’t know the culture and try to build expectations more suited to a factory floor, it’s going to be terrible.
“Individualistic” isn’t exactly the right word, but it’s not entirely wrong.
Vision and culture isn’t necessarily the same thing as top-own mandates of conformity, particularly if they are not aligned with your actual culture.
I see the same thing where I work. Our company literally has no vision or culture. At best, we have a sort of consistent level of Wall Street back/middle office tech bro superficial conformity.
Universities have cultures, set as usual by the actions of people at the top no matter what they say. I’m familiar with some good departmental cultures and some toxic ones.
Universities are going to be a lot more individualistic and lot less based on team work, but that’s the nature of the beast.
I went through lots of vision defining meetings in one company - but that was because our center really didn’t know what it should be doing. Then I moved to a place with no vision statements, but none were needed because what we were doing was obvious.
I bet your company has a culture - it’s just not a very good one.
Sounds like your own bias against leftism has shaped your sense of your field & of academia generally. You think what you were taught is wrong & worthless, so you think less of the whole system.
ETA: And yes, this is like a creationist suffering through a climate science class, thinking, “No! No!” all the time. It’s a bad time trying to shed what people are trying to explain to you because of your youthful biases.