Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
You failed to address my point about how the teachers unions are a miserable failure.
Oh thats right, you belong to a teachers union, don't you. You like the fact that regardless of how inept you are at your job you can't be fired, don't you.
You failures who are suckling on nannys teats will never look around and never complain as you're getting fat while fucking off, and at everyone elses expense.
The countrys education has gone to hell, but you couldn't be any happier.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
The silly nanny state should stop solving people's problems for them, like giving them a military to fight their enemies for them. It makes for weak people and raids the treasury. Let them fight their own terrorists. We'd have a much healthier populace, and much more observant.
Just like those opposed to abortion, those opposed to military spending shouldn't have to see their tax dollars go toward it. Let the private sector provide military services to those who wish to have them, rather than have the nanny state force it on people.
Pure Libertarians would love it, anyway!
Until the "nanny state" bitchers embrace policies like these, they are simply whining.
Regulation is important for a number of reasons, current and historical--especially because some will always want to do whatever they want at the expense of others. Hence, we will always have a need for business, environment, safety and legal restrictions. It's a fact of life. Not everyone is sensible, and not everyone agrees on what is sensible. Hell, we have police precisely because some people are going to abuse their freedom and abilities at the expense of others.
"Nanny state?" Try welcome to reality and to adulthood. Every organization, large and small, formal and ad hoc, has rules, and for good reason.
I didn't think getting into your silly spat with julia was important. You didn't address any of my points either.
You're wrong about at least the aspects of teachers I know about---which does not include the public schools, where I am a harsh critic. I'm critical of higher education too, but there I can address the problems. First, people absolutely can be fired--and they are. Tenured professors these days are not the norm either--around half, depending on the institution. And getting tenure is not the easy path to unaccountability you portray. To earn tenure even at a mediocre school means significant accountability, including five years of satisfactory-plus evaluations from the students, regular satisfactory-plus classroom observation reports from peers in one's discipline, successful/published research (absolute minimum of one major publication every two years), significant/demonstrated service to the college and community--and that's not for advancement/tenure, but just to keep from being fired. Advancement/tenure applications (a book-length binder of supporting materials) must be approved by ALL of (1) the department's personnel committee, (2) the department chair, (3) the all-college peer review committee, (4) the school's dean, (5) the provost, (6) the college president, (7) the chancellor of the state education department--any one of whom can sink the application, including just for "you're doing a great job, but our needs have changed." And to be denied tenure means not getting your act together, but being fired. Tenured faculty too can lose their jobs over a variety of issues from ethics to economic conditions. A lot of private sector workers would have trouble meeting these standards--standards that are regularly assessed at length by the department, the college, the state, and outside accreditation agencies. Accountability sometimes seems most of what we do.
You also don't know a thing about me. I was recruited from private practice to teach (I never even applied). I don't hold a tenure-track position either, but rather three year renewable contracts (for which I have to go through the process outlined above, and have twice successfully and been promoted). I was hired precisely because of my real world success as a writer and in business. My professional students, in fact, do real world work for actual area agencies, and are held to outside professional standards--for which they've repeated won community awards, and several have been hired while still in the class.
Most college faculty these days are adjuncts, contingent faculty hired only semester to semester. They can be let go anytime at all, and they also are held to student and faculty observations. Perform or go. I fund my retirement savings by teaching music (my other field) part time at another college (where I was also recruited for my professional accomplishments), and my courses have grown to regularly attract students from literally all over the globe, and my course load tripled to just under full time. I'm pretty damn comfortable with accountability, and enjoy job security not because they "can't" fire me, but because they absolutely want me to continue what I'm doing.
Nor do I bemoan the state of affairs--I take what circumstances and economic conditions are there and respond accordingly. I own and actively manage my own timber, produce farm, and investments. I live in a capitalistic society, so I act like it. When the situation changes, I proactively move with it, responsibly making adjustments as needed. And I still work professionally (outside of education) in both fields as time allows.
Now that you're done with the requisite insults and attacks, here's the thing--the points I made still stand:
"Nanny state" isn't a position, but an attitude. It's why those who proclaim it continually cite inaccurate and non-existent instances in "support" of their claim.
Reality and history agree--regulation is necessary, as people are people.
< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 7/10/2010 9:51:22 AM >
|
RE: What is the 'nanny state' ? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread