Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

This is what happens........Follow

#102 May 10 2011 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Try to follow the comparison.

Try to follow basic math:
Median salary for teachers is ~$50k.
Bottom 10% of engineers is ~$51k.

You said that teachers make as much as "senior engineers".
You previously wrote:
The correct statement would be to ask if you'd want to leave your child for 8 hours a day with someone who makes slightly less money than a senior engineer, or someone in middle management, or a Brigadier General. Because the median pay for public school teachers is about the same as the starting pay scale for those other jobs.

Unless starting "Senior engineers" make the bottom levels of "engineer" pay, you were talking ignorant shit. To the surprise of no one.

Here, I would think that the bottom 10% of engineers are not "senior engineers" and that people in the position of senior engineer make more than ~$50k from the moment they're first given their "Senior Engineer" business cards.

Edited, May 10th 2011 6:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 May 10 2011 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
No, they're not. And they get paid extra if they do. Teachers are given nearly half of a school day to do class prep, grading, etc. They *can* accomplish that at school. Of course, many take homework and whatnot home to grade, but it's not as monumental an issue as you might think. They're also typically home by 3PM (unless they're doing extracurricular stuff, in which case they get paid more).

If you believe this crock of **** you must never drive past any schools after 3 pm.
#104 May 10 2011 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Majivo wrote:
If you believe this crock of sh*t, you must never drive past any schools after 3 pm.

As I said, Gbaji is now relying on subjective measures that no one can disprove because the objective information doesn't fit his narrative.

"I know a guy who never brought any work home ever and still got home at 2:30 every day and only worked four days a week for four months out of the year so he was ACTUALLY making like $500,000!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#105 May 10 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,800 posts
I'm an Engineer, and putting in less than 60 hours a week is a rarity. Not to mention being called in for every minor break that everyone thinks is the hottest, most important thing in the world. Mind you, since I'm salary, overtime and call in pay are non existent. While they do say I can makeup the time spent over hours by taking time off without using Vacation, it's a rarity that I actually have enough spare time at work that I can actually take time off.

Worst part about it... the company wants to open a factory in Mexico. And I know they are going to try to get me to go down there to "help" once they start. I've already been burned by working across the country, 100+ hours a week, for months, and still being paid my normal 40 hour base salary. I was a stupid college grad back then, now I have 5 years experience, I'm definitely not going to let them **** me over like they did. If they are going to send me out of the country I'm going to tell them that I want my base Hourly wage based on my salary with overtime while I'm working there. Plus an expense account for my spending down there.

They sent one guy down there, he had to buy his own plane tickets, both ways, pay for his hotel, etc. Then they reimbursed him at the end. **** that, if they want me down there, They are going to pay for everything up front, nothing's going to be coming out of my pocket, especially plane tickets.

Smiley: mad
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#106 May 10 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,773 posts
Quote:
And in case you're wondering where my original "teachers make double the median" bit came from, I was using the actual median for all workers (not just full time workers), which is around 21k.


Because that's not an attempt to obfuscate the issue at all.

And regarding the stuff about hours...

I don't know how it is in other states, but I've never heard of a 6-period school. Maybe NJ is irregular, IDK. But the I've only ever heard of 4-period days (with block scheduling) or 7/8 period days (without it). I've never had anything but an 8 or 4 period day. Every teacher in our schools teaches at least 5 classes. By law, they need two prep periods. But that's not time they spend **** away, it's time spent doing stuff that needs to be done. Just because a teacher isn't in the classroom, doesn't mean they aren't working.

All my teachers either taught 5 classes and had a lunch duty (+2 prep periods), or they taught 6 and had two prep periods. The prep period was also the time in which they could eat lunch, while reviewing the lessons for the rest of the day, etc.

Quote:
Sure. Do you know any teachers? Ask them when they grade papers. Yes. Sometimes they have to take homework home to grade it. But it's not as often or as much time as you might think.


I know plenty of teachers. All of them grade homework on their own time. They might get some of it done during their prep periods, sure. But if they aren't just checking to be sure a student did an assignment and are actually reviewing it, there's no way they can grade all 120-180 of them in 1 or 2 40 minute blocks (which they are supposed to use to prepare for the rest of their classes).

Quote:
No, they aren't. Are you just making stuff up? While they might stay after school to help students at/near finals time (if they have semester assignments and want to help students finish), but that is not normally required (to be fair most teachers will do this), but it's hardly 1 day a week. It's more like one week out of each semester. They also are typically required to chaperon 2-3 school events a year (dances typically). That's it. It's not nearly the heavy burden that some try to make it out to be.


If a teacher is only available after school for 7 days every 2 marking periods, they suck. And that's all there is to it. They don't give a **** about whether or not their students learn.

The vast majority of teachers I've ever had voluntarily stayed after school a 1-3 days a week. I had teachers that were available 4-5 days a week--they'd purposefully plan to stay and do their grading in their classrooms after school so that, if students needed help, they'd always be available.

Then again, maybe that's part of the reason why NJ is the 4th best education system in the US.

Quote:
By the time a teacher has been teaching for a few years, those lesson plans are pretty well set, requiring only minor changes each year. Again, it's not that much "new" work. Don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling the efforts teachers put in, but I'm also not going to insist that they put in massively more time than other full time salaried professionals do. We all work hard out there. Teachers are not unique in that.


Again, then the teacher sucks and doesn't actually give a crap. Reusing the same lesson plans every year is a terrible idea. You learn new teaching techniques, and from mistakes, your entire teaching career. If teachers aren't constantly reviewing the topic and the way they teach it, then they shouldn't be teachers.

And you claim you don't want to belittle the work teachers do, yet all you've done is pretend like they work 5 hours a day for half the year. Hmmmm...

Quote:
Sure. And a teacher that puts that much extra time in earns about 50-60% more than the base salary. You can't point at both the low base median salary *and* those long hard hours of work. Either look at a teacher working 5 hours a day for 190 days a year, and earning 45-50k/year *or* look at a teacher working 8-9 hours a day for 220 days a year and earning 75-80k/year. You're trying to mix and match the greatest amount of work with the lowest amount of pay. That's simply not how it works at all.

Remember. A teacher working 6 units out of 6, and handling an extracurricular and teaching summer school, will earn 13.5/8ths of the base salary. That's 68% more than base. So if 50k is a median base salary, then that teacher (and that's literally the maximum one could work), would be earning 84k/year. That's the real "median pay" for a teacher doing all that stuff you talked about. And that's absolutely comparable to other professional fields *and* that's before taking into account their generally superior benefits and pension packages.



You only earn more if you take on more school responsibilities. Everything required for your classes is included in the initial salary. If you stay after 5 days a week to help your
students learn trig, then that's 5 hours of unpaid work every week.

Your examples are absolute **** And your math is ludicrous. I like how you increase the median salary to demonstrate what that teacher would earn. And care to actually provide a source on your numbers?

Quote:
Except that they work 5 days a week every week of the year. When exactly are they going to take on a second job? There aren't a whole lot of part time jobs you can work where you only work after 6PM in the evening and/or only on weekends. And that now puts the engineer working vastly more total hours than a teacher. Also, how much is a job like that going to pay? Not nearly as much as a teacher will earn doing a summer school class.


A. Restaurants are a viable option, as are department stores. You know, the kind of jobs that teachers that work in the summer end up with?

B. You realize summer school only consists of a handful of teachers, right? It's not like they can all do it. And remember that a teacher working summer school is essentially giving up their vacation time. An engineer who doesn't use his unpaid time is going to make more too. Maybe not as much, but he works less per day too.

Frankly, if your "friends" only work 5 hours a day, they are horrible teachers and don't deserve their jobs.

Quote:
It's hugely relevant because they can fit another course in the consecutive time they are not working their normal hours. And that extra job pays them 12.5% of their base salary. You can't be serious about that claim.


No, it's irrelevant. They work just as many hours as other jobs, and condense them into 10 months. Yes, they CAN take a summer job. But that means the total number of hours they'll work will vastly exceed the number of hours an engineer would work a year. Thus, it's irrelevant.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#107 May 10 2011 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,773 posts
Quote:
The upshot is that the true median salary for teachers doesn't fit Gbaji's narrative and so he has to create subjective measures by which teachers really are making a lot more. This relies on a whole lot of anecdotal "evidence" about this guy who only works X hours or this other guy who works X hours +Y unpaid hours or whatever. It's ultimately subject to whatever bias you're trying to add to it dependent on your stance.

The fact of the matter is that, if you're working as a teacher, your base median salary is in the neighborhood of $50k, a few thousand under the national average. It is not the same as that of a "senior engineer" or "brigadier general" or "starship captain" or whatever else. It's is also higher than that of "cocktail waitress" or "fry cook" or "hobo". What it absolutely is not is double that of the national average.


This, basically. :/
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#108gbaji, Posted: May 10 2011 at 6:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No, it's not. If you take on additional classes, you get paid for the extra classes. Again, I can't speak for NJ, but in California, most school districts have a 6 period day. The base salary on your union scale ladder is based on teaching 4 periods of that day. But you *can* take on one or even two more class periods a day. And you can also mentor an extracurricular activity. And you can also teach summer school classes. Each extra class earns you an extra units worth of pay. Each extracurricular earns you a half unit of pay.
#109 May 10 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not relevant to comparing teachers to other professional full time careers, which is why I haven't pushed that number. But it's absolutely relevant to the perception of the population as a whole in terms of how much teachers make in relation to them. Tell a single mom working part time while raising her kid that teachers aren't paid enough because they make 45-50k/year and see how she responds.

Hahahahahahaha...

Holy hell, you're desperate. It would have been easier if you had just admitted that you were wrong but not nearly as funny. So thanks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110gbaji, Posted: May 10 2011 at 6:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And yet, median pay for individuals across the whole US workforce is $21k, isn't it? Is that, or is that not, about half of the median base pay for teachers?
#111 May 10 2011 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Under A Thumb...
*****
10,008 posts
You don't know **** about teachers pay, math or anything else you're claiming in this ridiculous **** thread.

Can we just rate this **** into oblivion until he goes away already?
____________________________
Quote:
I would imagine that if you could understand Morse code, a tap dancer would drive you crazy.
Lebowski Fest | Church of the Latter-Day Dude | Nick And Dooie!
#112 May 10 2011 at 7:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet, median pay for individuals across the whole US workforce is $21k, isn't it? Is that, or is that not, about half of the median base pay for teachers?

Holy hell, you're desperate. It would have been easier if you had just admitted that you were wrong but not nearly as funny. So thanks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113gbaji, Posted: May 10 2011 at 8:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So apparently the Bureau of Labor Statistics is in on a plot with me to lie to you all about teacher work weeks. Yeah. But I know nothing about the subject because... well... it doesn't support what you've been told by those folks marching for higher pay! I mean, if someone's walking down the street with a sign, it must be true, right?
#114 May 10 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Sweet random site that claims the BLS says something without ever linking to the place where they actually say it. Useful!
#115gbaji, Posted: May 10 2011 at 8:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um... Ok. Find where the BLS calculates average work week and refute it. Until then, I'll go with the assumption that a site apparently dedicated to the education profession might just have done their research for me and that barring some source saying otherwise, I'll accept it.
#116 May 10 2011 at 8:22 PM Rating: Good
Under A Thumb...
*****
10,008 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's always amusing to me the consistency with which those who don't have any knowledge of a topic will make that exact accusation when they're faced with facts they don't like and can't refute them with facts of their own.


I busted your sh*t a page ago and you blatantly ignored it per usual because you're too busy with your **** fight with Joph. And that's cool, everyone knows you're in love with the guy.

I'm at a point where I'm just done with you. I'd be one thing if you could grow, accept that you're not always an expert in everything and change your opinion, like an adult, but you can't. You're patently unable to. And that makes you the worst kind of human being.


Edited, May 10th 2011 9:26pm by Kaelesh
____________________________
Quote:
I would imagine that if you could understand Morse code, a tap dancer would drive you crazy.
Lebowski Fest | Church of the Latter-Day Dude | Nick And Dooie!
#117 May 10 2011 at 8:49 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Anyone else giggle when someone is smug about facts when their entire argument began as a "stretched point?"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#118 May 10 2011 at 9:29 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,773 posts
Hey gbaji, guess what, I linked you the DLS site a while ago.

But to make things easy. This is just for NJ, but the median hourly wage is $24.28. Mean Annual wage is 53,690. That's 2,211 hours a year. Or 40 hours a week when averaged over a year (which includes the summer months when most teachers don't work).

Yup, that's right. Teachers in NJ work so much that, WHILE ON THE CLOCK, they manage to put in enough hours to completely cover 2 months of not working. And that doesn't count, at all, any of the work they are expected to do outside of school, like grade papers and make lesson plans.

Refute that, dumbass.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#119 May 10 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Tell a single mom working part time while raising her kid that teachers aren't paid enough because they make 45-50k/year and see how she responds.
Tell a single mom working parttime that someone working fulltime gets paid more per year?

Shocked!

Are you trying to say that single moms working parttime should get paid the same as someone else working fulltime? Man, that's pretty anti-Republican.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#120 May 10 2011 at 9:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
All salaries should be based off the comparative opinions of part-time workers.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#121 May 10 2011 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,773 posts
Quote:
All salaries should be based off the comparative opinions of part-time workers.


Especially ones who, until recently, had been stay-at-home moms.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#122 May 10 2011 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
idiggory wrote:
Yup, that's right. Teachers in NJ work so much that, WHILE ON THE CLOCK, they manage to put in enough hours to completely cover 2 months of not working. And that doesn't count, at all, any of the work they are expected to do outside of school, like grade papers and make lesson plans.

Refute that, dumbass.

Unless NJ teachers are paid hourly instead of being salaried, I have no idea what you were trying to prove here.
#123 May 10 2011 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,773 posts
Quote:
Unless NJ teachers are paid hourly instead of being salaried, I have no idea what you were trying to prove here.


As far as I know, the only teachers on hourly wages in NJ are substitutes, which would not fall under the heading that statistic was provided for. So I assumed (perhaps unfairly) that the hourly rate was actually in relation to the hours teachers worked, as their salaries still have hour demands.

But I'm fine acknowledging that assumption. If anyone else can find different DLS statistics, I'd be happy to see them.

[EDIT]

Also to note, the standard secondary teacher page states that "many teachers work more than 40 hours a week." Haven't found anything else yet.

This says Wisconsin teachers average 41.5 hours a week.

I'm gonna guess that I was wrong to correlate the hourly and annual wages, but still hold that the average teacher in NJ has more than a 40 hour work week (definitely so, when you include grading).

Edited, May 11th 2011 12:43am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#124 May 11 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
idiggory wrote:
Hey gbaji, guess what, I linked you the DLS site a while ago.

But to make things easy. This is just for NJ, but the median hourly wage is $24.28. Mean Annual wage is 53,690. That's 2,211 hours a year. Or 40 hours a week when averaged over a year (which includes the summer months when most teachers don't work).


Um... Wow. Did you bother to correlate that data at all? First off, you're mixing mean and median. Let me give you a hint though. All of the "full time" salaried professions use the same calculation to figure out "mean hourly wage". It's based on the "mean yearly wage". Do the math. They all come out to 2080 hours per year.

Which... magically... is 52 weeks at 40 hours per week. Moron.

Quote:
Yup, that's right. Teachers in NJ work so much that, WHILE ON THE CLOCK, they manage to put in enough hours to completely cover 2 months of not working. And that doesn't count, at all, any of the work they are expected to do outside of school, like grade papers and make lesson plans.

Refute that, dumbass.


Yeah. No. That's not what it means. It means that they calculate the mean hourly wage from the mean yearly wage. It has absolutely nothing to do at all with how many actual hours you worked during the year.

Way to make yourself look really really foolish though!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 May 11 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Guess I should have read all the posts first. Good for you to figure out where you went wrong.

idiggory wrote:
This says Wisconsin teachers average 41.5 hours a week.

I'm gonna guess that I was wrong to correlate the hourly and annual wages, but still hold that the average teacher in NJ has more than a 40 hour work week (definitely so, when you include grading).


Sure. But is that unusual? I've been poking around, and haven't found an average for just full time (salaried) workers, but according to answer.com, the average for all workers (full and part time) is about 40-41. So I'd assume it's higher for full time folks. I guess the point I'm driving at here is that teachers don't work any harder per week than the rest of us, yet they work about 8-10 weeks less per year, and they earn equivalent salaries while working that shorter year. As the pdf you linked showed, in Wisconsin they get paid more than every other category of professional worker with similar education requirements once you adjust for the shorter work year. And on top of that they get better benefits and a much better retirement plan.


Also as the link showed, the only area where teachers are actually worse off is that their pay isn't tied to performance, so the variation at the top level is less significant. So the only negative comes from the very union structure that everyone is fighting to protect. I don't feel like getting into the whole merit vs guaranteed pay thing, but it's relevant to note that the one thing they were fighting for is arguably the one thing which makes teachers less competitive with other careers (if we accept that as a negative of course). If we accept that the flatter pay scale is perfectly ok, then teachers have nothing to complain about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#126 May 11 2011 at 4:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Guess I should have read all the posts first.
When has that ever stopped you?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#127 May 11 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,773 posts
Lol, so you spend the whole thread arguing that teachers don't have a full-time workweek, and now that you've been shown to be wrong, you're going to argue that teachers are full-time workers that work less than other full-time workers? First of all, why is that relevant? Second of all, I see you are still only considering time on the clock, which is pointless because teachers are expected to put in hours outside of work.

But why your argument is stupid:

-Full-time work is, legally, defined as 40 hours a week. That's the point at which you gain full-time benefits from an employer. So, NATURALLY, the average number of hours for a full-time worker is more than 40.

-Your only proof to your claim is an allusion to a post on Yahoo Answers. REALLY?

-We are comparing annual wages. We have shown that teachers, at least those in Wisconsin, put in at least 41.5 hours a week on average (which means that either the vast majority hover around that area, or that some teachers put in many, many, many more). Yet the DBL page I linked (the first time) stated that 40+ hour work weeks were not at all unusual for teachers.

Say a teacher works, on average, 40 hours a week and earns 55k a year, the higher end of the national median.
Engineers, according to DBL, usually work 40 hours a week (possibly with more as they approach deadlines).

According to DBL, the median annual wage for Civil Engineers is $76,590.


So, teachers and civil engineers have roughly the same number of hours a week. The degree investment required is the same for both. Yet the average annual wage for a civil engineer is 20k more. Even if you adjust for the different number of work weeks, civil engineers get a higher annual wage.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#128 May 11 2011 at 8:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
idiggory wrote:
Lol, so you spend the whole thread arguing that teachers don't have a full-time workweek, and now that you've been shown to be wrong, you're going to argue that teachers are full-time workers that work less than other full-time workers?


That's odd spin given that you were the one just proven wrong. I have not claimed that teachers don't put in a full work day. I have argued against the claim that they work significantly more hours than other workers. I have argued that a teacher earning base pay is teaching classes 2/3rds of the school day, which gives them plenty of time in an 8 hour workday to teach those classes *and* get their prep work and grading done. I have never argued that teachers just get to go home after 4 or 5 hours and slack off at home or anything.

Quote:
First of all, why is that relevant?


What is relevant is that teachers don't work significantly longer work days than any other full time worker yet they *also* only work 190ish days a year compared to 230ish days for normal full time workers. Thus, it's wrong to claim that they are overworked and underpaid. And guess what? The source you found confirmed that I was right and you were wrong. So I'm not sure why you're still arguing.


Quote:
Second of all, I see you are still only considering time on the clock, which is pointless because teachers are expected to put in hours outside of work.


Oh god! Not this again. So is everyone else. Deal with it. Teachers are not special in this regard. If those numbers are just time on campus and don't include hours working from home, then the same can be said for other professions as well. WTF? Any claim you can make about teachers taking home work can be said about most other full time salaried professions. You think no one else does this?

Quote:
But why your argument is stupid:

-Full-time work is, legally, defined as 40 hours a week. That's the point at which you gain full-time benefits from an employer. So, NATURALLY, the average number of hours for a full-time worker is more than 40.


You missed the part where I explained that said average was the average including both part and full time workers. Whereas a similar number reported for teachers includes just teachers, the overwhelming majority of whom are full time. If we look just at full time workers, depending on source, you start getting numbers more like 45-46 hours per week.

Quote:
-Your only proof to your claim is an allusion to a post on Yahoo Answers. REALLY?


A post which included source links to the BLS. Whatever. I can link to a survey done by Microsoft (examining workplace efficiency) in which officer workers reported working an average of 45 hours a week if you want. Or another one study showing an average of 46 hours per week for full time professionals (can't remember the exact source for that).

When I post a link, it's usually after searching and finding several different corroborating sources of data out there. I include the one with the "best" information (in this case, the source had links to "official" data, which is stronger than just survey results). I was giving you the best case for your side. I absolutely could link to a dozen sources with much higher numbers if I wanted to.

Quote:
-We are comparing annual wages. We have shown that teachers, at least those in Wisconsin, put in at least 41.5 hours a week on average (which means that either the vast majority hover around that area, or that some teachers put in many, many, many more). Yet the DBL page I linked (the first time) stated that 40+ hour work weeks were not at all unusual for teachers.


Yes. And 41.5 is more than 40. I'm not sure why you think there's a discrepancy there. Also "not unusual" isn't a very accurate statement, is it? So if one in 5 teachers works 50 hours a week, that's "not unusual", right? But if the other 4 each work 38 hours, don't we still come out with an average that's just a bit over 40? Why yes, we do!

Which is precisely the point I've been making all along. Teachers who don't take on extra classes or extracurricular activities certainly can end out working less than 40 hours each week on average. Most school days are 6.5-7 hours long. Teachers tend to have to get to school about 15 minutes before class starts, and depending on whether they're teaching final period, may or may not have to stay 15 minutes after to close up the classroom (of course, they *can* come in earlier and stay later, but that's their choice). The point is that a teacher only teaching the base units can work less than 8 hours a day, still get all their grading done and all their prep work done as well. In theory, if they don't teach first or last period, they can come in later and leave earlier as well. That depends on the policies of the school district they are in.

Quote:
Say a teacher works, on average, 40 hours a week and earns 55k a year, the higher end of the national median.
Engineers, according to DBL, usually work 40 hours a week (possibly with more as they approach deadlines).


Lol! Yeah. Do you know how often those deadlines or design standards may require extra hours? Um... Pretty much every single week. Teachers never have to work longer hours than they choose to. There are very few external and unpredictable factors which may require them to work late into the night, or over the weekend. This happens to engineers all the time (heck. It happens to a lot of other professions).

Quote:
According to DBL, the median annual wage for Civil Engineers is $76,590.



So, teachers and civil engineers have roughly the same number of hours a week. The degree investment required is the same for both. Yet the average annual wage for a civil engineer is 20k more. Even if you adjust for the different number of work weeks, civil engineers get a higher annual wage.


Sure. It's pretty comparable though, isn't it? Remember what started this? I said that teachers made "slightly less" than <list of other professions>. Also recall that the averages and medians we're playing with for teachers are the "base pay" numbers. I've already explained at great length that most teacher can and do increase that pay.

What you're doing is still picking the best in one direction and in the other, even when they don't match up. The average hours is the actual reported average hours actually worked by teachers on the job. But the pay rates are calculations based on the pay ladders used for public school teacher pay, and assumes a less than full teaching schedule (or I should say that a "full" teaching schedule assumes teaching about 2/3rds of the class time during each school day). But most teachers (especially high school and middle school) teach more than that base number. The "average hours" figure takes this into account, but the "average pay" calculation does not.

When we do, we realize that teachers often make another 18-30% more salary than is listed (without working any more total weeks). Add that to the 21% more their salary is "worth" due to less weeks worked per year, and they are better compensated than most other fields which require the same amount of education.

I've only explained this logic like 5 times in this thread so far. And so far you haven't actually presented a single fact which refutes what I've said. Which makes one wonder why I have to keep repeating myself here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 May 11 2011 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Can we just rate this **** into oblivion until he goes away already?


If that were even possible, the forum would be so much less amusing for it. You just have to view him as a resource, like a punching bag (that really wishes it could hit back, but instead swings slowly around, however persistently). He's there for you when you need him. He's like death and taxes, only less likable.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#130 May 11 2011 at 9:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
I thought full time could be considered at 35 hours a week, or is that just what some employers go by?
#131 May 11 2011 at 9:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I've seen as low as 30- pretty sure it's at the discretion of the employer, if not state labor departments.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#132 May 12 2011 at 12:22 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,260 posts
Gbaji you remind me of the people in Battlestar Galactica who objected to a kindergarten teacher being president.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#133 May 12 2011 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Gbaji you remind me of the people in Battlestar Galactica who objected to a kindergarten teacher being president.

I wouldn't vote for a kindergarten teach to be president. Something odd happens to a person who spends that much time around 5 year olds.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#134 May 12 2011 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,773 posts
Quote:
Something odd happens to a person who spends that much time around 5 year olds.


You wouldn't prefer them to someone who spends that much time around politicians?

[EDIT]
Quote:
Sure. It's pretty comparable though, isn't it? Remember what started this? I said that teachers made "slightly less" than <list of other professions>. Also recall that the averages and medians we're playing with for teachers are the "base pay" numbers. I've already explained at great length that most teacher can and do increase that pay.


This is why it isn't even worth debating this with you (y'know, ignoring the fact that you were never going to get it anyway). And ignoring how wrong you are. And the fact that you consistently fail to link ANY sources other than your personal anecdotes.

A 20k difference isn't a comparable salary. At all. For 99% of the population. There are people that only make 20k a year in this nation, working full time. Hell, a full-time minimum wage job in NJ is only 15k a year before taxes.

The fact that you can't understand that just shows how completely out of touch with the universe you are.

Edited, May 12th 2011 3:34pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#135 May 12 2011 at 1:32 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Something odd happens to a person who spends that much time around 5 year olds.
You wouldn't prefer them to someone who spends that much time around politicians?
There's a difference?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#136 May 12 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,773 posts
Quote:
There's a difference?


5 year olds still have a sense of justice. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#137 May 12 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory wrote:
A 20k difference isn't a comparable salary. At all. For 99% of the population.

Are you kidding? Why, if you're making the national median, $20,000 only represents ~40% of your salary! That's barely anything! Not even worth mentioning when comparing wages...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 May 12 2011 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Gbaji you remind me of the people in Battlestar Galactica who objected to a kindergarten teacher being president.

I wouldn't vote for a kindergarten teach to be president. Something odd happens to a person who spends that much time around 5 year olds.
I'm sensing kindergarten teacher issues with you Moe. Is there a back story you'd like to share?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#139 May 12 2011 at 2:21 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Gbaji you remind me of the people in Battlestar Galactica who objected to a kindergarten teacher being president.

I wouldn't vote for a kindergarten teach to be president. Something odd happens to a person who spends that much time around 5 year olds.
I'm sensing kindergarten teacher issues with you Moe. Is there a back story you'd like to share?

No, I just know a few. I also know it takes a certain mentality to be around 5 year olds all day long and not snap & kill them.

Not presidential material.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#140 May 12 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Sure. It's pretty comparable though, isn't it? Remember what started this? I said that teachers made "slightly less" than <list of other professions>. Also recall that the averages and medians we're playing with for teachers are the "base pay" numbers. I've already explained at great length that most teacher can and do increase that pay.


This is why it isn't even worth debating this with you (y'know, ignoring the fact that you were never going to get it anyway). And ignoring how wrong you are. And the fact that you consistently fail to link ANY sources other than your personal anecdotes.


I've linked as many, if not more sources than anyone else in this thread. You just ignore sources when they don't tell you what you already believe to be true.

Quote:
A 20k difference isn't a comparable salary. At all. For 99% of the population. There are people that only make 20k a year in this nation, working full time. Hell, a full-time minimum wage job in NJ is only 15k a year before taxes.


Sigh. Didn't read what I wrote... again. I'm taking into account that the figures you are using are the "base pay" figures. Those are based on the pay that teachers will get if they teach no additional courses, don't coach/mentor any extracurricular activities, and don't teach any summer or evening classes. As I have explained numerous times, teachers actually work far fewer total hours per year than other full time workers, so they have the extra time to do any of those things, and many of them do. This means that the actual comparable pay for teachers is higher than that reported. How much higher on average? I have no clue. But it will be "higher" than the numbers you're tossing around.

Even if we just calculate directly based on the shorter work year, we still end out whittling that difference down to more like $10k. That certainly falls in the category of "slightly less than". I'll do the math for you if you really want, but it's not that hard.

Quote:
The fact that you can't understand that just shows how completely out of touch with the universe you are.


You're kidding, right? I'm telling you how things actually are. And even despite the BLS site saying that teachers can bring in additional income on top of the estimated base pay figures provided, you still want to pretend that the base numbers are all there is.

Go talk to teachers. Ask them how many extra classes or activities they teach. You'll be hard pressed to find any teacher at a level above grade school who doesn't do this. It's a significant number, but you want to ignore it. And you want to ignore the better benefits as well. You basically want to ignore anything that works in favor of the teacher compensation. I guess I just don't understand what advantage you think you gain by lying to yourself. You have to know somewhere inside your brain that you're doing this, so why do it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 May 12 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,773 posts
Quote:
I've linked as many, if not more sources than anyone else in this thread. You just ignore sources when they don't tell you what you already believe to be true.


You're own little world... I can think of ONE source you linked, and it wasn't credible.

Quote:
Sigh. Didn't read what I wrote... again. I'm taking into account that the figures you are using are the "base pay" figures. Those are based on the pay that teachers will get if they teach no additional courses, don't coach/mentor any extracurricular activities, and don't teach any summer or evening classes. As I have explained numerous times, teachers actually work far fewer total hours per year than other full time workers, so they have the extra time to do any of those things, and many of them do. This means that the actual comparable pay for teachers is higher than that reported. How much higher on average? I have no clue. But it will be "higher" than the numbers you're tossing around.

Even if we just calculate directly based on the shorter work year, we still end out whittling that difference down to more like $10k. That certainly falls in the category of "slightly less than". I'll do the math for you if you really want, but it's not that hard.


A. First of all, you have NEVER proven that teachers work far fewer hours. You've provided anecdotal evidence to support your argument. That's **** and it isn't impressive or convincing. Furthermore, you arbitrarily claim that teachers aren't expected to work at all outside of school hours. And I've provided you with evidence that the average teacher works more than 40 hours a week, in school. Funny how I haven't seen a source from you...

B. You have no **** clue what you're talking about. We haven't been talking about the base pay rate for teachers, we've been talking about the MEDIAN pay rate for teachers. That scales between the newbies and the veterans, 2 classes or 8, clubs or otherwise. We've MENTIONED base pay rates. But we've always been using the median pay rates. And we've even compared THEM to the BASE rates of other jobs, to show that teachers are making far less. Let's see if you can understand this:

The MEDIAN annual wage for teachers is $52,200.

The MEDIAN annual wage for civil engineers is 76, 590.

Understand? The MEDIAN wage difference is 25k a year.

The BOTTOM 10% of civil engineers have a median of $49,620.
The TOP 10% of teachers make $82,000 a year.

Gettit? Most teachers make less than, or JUST over the wage the lowest-paid civil engineers make. The highest paid teachers make just over what 50% of civil engineers make.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#142 May 12 2011 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory wrote:
Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Ideology.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#143 May 16 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
I've linked as many, if not more sources than anyone else in this thread. You just ignore sources when they don't tell you what you already believe to be true.


You're own little world... I can think of ONE source you linked, and it wasn't credible.


Er? You're missing the several cites from BLS sources *and* ignoring that the supposedly non-credible source *also* cited BLS statistics. What the hell?

Quote:
A. First of all, you have NEVER proven that teachers work far fewer hours.


Yes, I have. Is there like a brain block going on here? The sources you provided as well as my own all confirm this. The "average hours worked" is how many actual hours per week they work. However, every single source either of us has provided has shown that teachers work about 190 days per year, which is about 8 weeks fewer per year than other full time professional careers. So they work similar hours per week, and fewer weeks per year.

What do you think that means? Only the most obtuse mind would continue to argue that teachers don't work fewer total hours per year than other full time professions. Heck. You even acknowledged this earlier in the thread, yet now you're claiming the opposite. Freaking bizarre man!


Quote:
You've provided anecdotal evidence to support your argument. That's **** and it isn't impressive or convincing.


There's nothing anectdotal about it. I linked to a page which listed the number of days worked per year for public school teachers by state earlier in the thread. Perhaps if you stopped pretending that I haven't linked any sources and actually looked at the sources I've linked, you'd realize this. The average public school year is 180 days. Add to that about 10 staff development days in a typical school year, and you're at about 190 days "worked" per year (and the staff development days are typically short days, but we'll ignore that).

Quote:
Furthermore, you arbitrarily claim that teachers aren't expected to work at all outside of school hours. And I've provided you with evidence that the average teacher works more than 40 hours a week, in school. Funny how I haven't seen a source from you...


And I've shown that other full time professionals *also* work more than 40 hours per week. It's not that you haven't seen it, but are pretending it doesn't exist, apparently because you refuse to look at anything that doesn't support your own position. You're nearly pathological about this btw.


Quote:
B. You have no @#%^ing clue what you're talking about. We haven't been talking about the base pay rate for teachers, we've been talking about the MEDIAN pay rate for teachers.


Yes. And as one of the very early sources used in this thread (which may have even been one you linked) stated, these were estimated salary figures reported by the teachers unions. Let me quote for you:

Quote:
Median annual wages of kindergarten, elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers ranged from $47,100 to $51,180 in May 2008; the lowest 10 percent earned $30,970 to $34,280; the top 10 percent earned $75,190 to $80,970.

According to the American Federation of Teachers, beginning teachers with a bachelor's degree earned an average of $33,227 in the 2005-2006 school year.

In 2008, of the majority of all elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers belonged to unions—mainly the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association—that bargain with school systems over salaries, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Teachers can boost their earnings in a number of ways. In some schools, teachers receive extra pay for coaching sports and working with students in extracurricular activities. Getting a master's degree or national certification often results in a raise in pay, as does acting as a mentor. Some teachers earn extra income during the summer by teaching summer school or performing other jobs in the school system. Although private school teachers generally earn less than public school teachers, they may be given other benefits, such as free or subsidized housing.



This source clearly indicates that the pay ranges quoted above do not include that "extra pay" spoken about later. The pay rates used by the BLS for public school teachers is what is reported by the teacher unions. I can assure you that what they're doing is figuring out the number of teachers who fall into each ladder on their pay chart and then calculating the mean and median from that. They are *not* including the extra pay that teachers can get from doing extra work.

But what you are trying to do is assume that the teachers work those extra hours doing extracurriculars, and teaching extra classes, but that they don't get paid more for it. That is just not true.


Quote:
That scales between the newbies and the veterans, 2 classes or 8, clubs or otherwise. We've MENTIONED base pay rates. But we've always been using the median pay rates. And we've even compared THEM to the BASE rates of other jobs, to show that teachers are making far less.


Sigh. But the base pay rates for other jobs do not allow them to make more money. As an engineer, I don't get paid more if I work more hours at my job. I get paid my salary. Period. The pay system is simply different. I suspect you just can't (or wont) understand this. If a teacher takes on an extra class, which adds an extra X% to the amount of time he has to work, he gets paid extra for that. If I take on an extra project for my employer, which adds extra time to my work week, I don't get paid one cent more.

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that this is already calculated in for teacher pay. But it's not. Comparing base pay to base pay is fallacious because the base pay for other professions *is* the actual pay they get. Period. The base pay for teachers is a starting point. You can't just compare them as though they are the same.



Quote:
Let's see if you can understand this:

The MEDIAN annual wage for teachers is $52,200.

The MEDIAN annual wage for civil engineers is 76, 590.

Understand? The MEDIAN wage difference is 25k a year.

The BOTTOM 10% of civil engineers have a median of $49,620.
The TOP 10% of teachers make $82,000 a year.

Gettit? Most teachers make less than, or JUST over the wage the lowest-paid civil engineers make. The highest paid teachers make just over what 50% of civil engineers make.


Lol! Funny how 10k is "just over" when you're posting, but the same 10k can't be "slightly less" when I post it. Amazing bias you're showing!

Quote:
Why is this so hard for you to understand?


I understand perfectly. You're just refusing to add in important factors.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#144 May 16 2011 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Let's see if you can understand this:

The MEDIAN annual wage for teachers is $52,200.

The MEDIAN annual wage for civil engineers is 76, 590.

Understand? The MEDIAN wage difference is 25k a year.

The BOTTOM 10% of civil engineers have a median of $49,620.
The TOP 10% of teachers make $82,000 a year.

Gettit? Most teachers make less than, or JUST over the wage the lowest-paid civil engineers make. The highest paid teachers make just over what 50% of civil engineers make.
Lol! Funny how 10k is "just over" when you're posting, but the same 10k can't be "slightly less" when I post it. Amazing bias you're showing!
82000 - 76590 = 10000?!

That's some all-pro math.

And again, that's top teacher salaries versus median civil engineer salaries. But I know you don't really care. Teachers are bad, right? Om nom nommin' that government cheese. And nobody knows teachers and child development better than an aging bachelor.



Edited, May 16th 2011 6:20pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#145 May 16 2011 at 7:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
bsphil wrote:
82000 - 76590 = 10000?!

That's some all-pro math.


The exact number isn't the point. The vagueness of the use of terms like "slightly more" and "just over" was the point. Way to get caught up on irrelevant details though!

Quote:
And again, that's top teacher salaries versus median civil engineer salaries.


Sigh. It's not about that though. You conveniently ignored the whole long post where I showed how the numbers we're comparing aren't fair to compare in the first place.

Quote:
But I know you don't really care. Teachers are bad, right?


I've said nothing of the sort. Not once. What I've been saying that that the oft repeated assertion that teachers are grossly overworked for little pay is just plain false. It's a lie repeated often in our political debate purely because it works well on the masses and is beneficial to those repeating the lie. But the facts simply don't match up.


And, at the risk of repeating my original point, it's not just about median salaries and other statistical data. It's about the common reaction when average Joe public sees a teacher on TV complaining about how underpaid she is because she only makes $80k+/year. The point is that people assume that engineers are paid that much, but they've been constantly bombarded with statements about how low teacher pay is. Thus, they are often shocked when they find out how much teachers actually make.

It's telling that you can find hundreds of polls out there asking about whether teachers should be paid more, paid less, etc, but there are none (that I can find) that ask people what they think teachers are actually paid. Don't you think that one should be a prerequisite for the other to be meaningful? My point is that the average person actually thinks that teachers make far less than they are paid. I'm not even making a point about how much they should be paid, just that the perception is very different from the reality, and when people see the veil separating those things part even for a moment, they are shocked.

Quote:
Om nom nommin' that government cheese. And nobody knows teachers and child development better than an aging bachelor.


Sigh. Whatever. As I've said repeatedly, my best friend is a teacher. His sister is a teacher (just chatted with her Saturday night in fact). His father was a teacher. His mother is a school administrator. His father in law is a district administrator. Both of my sisters in law are school teachers. Another close friend of mines wife (I see them about once a week) is also a school teacher. All of them in the public school system. So just in terms of people I know and interact with personally on a regular basis, I know 5 public school teachers, and two administrators. Feel free to ignore these anecdotal observations if you wish, but then don't attack them either.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#146 May 16 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
And for the record (and to repeat this again since you obviously missed/ignored it), the biggest complaint from actual teachers (when they're not prompted/required by their unions to say otherwise) isn't pay or benefits, but the bureaucracy they constantly have to deal with in order to do their jobs. They complain about the ridiculous requirements placed on them. The absurd standards they have to teach to. The constant sense that someone who's 5 levels removed from actually teaching is telling them how to manage their classes on a daily basis. The hoops they have to go through to get funding for anything. That's where the real costs of education end out getting eaten up. It's not teacher pay. It's the overhead of our public school system, and the constant dithering and changing of minds that goes on about how to best educate our children.


That's what teachers hate. Not the pay. Not the hours. But that's not what the unions care about, so that never seems to be what is debated about politically. Instead, we sit around debating how much they're paid while ignoring the far more important problems in our education system.


But it's not like this is the first case of misdirection when it comes to public services, and it's certainly not the last.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#147 May 16 2011 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
the constant dithering and changing of minds that goes on about how to best educate our children.
Remember kids: Changing your mind just means you were wrong before!

So if you're saying that the problem isn't teacher salaries... why do you keep crying over teacher salaries?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#148 May 17 2011 at 2:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
the constant dithering and changing of minds that goes on about how to best educate our children.
Remember kids: Changing your mind just means you were wrong before!

So if you're saying that the problem isn't teacher salaries... why do you keep crying over teacher salaries?


I'm not. Have you just not been paying attention or something?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 May 17 2011 at 2:19 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
the constant dithering and changing of minds that goes on about how to best educate our children.
Remember kids: Changing your mind just means you were wrong before!

So if you're saying that the problem isn't teacher salaries... why do you keep crying over teacher salaries?
I'm not. Have you just not been paying attention or something?
Come on, don't start backpedaling now after 2 full pages of arguing over teacher salaries.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#150 May 17 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The exact number isn't the point.

"Not intended to be a factual statement".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 May 17 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The exact number isn't the point.
"Not intended to be a factual statement".
Either that or he just had an error margin of +/-50%.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 45 All times are in CDT
stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (44)