"Daniel Gibson" <metalcae...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.982.1292310762.21107.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a...@a.a> wrote: >> "Justin Johansson" <nore...@jj.com> wrote in message >> news:ie5boj$24n...@digitalmars.com... >>> On 14/12/10 01:20, Daniel Gibson wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Justin Johansson<nore...@jj.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. It is high time 99% of educational institutions fired the 50% >>>>> of mediocre (and worse) teachers/tutors/lecturers and doubled the >>>>> salary >>>>> of >>>>> the rest of them. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So there are only enough teachers for 50% of the students, who now get >>>> a >>>> better >>>> education, while the other students don't get an education at all? >>>> Doesn't sound that great.. >>> >>> You are clearly wrong in your conclusion. >>> My hypothesis is that by attracting better talent for teaching we may >>> teach for the betterment of all. >>> How you have extrapolated 50% of students for 50% of teachers if beyond >>> me. >> >> I think he meant 50% fewer teachers leads to a doubled workload for the >> remaining teachers. >> > >Exactly. >I am assuming that most teachers workloads can't be increased much (if >it could, >there weren't as many teachers to start with, the schools won't pay >more teachers >than needed), so if 50% of the teachers are fired, about 50% of the >students can't >be taught. >Maybe class sizes could be increased a bit and the remaining teachers could >work some more - but it'd still be maybe 40% of the students that >can't be taught >and with bigger classes and more work those good teachers probably won't be >that >great anymore, anyway. >
Well, like I said before, the way I see it, most students aren't really being taught right now anyway. The teachers and students go through the motions but there's little-to-no actual teaching/learning going on. So I think educating 50% of students would be a huge net gain.
