site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31884 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I’m a teacher in Canada, where salaries often top out around 105k CAD. Teachers here are also distressingly low-g, low curiosity, low nuance. Realistic raises aren’t going to fix it.

Raises combined with aptitude testing ought to do it, since then you get applicants who are both talented enough to be a good teacher/work elsewhere productively and are at least somewhat interested in teaching.

I don't know much about Canada, but in Los Angeles, a teacher starts at 56K and can reach 98K with a doctorate and 14 years of experience. Meanwhile, the median starting salary for an attorney in Los Angeles is $121,000.

Realistic raises aren’t going to fix it.

I didn't say anything about "realistic" raises. I referred to necessary raises.

ADA earn less.

https://www.biglawinvestor.com/district-attorney-salary/

Yes, everyone knows that some get paid less. That is why I referred to median salaries.

But, for the record, the salary range for a District Attorney III in Los Angeles County is 118,000 - 163,000 per year. Moreover, of the 1000 people listed here with the job title of district attorney, it looks like 700 made base pay of 125k plus, 600 made 150k plus, and 300 made 190k plus.

I knew someone would miss the point. The point is NOT that it is unfair that lawyers make more than teachers. The point is that, if we want to get smart people to go into teaching as a career, such as by retaining the Teach For America people I referred to, then we have to compensate them a lot better.

Lawyers . . . spend 3 extra years in school.

No, two extra years, because a teaching credential usually takes a year. And if you look at the salary schedule in the link, a teacher with 2 years of experience is making under 57K in Los Angeles. And, of course, many law students have summer clerkships which now have a median salary of more than $3000/wk for 10 weeks.

Also the lawyer number is skewed upwards by big law that recruits from T14 schools and where you work insane hours

No, I cited the median salary, which unlike the mean, is not skewed by big law salaries.

Trying to get better teachers by increasing salaries is trying to push on a rope. You won't get better teachers; you'll get the same teachers with more money. You need to increase the standards first, and if and when you note that you're actually facing a shortage that is credibly due to compensation, only then increase salaries.

No, giving raises to current teachers will not improve teaching (Though my best HS math teacher, Mr. Gou5dge (the 5 was silent) left teaching for better pay in law). But increasing salaries for new teachers will. Eg, more of those TFA teachers I mentioned will stick with teaching,and more smart grads will opt for teaching instead of other careers.

No, it won't, not unless you increase the standards first. You'll get more people in the field for the money, but most of them won't be the right people -- they'll be those attracted to the field for the low standards and high pay.

You also could get higher quality people who went into other fields for the higher salaries.

Again, you seem to be ignoring the Teach for America examples.

Besides, I am not saying that increasing salaries is sufficient for improvement, but rather that it is necessary. After all, if you increase standards first, you will have a shortage of qualified applicants unless you also increase salaries.

And, again. I am addressing OP's complaint about dumb teachers. If smart people have lucrative options like law and medicine, few are going to go into teaching, regardless of whether standards are high, low, or in the middle.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats