Student invents new math process

On 24 Nov 2003 21:53:16 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

Mary Shafer wrote:

We aren't willing to pay for the brightest, though.

Say I'm good at math and I like it, so I can go into teaching for some
miserable pittance or I can go into engineering for three times as
much. If I'm as smart as you're hoping for, I'm too smart to go into
teaching. And I save a year of college, because teaching takes five
years and engineering takes the standard four years.

It is true that teachers usually don't start very high, but in the Seattle area
we have classroom teachers making over $60K and they have summers off and
several one or two week breaks and frequent three day weekends. Not to mention
that once they figure out a system they have a rather short work day. It think
it is a pretty cushy racket with excellent retirement and benefits of all
stripes. I come from a family full of teachers and as a child I thought
everybody had summers off.

Those teachers didn't get to $60M very quickly, either. They had to
get a Master's, keep taking courses, and teach a lot of years, like
twenty.

My dad was a teacher and I can tell you that they may not spend eight
hours every day in the classroom, but they make up for it with the
time they spend working at home. And the summers off are spent taking
compulsory courses for currency and increasing pay levels.

There's no "working out a system", either, because schools change
learning programs and texts, workbooks, whatnot, constantly. Plus you
have to teach to constantly-changing standardized tests.

Sixty thousand dollars is somewhat more than half of what I was making
when I retired and I was a civil servant, meaning my pay wasn't that
great. I wouldn't put up with teenagers all day for that. Or
six-year-olds, come to think of it.

Did you know that if you're in a fire and get a visible burn scar you
can lose your teaching credential? Any disfigurement can do it,
actually. That's not the sort of thing I'd like hanging over my head.

I have been occasionally induced to look at special programs to get people from
the sciences into teaching. Since I was laid off I have looked into them more
seriously and so far thay have turned out to be political scams carefully
designed to look good but be incompletable in practice, at least for someone
who is broke :-)

They're not designed for people who are broke; they're designed for
those of us who took early retirement, like me, military folks, and
some industry folks. Teaching would give us a chance to get more
retirement benefits without having them docked the way Social Security
is.

To he who hath shall be given. Says so in the Bible. Well, it says
more in the Bible than just that, but quoting out of context is a
time-honored tradition.

Seriously, I'm sorry they've been such a disappointment. Keep
looking, as some may be more honest.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:

Those teachers didn't get to $60M very quickly, either. They had to
get a Master's, keep taking courses, and teach a lot of years, like
twenty.

My dad was a teacher and I can tell you that they may not spend eight
hours every day in the classroom, but they make up for it with the
time they spend working at home. And the summers off are spent taking
compulsory courses for currency and increasing pay levels.

My dad is a retired teacher (as is his brother). He picked up his masters when
I was about two years old so it was his third year teaching. Back then there
was not much in the way of continuing ed that had to be taken. It is his
opinion that you can learn everything you need for the classroom in about three
weeks. The Washington State Governor's progeram I looked into most recently
required that someone with a math/science BS take five full load quarters of ed
classes. It turned out to be a "trial program" with only 20 people being
accepted. Location was an extension program not far from Microsoft headquarters
so renting in the area was out of the question and commuting nearly impossible.
It was supposedly aimed at people caught in the slump who had considered
teaching in the past, but I suspect your explanation is much closer to the
truth.

My opinion is they set up the trial to fail. Probably half the students would
find "real" jobs again in the five quarters the classes took. Half those left
would shoot themselves after three quarters of nothing but mind numbing ed
classes. In the end I bet maybe three teachers come out of it and it can be
declared too inefficient to warrant further investment.

Anyway, by the time I tracked down the program it was full. None of the school
system or state school people could tell me a thing. It turned out that the
only doorway was an obscure link starting on the Governor's web site!

On the other hand, I have had some conflicting reports that some of the school
systems do not require a certificate if you have a MS, PhD, or DrS. I think I
can buy a Doctor of Science in physics or computer science from Manchester for
about $1,200 :-)

As for the high tech professions, have you seen anybody get hired at 52 lately?

-- Charlie Springer

Regnirps wrote:

Mary Shafer wrote:

Those teachers didn't get to $60M very quickly, either. They had to
get a Master's, keep taking courses, and teach a lot of years, like
twenty.

My dad was a teacher and I can tell you that they may not spend eight
hours every day in the classroom, but they make up for it with the
time they spend working at home. And the summers off are spent taking
compulsory courses for currency and increasing pay levels.

My dad is a retired teacher (as is his brother). He picked up his masters when
I was about two years old so it was his third year teaching. Back then there
was not much in the way of continuing ed that had to be taken. It is his
opinion that you can learn everything you need for the classroom in about three
weeks. The Washington State Governor's progeram I looked into most recently
required that someone with a math/science BS take five full load quarters of ed
classes. It turned out to be a "trial program" with only 20 people being
accepted. Location was an extension program not far from Microsoft headquarters
so renting in the area was out of the question and commuting nearly impossible.
It was supposedly aimed at people caught in the slump who had considered
teaching in the past, but I suspect your explanation is much closer to the
truth.

My opinion is they set up the trial to fail. Probably half the students would
find "real" jobs again in the five quarters the classes took. Half those left
would shoot themselves after three quarters of nothing but mind numbing ed
classes. In the end I bet maybe three teachers come out of it and it can be
declared too inefficient to warrant further investment.

Anyway, by the time I tracked down the program it was full. None of the school
system or state school people could tell me a thing. It turned out that the
only doorway was an obscure link starting on the Governor's web site!

On the other hand, I have had some conflicting reports that some of the school
systems do not require a certificate if you have a MS, PhD, or DrS. I think I
can buy a Doctor of Science in physics or computer science from Manchester for
about $1,200 :-)

As for the high tech professions, have you seen anybody get hired at 52 lately?

-- Charlie Springer

I was out of work once and began substitute teaching. I don't know about
Washington State but the districts (4) where I subbed in the Houston, TX
area paid $60.00 a day back in the late eighties, some even threw in
lunch. Here in Louisiana a certified teacher who subs gets $55.00 a day
and uncertified gets $45.00. It isn't the best living in the world but
it kept us with a roof over our heads and grub in the belly and
ultimately led to full-time jobs for both of us.

It's been my experience that if you have a job, any kind of job, it
makes it easier to get a better one. May have to do with improved
self-confidence, I'm not sure.

Oh yeah, I started over with a whole new career at 52. I'm now 64 and
self-employed and enjoyed the past 12 years more than I did the previous
30 odd years.

Don't give up Charlie, there's always a job out there for us
"experienced" people.

George

George Shirley wrote in news:%XJwb.7771$I7.5019
@bignews6.bellsouth.net:

It's been my experience that if you have a job, any kind of job, it
makes it easier to get a better one. May have to do with improved
self-confidence, I'm not sure.

I would imagine that, atleast partially, it is a factor of the fact that
that spending 6 months looking for a new job while your employed is
easier then spending 6 months when you are unemployed.