Bad Business
Random thought and the gratuitous Seinfeld tie-in...
(Random disclaimer: I'm a teacher. I know many people who are teachers. Certain comments have hopefully been qualified with terms like "often" or "most." I'm not trying to say "always.")
Episode: The Heart Attack
Tor Eckman (the "healer" or "spiritualist") tells George that the problem with the medical institution is that getting people well is bad business. What they're looking for are repeat customers--basically, it's profitable to keep people sick.
The same is true of the tutoring/teaching gig. I can do one of three things:
1. Teach them exactly what they need to know in order to get by.
2. Teach them how to teach themselves.
3. Teach them incorrectly, but do so in a manner such that they think you're being helpful and such that they don't know you're screwing them over.
Now, it stands to reason that the most profitable situation would of course be option number 3. It leaves them in a continual state of necessity. (Fill in your own situation of seeing where this idea blows up, apart from the lying, the deceitfulness, the lying...)
It's necessarily bad business to do number 2. They no longer need the assistance, for they can do it for themselves. No necessity means no demand, supply goes up and price goes down.
That leaves you at number 1. And I'm wondering what other people's thoughts are. Does this extrapolate into the entire educational profession? Through high school though, you're pretty much working with (for the most part) a captive audience, a guaranteed "consumer"--they're going to be there whether they learn anything or not. Which leads either to the "ahh, who cares" reaction or the "alright, guess I'll teach them what I can" reaction.
Teachers and schools are needed as long as the students aren't smarter than their teachers. Therefore it is good business (even if the financial aspect of the model doesn't hold true) if students remain stupid. If students are continually in the need of instruction, it means that instructors are necessary; in other words, keeping students dumbed down continues to affirm the necessity of their teachers, thus stroking the fragile egos and boosting the "self-esteem" of those holding degrees in education who are more and more frequently the "scraping the bottom of the barrel" college graduates.
Second thought for the day: Sometimes, hanging out in the teacher's lounge at lunch makes me want to homeschool if I ever have kids. Make of that what you will.
(Random disclaimer: I'm a teacher. I know many people who are teachers. Certain comments have hopefully been qualified with terms like "often" or "most." I'm not trying to say "always.")
Episode: The Heart Attack
Tor Eckman (the "healer" or "spiritualist") tells George that the problem with the medical institution is that getting people well is bad business. What they're looking for are repeat customers--basically, it's profitable to keep people sick.
The same is true of the tutoring/teaching gig. I can do one of three things:
1. Teach them exactly what they need to know in order to get by.
2. Teach them how to teach themselves.
3. Teach them incorrectly, but do so in a manner such that they think you're being helpful and such that they don't know you're screwing them over.
Now, it stands to reason that the most profitable situation would of course be option number 3. It leaves them in a continual state of necessity. (Fill in your own situation of seeing where this idea blows up, apart from the lying, the deceitfulness, the lying...)
It's necessarily bad business to do number 2. They no longer need the assistance, for they can do it for themselves. No necessity means no demand, supply goes up and price goes down.
That leaves you at number 1. And I'm wondering what other people's thoughts are. Does this extrapolate into the entire educational profession? Through high school though, you're pretty much working with (for the most part) a captive audience, a guaranteed "consumer"--they're going to be there whether they learn anything or not. Which leads either to the "ahh, who cares" reaction or the "alright, guess I'll teach them what I can" reaction.
Teachers and schools are needed as long as the students aren't smarter than their teachers. Therefore it is good business (even if the financial aspect of the model doesn't hold true) if students remain stupid. If students are continually in the need of instruction, it means that instructors are necessary; in other words, keeping students dumbed down continues to affirm the necessity of their teachers, thus stroking the fragile egos and boosting the "self-esteem" of those holding degrees in education who are more and more frequently the "scraping the bottom of the barrel" college graduates.
Second thought for the day: Sometimes, hanging out in the teacher's lounge at lunch makes me want to homeschool if I ever have kids. Make of that what you will.
posted by the jake at 11:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home