Ya, I'm no captain of industry and would consider myself pro-consumerist over pro-profiteer, but what's wrong with "Good Enough"? Most people have zero need for 6Gbps. Yes, most. Most people aren't downloading massive files over public networks nor does it matter if they get instant access to the newest viral craze on Youtube.

For most people 802.11b is good enough. Upgrading is too resource intensive when the cost of continuing the status quo is ZERO DOLLARS.

I equate this "issue" with Dell complaining that no one is buying their OctoCore 3GHZ 16GB dual-Video machines that support 4 monitors. Sometimes, old tech is good enough. Don't take that away.

Nice bike helmet, but I won't be wearing a 3D printed helmet unless it passes all the same tests that all bike helmets in America pass.

You know, Irate Engineer, one of my employees (20+ years my senior) calls my fiance and I "DINKs". Dual-Income, No Kids. As "DINKs", it is possible to survive as teachers. It's even easier if you front-load your earning (like you have) and then give up all the earning potential to teach later in life.

And while that works, I don't think either of us want it that way. I hope to be able to make the switch back to education and inspire a thirst for education in middle school students so that those important years in high school can prepare them for their next steps after they receive their diplomas. But without that security of tenure and pension, like you say, it's fiscal suicide.

I wish you the best of luck and wisdom fighting for the balance between tenure, fiscal sustainability, and teacher performance in your position and as a member of your union.

Irate Engineer,

This is very well-put. The dilemma of tenure is what people are yet to sit down and discuss. It's a mix of philosophy and management and it just requires too much thinking.

Personally, I was on track to be a pretty damn fine teacher a few years ago. I had 4 years of higher education outreach (teaching every Saturday in low-income schools), 3 summers of teaching summer school, mentoring, and even staffing week-long camps on our campus. My passion for education couldn't be beat.

I was working a temp job after completing my BA to build up my bank for the all the testing, applications, and the move required to transplant for a Masters/Credential program. My goal was to be a middle school teacher-- the one you throw your worst kids at to be turned around. That was my gift, after all-- taming the worst and instilling the self-respect and vision for the future so that their life course could be changed. I wanted to give the worst kids a good chance of attending a four-year college and we all know that that change needs to happen in grades 7 and 8.

I knew that I would never make money in that position. I knew I would be over-educated, over-qualified, and over-worked. I accepted that all because, at the very least, I knew that I would be secure in my employment.

And then the recession hit in 2007/2008. My friends who had gone straight for their credentials after college to jump into classrooms ASAP were getting laid off. Some were being exploited by being laid off in June and having to re-interview for their jobs in August. Others were being given only part-time schedules. My now-fiance and I had a very serious discussion. We could live with me bringing in less money. We could be happy with me working myself to the bone. I could be fulfilled in teaching others even if my skills were not all being used. But we could never have a child if we didn't both have a steady source of income. So I gave up the dream. I took a position for which I am still passionate-- just not as much as teaching. I'm making nearly $60k/year and have been here only for 3 years. If I were to be teaching I would, hopefully, be making $40k in my preferred position. And my job would be insecure.

It really is too much to ask of our young people. Just consider the cost of becoming a teaching in California. You have to graduate high school, take the SAT a couple times, apply to universities, pay for your costs to attend and graduate, pay for your GRE, CSET, CBEST, Masters program, credentialing program, relocations, and then pay out of pocket to set up your own class and make up for your school district's short fall. And then the supplemental clear credentialing and continuing education. If you choose to go to a UC school, you could be looking at $200,000 spent for the opportunity to be an amazing teacher in California... and make $45,000/year after 10 years.

I still desperately want to go back and teach... but it's still just not safe enough.

To be fair, your example supports the comment to which you responded.

Parent comment to yours: "When you hear that schools are having a difficult time getting teachers, that indicates that the school/district/state is an awful place to work."
Your comment: "Affluent school districts have no problem with applicants, but the rural and inner-city districts do."

I think it's more than fair to make the assumption that inner-city districts are awful places to work.

I had the same instinct about the word "roadable". Here's the Google N-Gram on the word's use in books throughout history: http://goo.gl/gd4xJh

There are many flavors of utilitarianism and like all forms of ethics, philosophy, and sciences, the later versions tend to be the best.

Utilitarianism is a sub-category of consequentialist ethics within which are multiple versions of Utilitarianism. One of the first descriptions sought to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. That's old and busted. Another sought to maximize happiness (slightly different). These versions of Utilitarianism are fairly easily defeated by what I call the World Cup Conundrum: You are in the centralized satellite transmission station responsible for beaming the World Cup out to 75% of the world's population. The score is tied and there's 60 seconds left on the clock. Someone is charging the goalie with the ball when the power cuts out. A major power cable has snapped and there is no time to fix it properly. The only way to resume transmitting the game is to throw your co-worker on the cable gap and have his body act as a transmission line. Do you do it? Do you sacrifice the life of one man for the 45-second happiness of billions of people? According to these archaic versions of Utilitarianism, it may be your duty to do so.

But philosophies evolve.

One of the most modern and widely accepted versions Utilitarianism shows that the utilitarian calculus should consider the *preferences* of all those affected by a decision and weigh those against the various potential actions. In the World Cup conundrum, instead of considering the happiness or pleasure of the audience, it's your duty to consider their preferences to be entertained and weigh the value of those preferences against the preference of your co-worker to live (and his family, etc. to keep him alive). Most people would agree that the preference for the ongoing life of your co-worker outweighs the preferences to be entertained of even billions of people. Thus, the best choice is simply to due your best to fix the problem while not killing your co-worker. If everyone misses the last minute of the game, oh well. It was the best of all known options.

Evaluation:
Did you use the Utilitarian calculus to choosing your course of action?
Did you use your best rational approximation of the preferences of those affected to choose your course of action?

If you answered yes to both, then your duty has been fulfilled. You've done the best thing you could do.

It's because of this conundrum that autonomous vehicles will only be novelty features on standard automobiles. It will be an auto-pilot or cruise control wherein the driver is still expected to take control in the case of an emergency that could not be measured by the car's sensors or accounted for by the car's algorithms.

And that's not bad! It's just not as idyllic as some would prefer.

Definitely true. Such is why it's particularly saddening when I don't see my regular fellow commuter cyclists on days when a drizzle is predicted or when temperatures drop to a "frigid" 7C.

Why in the world wouldn't you change clothes? I bike 5 miles to and from work and I have two bike bags for all my stuff-- one holds all my clothes, deodorant, etc. and the other holds my locks and repair tools (most frequently used to help other cyclists). On the hot days (remember-- I live in Southern California), I can build up a small sweat on the way to the office, so I cruise for the last mile and try to sit upright to get as much breeze as possible. I go to the restroom to change, rinse off my face and head with cold water, towel off any remaining sweat, and apply deodorant. I then unroll my clothes, put them on, and stuff my rider clothes in the same bag.

Then I walk into the office.

Now, asking a cyclist to commute with 78 lbs. of tools because you're on call 24/7 is a bit disingenuous. No one suggests that *everyone's* career allows them to cycle to and from work. Anyone on-call or who needs to carry around massive amounts of weight is not going to find cycling a part of their regular or expected commute.

I'm 31, have lived in Southern California my whole life, and have yet to get a driver's license let alone a personal auto.

It weirds some people out and they just can't believe it's possible.

You and I, I think, have a similar opinion, but I don't think we agree on the root problem. We both think that schools are not performing to our expectations, but you seem to think it's because teachers want to teach poorly. I assert that many teachers must teach poorly (rote memorization, teaching to the test) because they have too much to do in such little time with very high expectations. They're not conflicting opinions, but related.

You'd be surprised just how many teachers **don't like** teaching to the test but are required to do so to preserve school funding, to cement certain check boxes in their yearly reviews, and to make sure their students aren't dropped into "lesser performing" classes in the following year. Most teachers would love to have free reign over their curriculum, but when they find a fantastic topic or method to use in their classes, they often look to the standards and have to say, "Well this would be nice, but it doesn't meet the curriculum standards. Maybe we can squeeze it in after the testing in May."

They teach to the test because we (adults) don't like paying taxes but expect education to be uniform, efficient, and ever-increasing measurable performance-- just like on a factory floor.

But those are words (efficiency, performance) best used in manufacturingâ"a system of creation or development that takes uniform resources and assembles them into new uniform products. Manufacturing allows for performance and efficiency measurements because the same processes occur time and time again with a single expected outcome being a benchmark.

Education, however, requires teachers take materials (students) of severely different qualities, origins, and properties, treat them equally (apply curriculum) in batches, measure reactions, re-treat them as necessary, and pass on whatever the resulting product may be to the next teacher. The next teacher must assume that the product has been treated to specifications, but if the product has not been treated appropriately (or if the product did not take to the treatment as expected) the teacher must re-apply treatment yet again while, or before, applying his/her own treatment.

How is that possible with minimal resources? Well, you teach to the test, of course.

This is the most important post in this Slashdot discussion. The situation isn't a symptom of "fascism" as many are asserting above. It's an issue of *best* protocol not being followed.
Such errors in training and follow-through are going to happen in *any* form of government where people are involved.

This is an HR and policy issue, not a macro-governmental philosophy issue.

Schools are designed to use as little money as possible to do some of the most dynamic tasks known to man-- teach, counsel, and inspire young humans to become informed, involved, analytical, creative, and curious older humans regardless of biology or background.

Do not be fooled. This is no easy task and doing it right is not cheap.

If there was more money to hire more teachers and make more (and smaller) classrooms, your rare genius 10-year-old that wants to tackle calculus out of boredom could get his class of 5 similarly-minded children from the county and a sufficiently prepared educator to make that happen. But given the massive task at hand, it's just not fiscally rational.

It's not designed punishment. It's doing the best with what is had. Which isn't much,

I've been one of the few people Slashdot railing against the massive social investment and expectations that are being hyped by the purveyors of MOOCs.

I think they're great for those who are simply seeking casual education, but they should never, EVER be expected to be a substitute for concentrated education as our K-12 and higher education systems are intended to function.

With that in mind, then the massive failure rates shouldn't be considered a bug or feature but simply "expected". It's expected that people will sign up and learn some stuff, but if they're neither sufficiently engaged nor forced to attend, learn, and prove learning, they'll just quit. Or cheat to whatever end.

MOOCs are good. Heck, they're great. Just don't expect them to replace our classic education structure. Educating the masses per the needs of our society takes hard work, time, space, and money. MOOCs won't change that, but they will help those with sufficient intrinsic motivation to learn even more.