If I had made a bundle in the dot com bubble or something, I could see myself teaching CS in CPS. Or at least trying -- I teach grad school and don't know if I have the personality for younger students.
Then you illustrate my point exactly. If you were already independently wealthy you would do it. But would you have chosen that career path straight out of college or after a few years in industry?
Also $75K isn't much if you want to live in Chicago, home of the 12%+ sales tax. I recently lived in Chicago and as a single guy I could be pretty comfortable on $75K but I wouldn't want to support a family on that. If $75K is the average then thats probably for a teacher with 10+ years of experience and some advanced education. You are not going to draw away talent from the private sector or draw talented graduates out of university for a starting salary below $50K in a high cost of living area. The teachers union won't allow you to pay talented professionals more than a teacher with more years in the district, so someone out of industry will start in the bottom range of salary.
They feel good, blah blah blah, ect... I knew several people who did Teach for America and I know 2 teachers who left CPS, one for a suburban district and the other to go back to school. Teaching in CPS and other inner city public and charter schools sucks. Its exhausting, thankless, low paying, and sometimes dangerous. You might think you are "changing the world, making a difference, impacting someone's life", but you aren't and that has a huge affect on young teachers moral when they realize it. You are babysitting the students, you will have no professional support, no supplies, no budget, and some really old and outdated books. You might be lucky if your students are only a few years behind the curriculum of the actual grade they are in. Fuck that.
This leads to prosecutors and judges overreacting against things they don't understand very well and juries overreacting to punish people due to not really understanding what they did.
I don't assume that the prosecutors and judges are overreacting because they don't understand technology. I think they understand completely that it is in the corporation's best interests to have disproportionate penalties for online activism compared to meatspace activism. They already lost the fight in meatspace, protests get a lot of coverage and it is really bad PR to see police pepper spraying protesters. I think they have the clear goal of establishing that online protests/activism will not be tolerated and the penalties will be much more severe than a meatspace protest.
Imagine if online protests become an accepted form of civil disobedience? It would be much more difficult to control the masses because they could participate anonymously from their couch. Compare that to an old fashioned protest where people have to miss work and travel and stay outside and sometimes tolerate brutal police action. The masses complaints might actually be addressed instead of ignored.
However, it is a core tenet of the buyer/seller relationship for advertisements to be accurate, and promises to be upheld. Without these expectations in place, it's impossible to conduct good business, for buyers would pay with fool's gold, and sellers would sell snake oil. The word "scam", almost by definition, indicates that these expectations have not been met.
My point is that in the scenarios I listed the Seller is disingenuous and it has become normal for the Seller to be disingenuous. It is common and accepted for a seller to exploit a lack of domain knowledge of a customer to gain a favorable bargaining position. If it is a core tenet of the buyer/seller relationship to be accurate then most of our interactions with companies are in violation of the tenets of the relationship.
I've seen several of these kinds of things where the contractors essentially knew there was no way to deliver the system on-time and on-budget. They just seem to build in the fact that once the client realizes it, the sunk cost is high enough they get to have a gravy train for some time to come.
It's not fraud, per se, but it's carefully managing the terms of your engagement with the knowledge the customer will end having to pay more and not really have much of a choice.
Sadly, it almost seems to be standard practice in the industry.
That's exactly what I'm talking about, I agree completely. I would like more discourse on the troubling fact that disingenuity is prevalent and accepted (and maybe encouraged) in our society and the public, goverment, and other companies are materially victimized by it.
Of course there are always going to be scammers, but when the largest, most profitable, most recognized, and most entrenched players are the ones who exemplify disenguinty and deceit maybe we should ask ourselves what we can do to affect positive change.
The world is no nursery. - Sigmund Freud