Why are teachers dumb?

[teancum79]

This is a question I have been wondering for some time now so I thought I'd see what everyone thinks.

1. Teacher selects text book and also lectures and writes test. However the test they write does not correlate with the information in the text book or the lecture. thus giving you a snowballs chance of getting better than a 90% and even that require you to remember pointless facts that no one keeps on the top of their heads and won't really improve your ability to perform in the field.

2. Teachers who expect you to draw conclusions from information when it is not clearly spelled out, but only accept the conclusion they drew and do not give credit for other views which are wholly possible from the given information.

Anyhow these have been the most obvious examples of strange thinking/acting on the part of some of my teachers.

[Mestemia]

I wish I had the answers to these questions!!

I've gone back to school after being out for like 14 years and I can tell you some good ones.

[littlepea]

i think it depends what subject we're talking about, really. i always completely understood maths (in the UK we call mathematics "maths" rather than "math", since it's plural ) and even if some difficult questions came up in exams which we hadn't been given exact examples of in class i could usually figure them out without any bother (i even got a £1000 scholarship for getting 102% in a maths exam at the end of my penultimate year in school - i got full marks and then the results were standardised up a few marks and i officially got 102% ).

i wasn't very good at english, though, and i never knew why. i could see all the technical things like alliteration and onomatopoeia but i never seemed to get the right answer when i had to analyse poetry or do interpretation exercises and my english essays usually received C's (though i was used to striaght A's in all my other subjects - even for latin i had to write essays occaisionally and usually got A's too). here's an example of the sort of thing i used to do in english:

we were given a poem about advice from a father to a son, or something, and given a bunch of questions to answer about it worth something like 1 to 6 marks each (up to a total of 15 marks). one of the questions was "what is the overall tone of the piece?" and i answered that it was very patronising (which was basically just summing up "advice from a father to a son" in one word - from the latin pater meaning "father") - correct, 2 marks. no problem there, though the only reason i knew the answer was because i also did latin (which nobody else in the class did).

then a question referred to a specific line in the poem which went something like this: "marry a pretty girl, but be sure to meet her mother first", and the question asked something like "what does the poet mean by this line?" (worth 3 or 4 marks). from my own experience i know that my dad complains about his mother-in-law (my gran) all the time and she's a bit dotty and annoying and stuff, so i wrote, "the son should meet his potential mother-in-law before getting married in case she's a really annoying person and he will have to put up with her as part of the family for the rest of his life" ... i got half a mark for that. the correct answer was that he should meet his potential mother in law before getting married so that he could see what his wife would look like when she gets old, since some women age better than others and girls often look like their mothers when they grow up - now how the hell is an innocent 15 year old boy supposed to know that?? i can see it now, of course ...

i never ever understood the whole point of poetry in school, and i never saw the what all the fuss was about with shakespeare or dickens or orwell - why couldn't we read douglas adams or terry pratchett or some modern, entertaining stuff? surely that would encourage kids to enjoy reading and then they can move on to shakespeare and dickens when they can actually appreciate it for themselves rather than having it battered into them ... i mean shakespeare's stuff is amazing (how many modern stories or films have "lady macbeth"-type characters?) and "dulce et decorum est" is a stunning piece of work, but you have to see it and understand it for yourself before you can really appreciate it and that was never emphasised in school.

that's just a critcism of how english is taught in school, really, but i also have plenty of stories about how teachers as individual people are often complete idiots too if that's what you really want to talk about? eg. one time at rugby training (god i hate rugby, but our school made us play it for the first 3 years before we were allowed to choose a different sport) the two coaches both blew their whistles at the same time, and one said to the other "wow, we must by physic" ... ;D

[dianaholberg]

teancum79 said:

This is a question I have been wondering for some time now so I thought I'd see what everyone thinks.

1. Teacher selects text book and also lectures and writes test. However the test they write does not correlate with the information in the text book or the lecture. thus giving you a snowballs chance of getting better than a 90% and even that require you to remember pointless facts that no one keeps on the top of their heads and won't really improve your ability to perform in the field.

My experience is that these are teachers who are equally concerned with your formation as they are with the subject matter.

In other words, in life, one source of information does not necessarily correlate to other sources. It is up to you to develop the ability to discern what is important and what is not. This includes being able to discern on the job what is important to those over you -- whether or not you agree with what they consider important.

2. Teachers who expect you to draw conclusions from information when it is not clearly spelled out, but only accept the conclusion they drew and do not give credit for other views which are wholly possible from the given information.

Another example of formation. In life, every answers to someone. Sometimes those in authority over us are reasonable and agreeable; sometimes not. It is an important life skill to be able to conform where appropriate.

I know this is not a popular sentiment among teens and 20-somethings. But it is an important part of teamwork.

Anyhow these have been the most obvious examples of strange thinking/acting on the part of some of my teachers.

Not so strange if you viewed them as "coaches" as well as teachers. You wouldn't question a sports coach this way, no matter how good you were at the sport.

[teancum79]

If I was playing a sport and I did just what the coach asked me to do and he yelled at me for it we would have some issues. I took an open book quiz yesterday. The book had an example on some kind of thought processes and automatic responses It used driving as its example. The quiz had a question about responses processes and used stopping for a red light and asked what kind of response system that was. Well it was not the one it looked like or you would think by reading the book we are supposed to magically conclude other things. For the most part I'm not too worried about a few points, but I'm applying to grad schools this fall and you GPA gets a very close look. I can't afford to drop the class nor can I afford to get a bad grade from a teacher who either can't teach information in a way that it can be understood or write test that reflect the information covered in the class.

[dianaholberg]

It's not very constructive to gripe about a teacher -- why don't you meet with him and express your concerns politely? It could be educational.

[dianaholberg]

By the way, I consider it heroic that these people put themselves at risk of being declared "dumb" publicly and considered incompetent by you for the sake of your education. God bless them.

[teancum79]

It was made very clear at the start of class that they (2 of them) have no desire to spend their time talking about test or grades.

[littlepea]

dianaholberg said:

By the way, I consider it heroic that these people put themselves at risk of being declared "dumb" publicly and considered incompetent by you for the sake of your education. God bless them.

hear hear! (or is it "here here!" ... why was i never taught that? )

still, i've come across many stupid teachers in my time and i'm absolutely certain that i could do a better job than them without any training. teachers aren't immune from criticism just because teaching is an honorable and valuable profession - my brother was bullied by a teacher in primary school and it severely affected his childhood (and possibly his entire development: maybe he would be a different person today if it weren't for her). teaching is an extremely important profession (they should really be paid higher salaries) which is all the more reason for why stupid teachers should be crucified - yes they took a risk that their pupils might hate them, but that shouldn't excuse them when they fúck up.

if they can't do the job then they shouldn't be a teacher.

[Tara]

The one thing I like about going to college is that the information taught seemed so much more relevant than the 20 year-old stuff we were taught in high school. The instructors also made it so that they encourage you to go look things up and check things out on your own. Just thinking of the tite of this thread, 'Why Are Teachers So Dumb?'... that's just one thing that determined whether or not I liked a certain teacher. But I eventually came to realize later on that sometimes teachers weren't allowed to do certain things or teach certain things, especially in the public schools. I knew this because I went up to them and asked them. I would be interested in a specific subject and read more about it or something. Then I'd come back with new knowledge and I'd ask if we'd briefly cover a bit of this or that. And they'd tell me they couldn't because the curriculum was set and they basically have to teach on a certain schedule. They couldn't risk falling behind. That's what sucks.

I think the dumb thing about that shouldn't be so much as how much as opposed to how deep. But I guess it depends on the importance of the subject and the area. I can certainly say that if things were updated just a tad bit and at least some effort was made to show how the information being taught is relevant, then I think people would give a little more credit to the teachers. There was one thing I did notice though. Classes that I thought would have been quite relevant to our everyday lives were only optional classes. For example there was this one class in my high school that was like a work study class. You are taught the basics such as how to fill out an application, filling out important work documents, recognizing safety hazards on the job and what to do and who to go to... you know, things like that. You also got class credit if you managed to get a job. The teacher would look at your pay stub and count how many hours you worked and depending on those, at the end of the year you'd get either a half or full extra class credit. That sort of stuff is the relevant stuff I think people should be learning. Right there is where you, as the student, can see the connection to your everyday life.

But I still agree with diana. I don't think I'd go as far as saying they are heroic, but I do think that people should cut the teachers some slack. I mean, like I said before, a lot of the stuff they are told to teach is fixed. I think I only had about two teachers that I could remember that have managed to do their own thing. One of them has been teaching for years and has accomplished many things outside the classroom. The other, although was quite new, had quite credibility outside the classroom enough to help develop the curriculum.

[calyrelf]

Well, as someone who taught in the public school system for several years, I can say that you are right.....many teachers ARE dumb. I used to be very frustrated with the tenure system, where a school could NOT get rid of incompetent teachers unless the incompetence was so gross that it bordered on insanity. That just isn't right. And the tests that were given to teachers in order to get their licenses were too easy. At the time when I took my test, and scored a 93%, the minimum required score was only FIFTY PERCENT!!!! The state has now raised it to 70%, but all the teachers who passed at 51% and got their tenure in the school system are NOT being fired, and cannot be.

I got out of there, because it is just so frustrating for the really good teachers, who get painted with the same brush as the imcompetent ones. And naturally, there are some really brilliant teachers out there (not saying me or anything, but many!

[littlepea]

i don't mind teachers who aren't particularly intelligent as long as they can still do the job. there are some teachers who just get on with what's in front of them and the pupils don't think much of them either way, the only grumbles they have are with the subject itself. there are some teachers, though, who can take an otherwise boring subject and make it really interesting and exciting, and there are also some teachers who can take an otherwise interesting subject and make the pupils hate the class because of them. a bad teacher isn't just a stupid one, it's one who makes the pupils loathe going to class.

it's not just about discipline as well, it's just about encouraging the pupils to enjoy learning and stuff.

[calyrelf]

littlepea said:

there are some teachers, though, who can take an otherwise boring subject and make it really interesting and exciting, and there are also some teachers who can take an otherwise interesting subject and make the pupils hate the class because of them. a bad teacher isn't just a stupid one, it's one who makes the pupils loathe going to class.

Absolutely! The ones that are outstanding, you always remember. Unfortunately....you always remember the bad ones too. It's the so-so ones that are always forgotten.

Edit by Tara- Fixed the quotes.

[cenk]

I dont think teachers are "dumb" per say. Firstly teaching is a job where the demand for teachers is high and the supply of teachers is low (well at least in England that is the case). The problem then is that schools have to make do with what they've got, so its not as if they could sack teachers for not being the most intelligent people in the country and its not as if they can be too picky.

Some teachers simply cant teach. That is they obviously want to become teachers to spread the knowledge of a subject they love but they (for what ever reason) dont have to ability to transfer that knowledge to the students. I think these teachers should be given further training so they can improve in the way they teach.

Some teachers just spend half their lesson time talking about how great Manchester United are and its these kind of teachers that I think should get the sack.

You must remember teachers cant know everything. E.g. If I talk about a certain country during a certain period of history that we never learned about in school then should I expect my history teacher to know what Im talking about?

teancum I understand the first point you made. I have fallen victim to that this year. One course in which I fell victim to this was I had to learn C programming and in the lectures we learnt basic stuff (like learning a foreign alphabet) then in our assessed assignments we were asked to write complex programs (its like being asked to write a novel after just learning the alphabet).

teancum in the second point you made I have to say depends on the subject and the circumstance. For instance if you were doing a essay on politics and you suggest that some left/liberal policies are better for your country and the person marking your paper was a staunch right wing supporter then s/he would mark your paper down. Im not saying thats justified but its just the bias that your naturally going to get when there are differing views out there.

But I agree that some teachers are dumb (I have encountered a few in my life time ;D). But I guess these teachers arent always noticed and I'm sure students hardly if ever complain about their teachers dumbness.

[Tara]

cenk said:

Some teachers simply cant teach. That is they obviously want to become teachers to spread the knowledge of a subject they love but they (for what ever reason) dont have to ability to transfer that knowledge to the students. I think these teachers should be given further training so they can improve in the way they teach.

I agree.