High school journalists investigated a new principal’s credentials(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
High school journalists investigated a new principal’s credentials
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/05/these-high-school-journalists-investigated-a-new-principals-credentials-days-later-she-resigned/
171 comments
It may be that other members of the college were in on the graft as well if it was known that the school was in a bad financial situation.
Falsified credentials are surprisingly common. I encounter them frequently when trying to staff various positions and have even come across them a half dozen times among co-workers during my career. The reasons for the falsification are quite varied as well, but I've typically encountered them among people going for senior positions for some reason.
Falsified credentials are surprisingly common. I encounter them frequently when trying to staff various positions and have even come across them a half dozen times among co-workers during my career. The reasons for the falsification are quite varied as well, but I've typically encountered them among people going for senior positions for some reason.
This is a story about a teacher near where I live who only got outted for a fake degree when he ran for a school board. And from stories I have heard from his students, he got the fake doctorate degree because he wanted to be called doctor. In fact if students in high school called him Mr. Kulas he would correct them (sometimes chew them out) that he is to be referred to as Dr. Kulas.
Use imcognito mode to open this link to avoid possible pay wall: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/ex-candidate-cited-degrees-f...
Use imcognito mode to open this link to avoid possible pay wall: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/ex-candidate-cited-degrees-f...
We had a high school teacher who demanded that we address them as Dr. Whozits on the first day, and would correct us.
They learned that you can demand respect all you want, but if you actually want to get respect, you have to earn it from the people you're expecting it from.
They learned that you can demand respect all you want, but if you actually want to get respect, you have to earn it from the people you're expecting it from.
He earned that title, and he was your teacher (a superior), so I don't understand why you were annoyed. Most importantly, it was the first day! Think of an interview for example: would it be polite to address your interviewer using his/her first name? No, unless the interviewer gives you permission to do so.
Edit: It seems like a lot of HN users have a severe aversion to authority, so I guess I've learned something new today :P
Edit: It seems like a lot of HN users have a severe aversion to authority, so I guess I've learned something new today :P
The respect goes both ways.
I call people with doctoral degrees "Dr." unless I'm invited otherwise or we're in a non-professional setting. Doctoral degrees usually aren't mere pieces of paper; going out of one's way to diminish the work and sacrifice involved is kind of rude.
But I also think it's kind of snooty and ill-mannered to explicitly demand to be called Dr.
Like with table manners. It's rude to not be decent to other people at the table. But equally rude to snap at another guest for eating with his mouth open.
This example is kind of an in-between on the teacher's part, because socialization is part of education. Only parent knows whether the teacher was motivated by socializing skills or ego.
> Edit: It seems like a lot of HN users have a severe aversion to authority, so I guess I've learned something new today
As always, the aversion is slightly more nuanced than just authority. You'll find lots of respect for certain other positions of authority (eg CEO). Also, aversion to the hierarchy of schools is nothing unique to HN.
I call people with doctoral degrees "Dr." unless I'm invited otherwise or we're in a non-professional setting. Doctoral degrees usually aren't mere pieces of paper; going out of one's way to diminish the work and sacrifice involved is kind of rude.
But I also think it's kind of snooty and ill-mannered to explicitly demand to be called Dr.
Like with table manners. It's rude to not be decent to other people at the table. But equally rude to snap at another guest for eating with his mouth open.
This example is kind of an in-between on the teacher's part, because socialization is part of education. Only parent knows whether the teacher was motivated by socializing skills or ego.
> Edit: It seems like a lot of HN users have a severe aversion to authority, so I guess I've learned something new today
As always, the aversion is slightly more nuanced than just authority. You'll find lots of respect for certain other positions of authority (eg CEO). Also, aversion to the hierarchy of schools is nothing unique to HN.
Oh yes, I agree completely. But OP's scenario involved a school teacher on his/her first day teaching the class, and so I felt that OP was overreacting. Obviously, demanding that random people call you Dr. is absolutely rude.
Well, it's news to me! I never noticed this thinking before, probably because it's not a common topic of discussion on HN.
Well, it's news to me! I never noticed this thinking before, probably because it's not a common topic of discussion on HN.
This sounds like an application of Postel's maxim[1] to the use of titles.
[1] RFC 1122 § 1.2.2: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send"
[1] RFC 1122 § 1.2.2: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send"
teacher (a superior)
Because that's stupid. Provisional respect, sure. Continued respect after acting like a buffoon? Nah.
Of course, it might be pragmatic to continue the expected ceremonies of respect, but that ain't respect.
Because that's stupid. Provisional respect, sure. Continued respect after acting like a buffoon? Nah.
Of course, it might be pragmatic to continue the expected ceremonies of respect, but that ain't respect.
How is asking your students to call you Dr. X on your first day of teaching "acting like a buffoon"? What a strange conclusion man.
I'm not necessarily drawing that conclusion.
I've certainly had the experience of dealing with poor teachers obsessed with the ceremonies of respect though.
I've certainly had the experience of dealing with poor teachers obsessed with the ceremonies of respect though.
He earned the title, not respect. Yes, we should be respectful of everyone, but just because you have a title doesn't mean you can go around demanding to be respected [if you're also being a pompous ass].
Edit: Well, you can go around demanding it but you're delusional if you think people actually respect you.
Edit: Well, you can go around demanding it but you're delusional if you think people actually respect you.
It was in a classroom setting on the first day... Of course you don't go around on the street asking people to call you "doctor"!
From the stories I heard, this teacher told his children to call him "doctor"... at home...
Wait, what stories did you hear about the particular teacher I'm talking about?
I was referring to the teacher mentioned in the article that I submitted that is the parent to your story of your teacher.
Superior, eh?
They were presenting themselves as better than ours; not merely our teacher, but our superior, our better. Not as someone who would instruct and help us. And yes, it was the first day, the first attempt to make a first impression, and that impression was: I am more important than you, and I demand that you all to acknowledge it every day.
It was incredibly pompous and tone-deaf.
They were presenting themselves as better than ours; not merely our teacher, but our superior, our better. Not as someone who would instruct and help us. And yes, it was the first day, the first attempt to make a first impression, and that impression was: I am more important than you, and I demand that you all to acknowledge it every day.
It was incredibly pompous and tone-deaf.
A teacher is not higher in rank than a student? Why, let's just have students teach each other then :)
I'm obviously not familiar with your situation; I definitely agree with you if the teacher was intentionally being pretentious. But if he/she was just correcting students and asking them to call him/her "doctor" on the first day, I think you are overdoing it.
I'm obviously not familiar with your situation; I definitely agree with you if the teacher was intentionally being pretentious. But if he/she was just correcting students and asking them to call him/her "doctor" on the first day, I think you are overdoing it.
A teacher has the right to determine who they teach and who they evict from their teachings. But, in a school setting where the student isn't given the same liberty and freedom to choose who teaches them or to not "be under" a certain teacher, the teacher would be wise to operate in a non demanding mode. The teacher in such a situation has more [involuntary] power and control over the student. It would be prudent not to abuse that authority by demanding respect from someone who would rather not be there.
Because I don't care what qualifications you have. If you want me to respect you and call you by some honorific name, you have to make me respect you enough to do so, otherwise I don't care what some piece of paper says you should be called.
I don't call English "knights" Sir either, because fuck that.
Note that none of this means I'd be rude, I just wouldn't afford them any more respect than anybody else.
I don't call English "knights" Sir either, because fuck that.
Note that none of this means I'd be rude, I just wouldn't afford them any more respect than anybody else.
>Note that none of this means I'd be rude
Not calling a knight Sir, is rude to THEM. They earned it,they were recognized for their achievement. To not call them Sir is rude.
Not calling a knight Sir, is rude to THEM. They earned it,they were recognized for their achievement. To not call them Sir is rude.
> They earned it,they were recognized for their achievement.
So what of it? Knighthoods are handed out to political cronies like they're Jaffa Cakes. Besides, I'm not a subject of Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth Windsor. Demanding deference to the monarchy is an insult to civil society.
So what of it? Knighthoods are handed out to political cronies like they're Jaffa Cakes. Besides, I'm not a subject of Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth Windsor. Demanding deference to the monarchy is an insult to civil society.
As I said, it's rude to THEM. My point is that you are deciding that you are not rude, when you shouldn't be the judge in this case.
Why should the other person get to decide and be judge on what's rude and disrespectful? If I believe it's rude if you do not kiss the ground I walk on and that's it's disrespectful if you don't obey my commands, tough shit for me and anyone else who thinks that way.
If someone is rude to you in your eyes and based on your standards, how you react is still on you and is your responsibility. You can still be respectful to rude to people.
Respect is a two way street.
If someone is rude to you in your eyes and based on your standards, how you react is still on you and is your responsibility. You can still be respectful to rude to people.
Respect is a two way street.
Respect is a two way street, agreed. The other person decides if it's rude to THEM. You decide for yourself if something is rude. The knight will decide for himself if it is rude to not call him Sir. I think it's wrong for someone to say it's NOT rude to NOT call him Sir. It should be up to THEM.
Reducing the work and/or contributions required to get a PhD/MD (or other honorific) to a "piece of paper" is very naive in my opinion. But whatever floats your boat, mate.
The thing is, I can't tell by a prefix, title, or piece of paper whether you actually put in an effort to obtain any of those things. I should show respect regardless of whether you have them or not. But if someone with any of those demands I treat them in a superior way because they [claim to] have one or more of those they're likely to lose my respect. If you have one of those you still need to put forth the effort to show that they actually mean something.
I have heard that titles are a big deal in Germany but it seems uncommon in the US to use "Doctor" as a title for anyone other than a medical doctor. Many of the people I know at work have PhD's but I've never heard it used.
I'd imagine it isn't used in companies where rank isn't based on education level, but it's very common in academia. For example, it's rude for me as a grad student to just use a professor's first name without using a title.
Yes, in high school, I remember using "Mr", "Mrs" or "Ms". In college I remember referring to professors as "professor."
But it seems different for a teacher to put themselves above other teachers at the same school and expecting others to remember that?
But it seems different for a teacher to put themselves above other teachers at the same school and expecting others to remember that?
I don't see it that way. The request was within the boundaries of the classroom. It would definitely be different if the teacher also expected his/her peers to do the same.
>"It seems like a lot of HN users have a severe aversion to authority"
I would say a lot of HN users have an aversion to blind submission to authority.
I would say a lot of HN users have an aversion to blind submission to authority.
They earned the title so you should show respect by properly addressing them. Go ahead and call a judge "Mr(s)" or an officer "dude" and see how far it gets you. Whether you like them or not, it's up to you do decide for sure, but have some manners, it will help you out in life.
> Thinking he had solid proof of this, and not being politically savvy, my father presented his evidence to the other faculty who had been on the hiring committee.
A few years ago, I could have used some advice from someone who is more politically savvy.
I received a tip a while ago that a then-sitting member of the United States Congress did not possess a degree listed on his website on congress.gov (and repeated elsewhere). I looked into it, and sure enough, I do not believe he received the degree in question. The congressman was not incredibly famous, but would make the news now and then. He is no longer in office.
What was the correct course of action, if I wish(ed) to stay anonymous? Tip off a reporter? Post on reddit?
A few years ago, I could have used some advice from someone who is more politically savvy.
I received a tip a while ago that a then-sitting member of the United States Congress did not possess a degree listed on his website on congress.gov (and repeated elsewhere). I looked into it, and sure enough, I do not believe he received the degree in question. The congressman was not incredibly famous, but would make the news now and then. He is no longer in office.
What was the correct course of action, if I wish(ed) to stay anonymous? Tip off a reporter? Post on reddit?
Suggested courses of action to protect anonymity...
1 - Tip off reporters nationally and most importantly, locally in the Congress person's home district.
2 - Level 23 move, tip off his/her opposition in the campaign both in the primary / general. Also tip off the Congressperson's opposing party heads. Example, if the CP was a Republican tip off the local DNC and if Democrat, tip off the RNC. This is one way the Clinton's got their opposition research.
1 - Tip off reporters nationally and most importantly, locally in the Congress person's home district.
2 - Level 23 move, tip off his/her opposition in the campaign both in the primary / general. Also tip off the Congressperson's opposing party heads. Example, if the CP was a Republican tip off the local DNC and if Democrat, tip off the RNC. This is one way the Clinton's got their opposition research.
Fascinating.
To this day, it's nearly impossible to find any account of these events. It's really hard to imagine that someone could commit such outright blatant theft and get away without so much as a hit on Google.
Was the con artist ever tracked down?
To this day, it's nearly impossible to find any account of these events. It's really hard to imagine that someone could commit such outright blatant theft and get away without so much as a hit on Google.
Was the con artist ever tracked down?
It's really hard to imagine that someone could commit such outright blatant theft and get away without so much as a hit on Google.
The events happened in the early 1990's, just prior to the advent of the internet. The false resume and the firing are the parts of the story that I have personal knowledge of. The financial allegations are third hand, but I believe them to be true. It's possible that recent events have better coverage, but I'd guess that even now there is a lot of crime and fraud that is never reported.
Was the con artist ever tracked down?
Not to my knowledge, although I'm no longer close to the community. I've occasionally wondered whether this might be because someone took matters into their own hands, and he's dead and buried in the woods somewhere. Googling now, I was surprised to learn that a janitor at the college was recently convicted of a 30-year-old murder of the mother of one of my classmates: http://chippewa.com/news/guilty-verdict-in-old-ladysmith-kil.... But I suspect that instead he's likely on to a new scheme somewhere else.
The events happened in the early 1990's, just prior to the advent of the internet. The false resume and the firing are the parts of the story that I have personal knowledge of. The financial allegations are third hand, but I believe them to be true. It's possible that recent events have better coverage, but I'd guess that even now there is a lot of crime and fraud that is never reported.
Was the con artist ever tracked down?
Not to my knowledge, although I'm no longer close to the community. I've occasionally wondered whether this might be because someone took matters into their own hands, and he's dead and buried in the woods somewhere. Googling now, I was surprised to learn that a janitor at the college was recently convicted of a 30-year-old murder of the mother of one of my classmates: http://chippewa.com/news/guilty-verdict-in-old-ladysmith-kil.... But I suspect that instead he's likely on to a new scheme somewhere else.
> The events happened in the early 1990's, just prior to the advent of the internet
Ah, makes a lot more sense. I was assuming some time in the early naughts given the school's timeline, and was disappointed I couldn't find a detailed account.
> The false resume and the firing are the parts of the story that I have personal knowledge of. The financial allegations are third hand, but I believe them to be true.
To clarify, I don't doubt this happened :)
> I've occasionally wondered whether this might be because someone took matters into their own hands, and he's dead and buried in the woods somewhere.
What a wild world we live in. Who needs television when you can read about the intrigues of failed liberal arts colleges.
Ah, makes a lot more sense. I was assuming some time in the early naughts given the school's timeline, and was disappointed I couldn't find a detailed account.
> The false resume and the firing are the parts of the story that I have personal knowledge of. The financial allegations are third hand, but I believe them to be true.
To clarify, I don't doubt this happened :)
> I've occasionally wondered whether this might be because someone took matters into their own hands, and he's dead and buried in the woods somewhere.
What a wild world we live in. Who needs television when you can read about the intrigues of failed liberal arts colleges.
Fascinating indeed: the notion that a college president would hold title to the school's buildings. Etc.
I'm guessing that by "fascinating" you are implying that it's implausible to abscond with the money from a remortgage of a building one does not own? And by "Etc" that all the rest is wrong too?
I don't think anyone believed that he had any sort of legal title, rather that through some combination of forgery and fraud he managed to convince someone that he had the right to make the transaction. If you haven't experienced one personally, you may be underestimating the persuasive power of a talented psychopath.
I don't think anyone believed that he had any sort of legal title, rather that through some combination of forgery and fraud he managed to convince someone that he had the right to make the transaction. If you haven't experienced one personally, you may be underestimating the persuasive power of a talented psychopath.
But wouldn't academics have to at least show framed diplomas somewhere? Or research?
Here's an odd part: it was a small enough college community that a "get to know you" type party was held at the president's private residence soon after his arrival. Being an asocial high-schooler dragged along, I noticed a bound copy of his PhD thesis was one of the few books on the shelf. I skimmed through it (something very verbose and academic about the theory of business administration) and found it incomprehensible.
So his "research" existed, at least in some form. In retrospect, I'm wondering if it was "real", but from a diploma mill. Or purchased? Or someone else's rebound? Or as real as a thesis on business administration can be, from an earlier time in his life. In retrospect I wish I'd read it a little closer so I had a better clue as to what he actually did.
So his "research" existed, at least in some form. In retrospect, I'm wondering if it was "real", but from a diploma mill. Or purchased? Or someone else's rebound? Or as real as a thesis on business administration can be, from an earlier time in his life. In retrospect I wish I'd read it a little closer so I had a better clue as to what he actually did.
There's a book in this story. Please write it!
A framed piece of paper? I can make you a graduate of Harvard if that's all it takes.
Some people are willing to pay you thousands of dollars for that!
And she would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!
I applaud the budding journalists persistence, and certainly having someone falsify their credentials is a really terrible start into such an important position.
However, I must mention that I been in contact with so many really bad HS staff (teachers, principals..) all with legitimate credentials, that I am starting to wonder about their significance? A principal should probably have some teaching experience, but seems to be like more of an MBA/business type of background?
Also, let me clarify I was not one to get into trouble and had very good grades in HS. I can really remember 2 really good teachers, and the rest ... quite mediocre at best. I also dated a HS teacher (as an adult,much later on) so I've seen firsthand the inner workings of teaching 'system'.
However, I must mention that I been in contact with so many really bad HS staff (teachers, principals..) all with legitimate credentials, that I am starting to wonder about their significance? A principal should probably have some teaching experience, but seems to be like more of an MBA/business type of background?
Also, let me clarify I was not one to get into trouble and had very good grades in HS. I can really remember 2 really good teachers, and the rest ... quite mediocre at best. I also dated a HS teacher (as an adult,much later on) so I've seen firsthand the inner workings of teaching 'system'.
> However, I must mention that I been in contact with so many really bad HS staff (teachers, principals..) all with legitimate credentials, that I am starting to wonder about their significance? A principal should probably have some teaching experience, but seems to be like more of an MBA/business type of background?
Teacher raises and admin positions are all about box-ticking with the right pieces of paper. It's typical (though not universal) for admin to do the minimum time teaching (half-assing it, obviously) they need to for any kind of higher degree/cert they want (I want to say for a lot of programs it's 2 years or something like that) then move on, so yeah, many have little teaching experience—ask any teacher, nearly all teachers suck and don't know what they're doing the first couple years, that's just how it is, so you don't get good in that time, and you probably also don't get a sense of how periodic curriculum shakeups and such screw with teachers doing their jobs (not to mention their private lives, when they lose their evenings to some stupid new paperwork that you've introduced which could have been derived from other data you already have if you weren't a moron).
Education, Ed. Admin, and related higher degrees are ridiculous. You'd probably have to dig hard to find a program that's not a joke. The reason is that schools give zero shits about where your degree is from or what the program's like, just that you have one (and maybe your GPA, if it's for hiring—if it's just for a pay bump, they don't care about that, either, it's just automatic). There are lots of teachers/school admin. Consequently, many universities, even otherwise kinda-decent ones, have joke master's and PhD programs for teachers/admin, to rake in that sweet sweet teacher money, since the teachers/admin mostly just want 1) easy, 2) convenient (online or evenings/weekends, and as few hours as possible), and 3) cheap enough to justify the effort in a direct cost/benefit way (trivial to calculate from pay scales). The classes are nearly pure busy work.
If they don't just want to tick a box to get a raise or to go into admin and actually want to learn something, they get a non-education higher degree (usually in a content area of some kind—English, Mathematics, that kind of thing)
Source: am married to a teacher and, not through her, good friends with several others.
Teacher raises and admin positions are all about box-ticking with the right pieces of paper. It's typical (though not universal) for admin to do the minimum time teaching (half-assing it, obviously) they need to for any kind of higher degree/cert they want (I want to say for a lot of programs it's 2 years or something like that) then move on, so yeah, many have little teaching experience—ask any teacher, nearly all teachers suck and don't know what they're doing the first couple years, that's just how it is, so you don't get good in that time, and you probably also don't get a sense of how periodic curriculum shakeups and such screw with teachers doing their jobs (not to mention their private lives, when they lose their evenings to some stupid new paperwork that you've introduced which could have been derived from other data you already have if you weren't a moron).
Education, Ed. Admin, and related higher degrees are ridiculous. You'd probably have to dig hard to find a program that's not a joke. The reason is that schools give zero shits about where your degree is from or what the program's like, just that you have one (and maybe your GPA, if it's for hiring—if it's just for a pay bump, they don't care about that, either, it's just automatic). There are lots of teachers/school admin. Consequently, many universities, even otherwise kinda-decent ones, have joke master's and PhD programs for teachers/admin, to rake in that sweet sweet teacher money, since the teachers/admin mostly just want 1) easy, 2) convenient (online or evenings/weekends, and as few hours as possible), and 3) cheap enough to justify the effort in a direct cost/benefit way (trivial to calculate from pay scales). The classes are nearly pure busy work.
If they don't just want to tick a box to get a raise or to go into admin and actually want to learn something, they get a non-education higher degree (usually in a content area of some kind—English, Mathematics, that kind of thing)
Source: am married to a teacher and, not through her, good friends with several others.
In the US I feel like the primary education system is simply childcare for the working class. My experience with teacher quality was just like yours.
We don't pay them well so we get what we pay for. The exceptions are those that love to teach and love students. You can't run an organization via exceptions however. It's really a shame we don't value education more.
The pay is not the problem in most districts. Teacher pay is enough that getting a job at all but a few problem districts is pretty competitive. It also rewards extra degrees that have little if any value in more effective teaching.
The system is setup very defensively to protect the problem teachers from responsibility.
The system is setup very defensively to protect the problem teachers from responsibility.
> The pay is not the problem in most districts.
It seems like it is less of a problem than it used to be. The biggest issue is that the districts with failing schools (who need the best, most experienced teachers) tend to be the districts least able to recruit those kinds of teachers.
> The system is setup very defensively to protect the problem teachers from responsibility.
The same system also protects the good teachers from problem parents and administrators.
It seems like it is less of a problem than it used to be. The biggest issue is that the districts with failing schools (who need the best, most experienced teachers) tend to be the districts least able to recruit those kinds of teachers.
> The system is setup very defensively to protect the problem teachers from responsibility.
The same system also protects the good teachers from problem parents and administrators.
> It's really a shame we don't value education more.
This might sound nit-picky but I think we all (Americans) value education as a whole. We just don't care (as a whole) about education for others outside of our sphere.
When you have the ability to move to better school system or to pay for private school attendance, you have no need to improve public schools. Not all public school systems are bad. I image that everyone can think of one relatively close school that they can unequivocally call a good/great school system where they expect most student to exceed by some set of positive metrics
As long as the people who can fix it (no matter if its more staff, better pay, better resources or whatever change necessary) can place their children into C-Level Preparatory Academy, Dumpster Fire High School probably won't see much improvement.
This might sound nit-picky but I think we all (Americans) value education as a whole. We just don't care (as a whole) about education for others outside of our sphere.
When you have the ability to move to better school system or to pay for private school attendance, you have no need to improve public schools. Not all public school systems are bad. I image that everyone can think of one relatively close school that they can unequivocally call a good/great school system where they expect most student to exceed by some set of positive metrics
As long as the people who can fix it (no matter if its more staff, better pay, better resources or whatever change necessary) can place their children into C-Level Preparatory Academy, Dumpster Fire High School probably won't see much improvement.
> This might sound nit-picky but I think we all (Americans) value education as a whole
Everything you wrote after that sounds exactly like we don't value education as a whole. We individually value getting a good education but far too frequently ignore how education as a whole is beneficial to society.
Everything you wrote after that sounds exactly like we don't value education as a whole. We individually value getting a good education but far too frequently ignore how education as a whole is beneficial to society.
I guess I misspoke. You understood what I mean in the end, so I guess mission accomplished?
>This might sound nit-picky but I think we all (Americans) value education as a whole.
That's a bunch of crap. If we (Americans) valued education as a whole, we wouldn't vote for leaders who continually cut education budgets. It's very simple: we as a society do not care about education. It's not a top political issue ever, unlike abortion, defense spending, guns, and who uses what bathroom. We keep school funding and administration at the local level because we don't want "our money" going to "those kids" (i.e. poor kids) in some other district, so we all end up with terrible schools and horribly inconsistent results school-to-school. Public education in this country is completely broken, and there's absolutely no political will to change it, and voters don't make it an issue because they're more worried about Planned Parenthood and terrorists.
That's a bunch of crap. If we (Americans) valued education as a whole, we wouldn't vote for leaders who continually cut education budgets. It's very simple: we as a society do not care about education. It's not a top political issue ever, unlike abortion, defense spending, guns, and who uses what bathroom. We keep school funding and administration at the local level because we don't want "our money" going to "those kids" (i.e. poor kids) in some other district, so we all end up with terrible schools and horribly inconsistent results school-to-school. Public education in this country is completely broken, and there's absolutely no political will to change it, and voters don't make it an issue because they're more worried about Planned Parenthood and terrorists.
Some context in case anyone is curious:
Education is the third-biggest item of (combined) US government spending, after healthcare and pensions. Defense is fourth. It accounts for roughly 15% of total spending and 5% of GDP. I found this history of education spending informative regarding "leaders who continually cut education budgets": http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending
Perhaps Politifact can be used as a barometer of "issues" during elections. They have rated 954 statements about education, 415 about guns, 390 about the military, 377 about terrorism, 316 about abortion, 64 about sexuality (including "bathroom bills"), and 20 or so about Planned Parenthood. Even statements about the federal budget in general (which include many of the previous issues) only totaled 938 items.
Education is the third-biggest item of (combined) US government spending, after healthcare and pensions. Defense is fourth. It accounts for roughly 15% of total spending and 5% of GDP. I found this history of education spending informative regarding "leaders who continually cut education budgets": http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending
Perhaps Politifact can be used as a barometer of "issues" during elections. They have rated 954 statements about education, 415 about guns, 390 about the military, 377 about terrorism, 316 about abortion, 64 about sexuality (including "bathroom bills"), and 20 or so about Planned Parenthood. Even statements about the federal budget in general (which include many of the previous issues) only totaled 938 items.
I misspoke. The sibling comment summed up what I meant:
> We individually value getting a good education but far too frequently ignore how education as a whole is beneficial to society.
> We individually value getting a good education but far too frequently ignore how education as a whole is beneficial to society.
Teachers in the US make more than the median salary, and get a ton of perks.
The US spends more per student than any other developed world.
I'd say we're paying plenty.
The US spends more per student than any other developed world.
I'd say we're paying plenty.
Source? What are these perks like? Also, teachers are paid in highly variable ways depending on state, school district, and union (if any). Saying that teachers get paid higher than average should be expected, considering they are usually required to have a bachelor's degree, pass many rounds of background checks continually, and (in many districts) must continue taking classes and gain education (similar to a nurse).
Teacher salaries in 2013 (there's more data there than that, but whatever)[0]. Census data for the same year [1]. And lastly, per capita spending on students[2].
Perks teachers enjoy are variant as you mention, but tend to be solid. My GF is a teacher, her perks are: Contracted for 38 hours / week, 15 sick days a year that roll-over (I think there's some limit), something like 3 weeks of vacation during the school year, summer vacation, pension program, good health insurance, very difficult to be fired from the job.
Also, when looking at teacher salary vs median, realize that they are working a lot less of the year than other people. I did the math between my GF and I and once you account for all her time off, she makes slightly less than I do.
[0]: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_211.60.a... [1]: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio... [2]: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp
Perks teachers enjoy are variant as you mention, but tend to be solid. My GF is a teacher, her perks are: Contracted for 38 hours / week, 15 sick days a year that roll-over (I think there's some limit), something like 3 weeks of vacation during the school year, summer vacation, pension program, good health insurance, very difficult to be fired from the job.
Also, when looking at teacher salary vs median, realize that they are working a lot less of the year than other people. I did the math between my GF and I and once you account for all her time off, she makes slightly less than I do.
[0]: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_211.60.a... [1]: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio... [2]: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp
High School is secondary education. Primary education is much harder and for some reason much less well rewarded. Everyone remembers the high school teachers who were phoning it in, but forgets about the elementary school teachers who taught them well enough to be able to make the distinction.
> I am starting to wonder about their significance? A principal should probably have some teaching experience, but seems to be like more of an MBA/business type of background?
The important bit here isn't which particular certification this person did or didn't have; it's the fact that it was fraudulent, and that they lied about it.
The important bit here isn't which particular certification this person did or didn't have; it's the fact that it was fraudulent, and that they lied about it.
At an institution that is supposed to teach the the importance of academic integrity, no less.
It's time consuming to chase down credentials, especially as when you're hiring someone, it always feels more likely that they aren't making it up. After all, you have a great hiring process, right?
My father-in-law is a doctor, and he tells me there's been several occasions where he's thought some colleague was really quite shockingly ill informed. He's always been too timid to call the bluff, but he says it's happened a few times. Also he's had the old trick of the certificate with the the cigarette burn on the date attempted.
There's probably a lot of jobs outside of the more technical fields where simply being a nice person who can read and write makes you indistinguishable from someone with an education in that field.
Heck, I worked with someone with a mathematical PhD for years wondering how he'd never heard of Banach-Tarsky. Not that it's a specifically useful or necessary thing, just that you'd think a math-interested person would have come across it. Or how it could be that he thought excel was a good platform for quantitative finance. In the end I decided there were too many things that surprised him, even if he did act interested when told about them. That's not to say he didn't actually have the degree; but he certainly didn't have the skills that are supposed to go with it.
My father-in-law is a doctor, and he tells me there's been several occasions where he's thought some colleague was really quite shockingly ill informed. He's always been too timid to call the bluff, but he says it's happened a few times. Also he's had the old trick of the certificate with the the cigarette burn on the date attempted.
There's probably a lot of jobs outside of the more technical fields where simply being a nice person who can read and write makes you indistinguishable from someone with an education in that field.
Heck, I worked with someone with a mathematical PhD for years wondering how he'd never heard of Banach-Tarsky. Not that it's a specifically useful or necessary thing, just that you'd think a math-interested person would have come across it. Or how it could be that he thought excel was a good platform for quantitative finance. In the end I decided there were too many things that surprised him, even if he did act interested when told about them. That's not to say he didn't actually have the degree; but he certainly didn't have the skills that are supposed to go with it.
MD here. Is your father-in-law suggesting that several doctors he works with aren't legitimate physicians?
It seems a bit hard to believe. I've had to apply for medical licenses in 3 states, and it was a colossal pain the ass for each. Took 4 months the first time; and I have a completely clean record. Getting hospital privileges takes forever, too.
If fact, I think it should be easier, especially for those of us who did medical school, residency, and exams in the US.
Best doctor that I know failed 2 of his USMLE exams.
It seems a bit hard to believe. I've had to apply for medical licenses in 3 states, and it was a colossal pain the ass for each. Took 4 months the first time; and I have a completely clean record. Getting hospital privileges takes forever, too.
If fact, I think it should be easier, especially for those of us who did medical school, residency, and exams in the US.
Best doctor that I know failed 2 of his USMLE exams.
Not the US, but ...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/doctors-identity-alleg...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/doctors-identity-alleg...
Yeah, he strongly suspected some sort of lack of skill. The UK system might be different from the US.
He's retired so not his problem anymore.
He's retired so not his problem anymore.
Can you explain more about the cigarette burn trick? I've never heard of it.
Presumably, make the date illegible so that you can claim whatever date you like. I don't quite see how that gets you anywhere. Maybe somebody who only just got the degree is trying to claim they got it 20 years ago and have been gaining experience ever since?
One of the things that always stuck with me from learning about psychopaths, is that if you act confident, the majority of the time no one will question what you are doing.
> Heck, I worked with someone with a mathematical PhD for years wondering how he'd never heard of Banach-Tarsky. Not that it's a specifically useful or necessary thing, just that you'd think a math-interested person would have come across it.
Math is huge. If he does have a Ph.D., he has probably forgotten more named theorems than either of us know. Banach-Tarski is one of those results that, for a pragmatic mathematician who doesn't know it's a meme-y theorem, could go in one ear and out the other.
I'd bet the average avid HN comment reader knows more about Goedel's incompleteness theorems than a big percentage of math phds.
> Or how it could be that he thought excel was a good platform for quantitative finance.
That's not surprising at all. Why would a math Ph.D. have any clue what-so-ever about how to build quantitative finance software?
Math is huge. If he does have a Ph.D., he has probably forgotten more named theorems than either of us know. Banach-Tarski is one of those results that, for a pragmatic mathematician who doesn't know it's a meme-y theorem, could go in one ear and out the other.
I'd bet the average avid HN comment reader knows more about Goedel's incompleteness theorems than a big percentage of math phds.
> Or how it could be that he thought excel was a good platform for quantitative finance.
That's not surprising at all. Why would a math Ph.D. have any clue what-so-ever about how to build quantitative finance software?
> That's not surprising at all. Why would a math Ph.D. have any clue what-so-ever about how to build quantitative finance software?
Perhaps it's worth me specifying that we were sitting in a quantitative hedge fund, building financial software.
Perhaps it's worth me specifying that we were sitting in a quantitative hedge fund, building financial software.
I know many practicing math PhD's who I wouldn't expect to remember Banach-Tarsky. Especially if you spend your time doing discrete math you really don't have much occasion to worry about the implication of AoC or non measurable sets. Heck I probably only remember due to giving lectures on it, rather than having taken them. Not that I'm really practicing much these days.
Math is a big place. Most of us will have at least heard of it, just because it is counter-intuitive and easy to describe. Some might only remember it as "oh, yeah, that sphere thing".
Math is a big place. Most of us will have at least heard of it, just because it is counter-intuitive and easy to describe. Some might only remember it as "oh, yeah, that sphere thing".
> Some might only remember it as "oh, yeah, that sphere thing".
Yes exactly. I haven't got a clue how to prove it either, but just like with Godel, I'm not going to drop my jaw on the ground when you state the conclusion.
Yes exactly. I haven't got a clue how to prove it either, but just like with Godel, I'm not going to drop my jaw on the ground when you state the conclusion.
I've never worked anywhere that actually checked references or verified credentials as part of the hiring process. I think it's something that is very often skipped over by employers if they like the candidate otherwise.
The articles I've found have all conveniently avoided answering the biggest question: why didn't the "adults" running the school figure this out sooner? ideally, before she was hired? That the students figured it out is proof it was certainly possible to figure out.
If you read between the lines, it seems odd to me that the district superintendent "encouraged" the investigation prior to publication. Sounds like a turf war.
So if this decision was made by the Board without staff assistance, I can see them being swayed heavily by a female candidate who had international experience. It's the ol' out-of-town expert bias.
So if this decision was made by the Board without staff assistance, I can see them being swayed heavily by a female candidate who had international experience. It's the ol' out-of-town expert bias.
The next question would be: Are the students going to investigate that question next?
IMHO, two reasons:
- Adults are not super humans and can make mistakes
- and 17 year olds are as capable as adults.
In engineering people frequently ask - why nobody thought about it - well because nobody did.
- Adults are not super humans and can make mistakes
- and 17 year olds are as capable as adults.
In engineering people frequently ask - why nobody thought about it - well because nobody did.
Part 2 of this investigation should be "whose job it was to check new principal's credentials and and how they profited from looking the other way"
Edit: was that person the only applicant? If not why did the process identify them as the most suitable candidate?
Edit: was that person the only applicant? If not why did the process identify them as the most suitable candidate?
If you're doing root cause analysis of a system failure, you're not looking to blame an individual. If you find something malicious then, sure, deal with it. But assume good faith in all parties from the outset and you're more likely to succeed in fixing the problem.
Part 2 of this investigation should be "whose job it was to check new principal's credentials and and how they profited from looking the other way"
That really shouldn't be taken as a given.
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence." Or by laziness, overwork, miscommunication, etc.
That really shouldn't be taken as a given.
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence." Or by laziness, overwork, miscommunication, etc.
The key answer is in what you wrote: "whose job it was". People do jobs mostly to get paychecks, so like water flowing downhill, will avoid investing effort into anything they can avoid. The students OTOH, had a strong non-monetary motivation driving their efforts, so they obviously dug deeper and more thoroughly.
Also they said there were a group of students taking weeks to research this, compared with overworked people involved in the hiring process.
This article ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-06/principal-resigns-afte... ) has a quote from Superintendent Destry Brown: "He said the district, which does not typically ask for official transcripts until after a hiring decision has been made, will likely change its vetting process."
What an excuse.
He describes a very poor practice that they still failed to follow.
He describes a very poor practice that they still failed to follow.
All it takes is just one person in the first spot in her listing of jobs on her resume to fail to properly vet her. Once you start having job experience, people don't look as hard at your resume. Nobody wants to do all the legwork verifying transcripts and calling up references, they just assume someone else down the line did the work. The resume looks impressive but she's not claiming a Harvard doctorate so it doesn't sound totally incredible. I laugh that they can't even find records of her getting a bachelor's. That's when you know someone at her first job was either very lazy to not even verify her or she got in because she knew someone and they didn't bother to check anything.
To give the adults a little credit, the students may have had more time to work on the mystery. The adults on the hiring committee were simultaneously holding down jobs, maintaining homes, changing diapers, cooking for their families, etc.
The hiring committee probably had deadlines for researching the candidates and making final decisions, whereas the students didn't have the same sort of time constraints. (I don't mean to minimize the achievement of the students! But you asked for factors that could have allowed the adults to miss this one.)
The woman was probably fairly charismatic to pull this off. The hiring committee surely had several face-to-face meetings with her and was swayed by her charm. The students would have seen her 'fake principal' self rather than her 'job interview' self. They didn't get the full snow job, so they were perhaps freer to think more objectively.
Also, I'm sure there's a false sense of safety in numbers for the hiring committee: if one person (or every person) had vague doubts, they might think, "Oh well, everyone else seems to think she's okay."
The hiring committee probably had deadlines for researching the candidates and making final decisions, whereas the students didn't have the same sort of time constraints. (I don't mean to minimize the achievement of the students! But you asked for factors that could have allowed the adults to miss this one.)
The woman was probably fairly charismatic to pull this off. The hiring committee surely had several face-to-face meetings with her and was swayed by her charm. The students would have seen her 'fake principal' self rather than her 'job interview' self. They didn't get the full snow job, so they were perhaps freer to think more objectively.
Also, I'm sure there's a false sense of safety in numbers for the hiring committee: if one person (or every person) had vague doubts, they might think, "Oh well, everyone else seems to think she's okay."
This is the issue of the newspaper the kids published: https://issuu.com/emilysmith41/docs/march_17
There's a "Full screen" button at bottom-right of the image that improves readability.
This happen in my school in Ireland also - with false credentials.
This part of the story I really respect:
"Under Kansas law, high school journalists are protected from administrative censorship. “The kids are treated as professionals,” Smith said. But with that freedom came a major responsibility to get the story right, Smith said. It also meant overcoming a natural hesitancy many students have to question authority."
This part of the story I really respect:
"Under Kansas law, high school journalists are protected from administrative censorship. “The kids are treated as professionals,” Smith said. But with that freedom came a major responsibility to get the story right, Smith said. It also meant overcoming a natural hesitancy many students have to question authority."
Unfortunately, not all U.S. states give students this right.
When I was co-editor of my high school's student newspaper, every issue was subject to administrative review. Our principal literally read every issue prior to publication and told us what could and couldn't be run.
When I was co-editor of my high school's student newspaper, every issue was subject to administrative review. Our principal literally read every issue prior to publication and told us what could and couldn't be run.
Actually we learned in our high school journalism classes that these protections are federal and based off of court cases. Part of our high-school journalism curriculum was learning the court cases that protected our rights as high-school journalists from school administration interference.
Of course, a school intent on interfering with a newspaper is probably not going to make that part of the curriculum.
Of course, a school intent on interfering with a newspaper is probably not going to make that part of the curriculum.
You may want to look at the Supreme Court case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which holds that school officials may censor articles in a student newspaper "so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." That's a pretty broad latitude granted to administrators.
There is a New Voices movement in multiple states to strengthen students' rights regarding school newspapers: http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/new_voices_campaign...
There is a New Voices movement in multiple states to strengthen students' rights regarding school newspapers: http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/new_voices_campaign...
> When I was co-editor of my high school's student newspaper, every issue was subject to administrative review. Our principal literally read every issue prior to publication and told us what could and couldn't be run.
No different from any "real" newspaper.
No different from any "real" newspaper.
I worked on school papers high school through college. Administrative review served a very useful purpose and kept the quality of the papers higher. I respected every administrator I dealt with.
They have a much harder job than it might appear at first blush -- even the slightest hint of repressing a valid story turns a very harsh spotlight on them.
They have a much harder job than it might appear at first blush -- even the slightest hint of repressing a valid story turns a very harsh spotlight on them.
It's true that publishers of "real" newspapers sometimes exert this sort of influence, which is unfortunate.
But those publishers aren't subject to the First Amendment, because they're not government-run.
In the case of a school newspaper, however, the school is run by the state, and so First Amendment issues definitely do come into play.
But those publishers aren't subject to the First Amendment, because they're not government-run.
In the case of a school newspaper, however, the school is run by the state, and so First Amendment issues definitely do come into play.
That's incorrect.
Turns out, for U.S. institutions, and a little information on the subject, it's pretty easy to get educational verification on candidate's claims. Many companies with well run hiring operations just use this service as a matter of course.
https://nscverifications.org/
http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/
https://nscverifications.org/
http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/
My experience with young people is they think nothing of googling someone.
Example. 25yr old always G Earth the presons address, searches other sites,FB, etc As ROUTINE. New male client comes in she openly tells coworkers about her results.
Example. 25yr old always G Earth the presons address, searches other sites,FB, etc As ROUTINE. New male client comes in she openly tells coworkers about her results.
Ew.
Your staff using client information to look up non-necessary information about them to satisfy their interests is a massive breach of privacy. In most places with an official privacy policy, that would violate it. Particularly just to gossip with coworkers!
I hope I never do business with your office. Just ick.
Your staff using client information to look up non-necessary information about them to satisfy their interests is a massive breach of privacy. In most places with an official privacy policy, that would violate it. Particularly just to gossip with coworkers!
I hope I never do business with your office. Just ick.
Family member..vet practice. ... It is very "ewe"!!
Sometimes she does it on her own time. Often though she will at home off the clock.
Makes is sick actually. We never share any thing personal,ever.
Sometimes she does it on her own time. Often though she will at home off the clock.
Makes is sick actually. We never share any thing personal,ever.
What's wrong with that? Especially in a case like this article's? Maybe if some of the "old" people had googled this superintendent, the district wouldn't be in this mess.
My experience with old people is they take a shocking amount of time to consider googling something or they have me google it for them.
I would never had thought a normal, well reared person would Google anybody just because they can. I think the net-natives think nothing of it and probably dont think it's wrong.
My comment demonstrated my discovery that I am not surprised it was from a young person.
My comment demonstrated my discovery that I am not surprised it was from a young person.
You haven't explained why you think it's wrong to Google someone. Note: not everyone you encounter is a "normal, well-reared" person. Googling someone is a good way to weed out the less "well-reared".
Hmm. Googling a person is nosey. Nosey is not desireable. Nosey is not acceptable behavior I had passed on to me and I passed it on to all my children.
Google lets a nosey person be nosey in private and anonymously. It is still not desireable.
Young people ( and some older ones) Google everything and think it's all the same. That was my point. Nobody my age tells me or my peers "Hay, I just found out our new manager is divorced and has 3 kids,and used to work for botuniverse.com."
I would directly ask that person "why on earth did you want to find that out!?!?"
Perhaps this is a generational think....
Google lets a nosey person be nosey in private and anonymously. It is still not desireable.
Young people ( and some older ones) Google everything and think it's all the same. That was my point. Nobody my age tells me or my peers "Hay, I just found out our new manager is divorced and has 3 kids,and used to work for botuniverse.com."
I would directly ask that person "why on earth did you want to find that out!?!?"
Perhaps this is a generational think....
Honestly I don't see how it's any different than a prospective employer running a background check on me, which has been a relatively common practice since before google achieved ubiquity.
Do you find that gauche as well?
Do you find that gauche as well?
You're projecting a lot of opinions without anything substantial to back it up.
Privacy has been dead for a while. What you call nosy, I call cautious, curious and well-informed.
Would it surprise you, that I, for example, looked up judiciary cases on some of my employees?
Privacy has been dead for a while. What you call nosy, I call cautious, curious and well-informed.
Would it surprise you, that I, for example, looked up judiciary cases on some of my employees?
This is simply excellent. What a great story. I'm surprised no one has just stated that yet.
Excellent.
Excellent.
More comments like these are needed here!
Welp this got downvoted, I guess HN doesn't look kindly at promoting positivity here?!
First "hn rule" of the voting system... use it. (Its a good way of promoting positivity)
Second "hn rule" of the voting system... don't needlessly talk about it.
Second "hn rule" of the voting system... don't needlessly talk about it.
Are these rules posted somewhere? Overall, HN has some really interesting content and insight, mixed in with hateful negativity - seems like talking about the rules would be good, if we wanted to cut out the negative bits
[deleted]
> Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
lol
lol
This just in, there have been a surprising number of resignations from Faculty members all across the nation. In unrelated news, student journalist have begun investigating administrators credentials as projects for their school papers.
Seriously, this is remarkable. That kids today have the power to effect this level of change is nothing short of incredible.
Seriously, this is remarkable. That kids today have the power to effect this level of change is nothing short of incredible.
> for one, when they researched Corllins University, the private university where Robertson said she got her master’s and doctorate degrees years ago, the website didn’t work.
what an amateur - this is how you do it http://bigbusinessjournal.com/
what an amateur - this is how you do it http://bigbusinessjournal.com/
I had no idea what to expect from that link but I'm happy I clicked it :D
"And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids"
Great read though the title felt a little click baity.
Are credentials not verified when hiring someone? (especially for a public school) or was this a result of the board being lazy? Because if credentials are never verified, this might be hinting at a bigger problem.
Are credentials not verified when hiring someone? (especially for a public school) or was this a result of the board being lazy? Because if credentials are never verified, this might be hinting at a bigger problem.
My high school physics teacher got fired middle of the year. Turned out he wasn't at all licensed to teach and may or may not have actually finished college. He got all the way to tenure before anyone noticed. The guy was a wonderful teacher and knew his topic insanely well. Other students hated him cause he actually held students to a standard. Dude ran a convenience store out of his class room to fund our robotics team. He convinced me to re-enroll in the AP Physics B class under the promise that I wouldn't have to show up and instead would study AP Physics C (calculus) with him during his prep time. I was then bribed into this non-existent class with pirated software (thus getting me into programming). He did all of this so that there would be enough students enrolled in the AP Physics B class. For the record I got a perfect score on my exam. The man broke every rule in the book and our lives were better for it.
In conclusion, yes it happens. Yes you can be anti-rule anti-authority and still be successful and non-edgy. Fuck da police.
In conclusion, yes it happens. Yes you can be anti-rule anti-authority and still be successful and non-edgy. Fuck da police.
That's not at all where I thought you were going with that. Some rule breakers are good others are bad. Some only break certain rules. I'm confused as to why he didn't finish college online or something when they found out? I've seen teachers be emergency certified in similar circumstances.
>Some rule breakers are good others are bad.
True. Maybe I just idolized this guy cause he was both smart and stuck it to the man.
>I'm confused as to why he didn't finish college online or something when they found out?
I don't know what the rules are on that. Even if it were possible by this time he already tried to forge documents and otherwise lie his way through. Even before the fraud the man didn't really have to many allies in administration.
Also the district didn't even have the balls to tell us (the students) why our teacher disappeared one day. I had to learn it through another teacher in a private conversation outside the school.
Really just screw public school in general. The whole place was 95% waste of time followed by a "congratulatory" piece of paper.
True. Maybe I just idolized this guy cause he was both smart and stuck it to the man.
>I'm confused as to why he didn't finish college online or something when they found out?
I don't know what the rules are on that. Even if it were possible by this time he already tried to forge documents and otherwise lie his way through. Even before the fraud the man didn't really have to many allies in administration.
Also the district didn't even have the balls to tell us (the students) why our teacher disappeared one day. I had to learn it through another teacher in a private conversation outside the school.
Really just screw public school in general. The whole place was 95% waste of time followed by a "congratulatory" piece of paper.
> Really just screw public school in general. The whole place was 95% waste of time followed by a "congratulatory" piece of paper.
John Taylor Gatto (and John Holt, and many others) say "wasting time" is the whole point of compulsory education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto#Main_thesis
"Against School: How Public Education Criples our Kids, and Why" - http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm
Archive.org should have the complete text of "The Underground History of American Education", which was formerly posted in its entirety at http://www.JohnTaylorGatto.com
Also search for "I quit, I think", and ... "The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher"... several copies of these essays are scattered around the internet.
Edit: favorite'd your earlier comment, as I like how your teacher was good at teaching physics in spite of not having a congratulatory paper from a "higher education" establishment.
John Taylor Gatto (and John Holt, and many others) say "wasting time" is the whole point of compulsory education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto#Main_thesis
"Against School: How Public Education Criples our Kids, and Why" - http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm
Archive.org should have the complete text of "The Underground History of American Education", which was formerly posted in its entirety at http://www.JohnTaylorGatto.com
Also search for "I quit, I think", and ... "The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher"... several copies of these essays are scattered around the internet.
Edit: favorite'd your earlier comment, as I like how your teacher was good at teaching physics in spite of not having a congratulatory paper from a "higher education" establishment.
Public schools serve one primary purpose. They free up women to work in the labour market. It turns out that having every kid attended to one-on-one by their mother was a terribly inefficient system compared to just shoving them all in a room and letting one person look after ~20. The fact that any sort of education happens is just a nice add-on after the fact. School also does a fantastic job of preparing you to submit to the arbitrary demands of authority figures. Today its the teacher, tomorrow its the cop.
Society is a well oiled machine from cradle to college to job to marriage to suburban home to grave. Sadly I'm too much of a fan of indoor plumbing to consider the alternative. We're all just cogs in the machine.
Society is a well oiled machine from cradle to college to job to marriage to suburban home to grave. Sadly I'm too much of a fan of indoor plumbing to consider the alternative. We're all just cogs in the machine.
Nice narrative, and especially the "bend and break the kids to conform with mainstream" rings a bell.
Yet I don't believe the major driving force is to free up women as laborers - schools have been existing way before women had the right to work or vote.
In my opinion schools and universities rather serve to breed out worker drones and the curriculums are based on corporate needs, not society's. And this has, especially in the last two decades, been visible in the EU with the Bologna reform. Classes with no direct economical advantage (arts!) are falling way behind classes in the STEM field.
Yet I don't believe the major driving force is to free up women as laborers - schools have been existing way before women had the right to work or vote.
In my opinion schools and universities rather serve to breed out worker drones and the curriculums are based on corporate needs, not society's. And this has, especially in the last two decades, been visible in the EU with the Bologna reform. Classes with no direct economical advantage (arts!) are falling way behind classes in the STEM field.
I look at it this way: schools may have existed a longer than universal suffrage, and maybe they even started with a desire to educate the population - but during their existence, they were found to be extremely useful as places to keep kids, so that their parents (both genders) could go to productive work. Like many things in life, schools seem to have changed their primary roles over time.
I take it back. Public schools serve several primary societal purposes but none of them are altruistic education of the populace.
Compulsory public education was a late 19th century event, close enough to universal suffrage.
Schools were around before washing machines. So just because a woman didn't have a job at an office or other place of employment, she did have a lot of work to do around the home.
Robert Caro's first LBJ book has a great (harrowing) passage on how hard it was in rural Texas for mothers, who often didn't have electricity up until the 30's. It was backbreaking, constant labor to keep everything in working order and preserve enough food for winter.
Sounds like people don't realise how much leisure time we have in our current lives (Myself included). People used to work over 40 hours a week just making sure they could survive through the winter months.
I know it's messed up, but this story makes me so happy.
There have been some stories about execs at very large companies lying on their resumes from small things like being in certain organizations up to completely fabricating earning a degree or attending a particular educational institution at all.
I have no college experience, and no one has ever even asked. I've never once had to justify it or discuss it in an interview. Education is no where on my resume.
It's hard to know how impressed to be without knowing what you do ;-)
Usually the only time education is important on a resume is when a person has no other relevant experience.
Usually the only time education is important on a resume is when a person has no other relevant experience.
Or when they're applying for a job that requires a professional registration, where that registration requires a specific qualification.
Or in academia.
Or in most non-tech jobs. You can't be a nutritionist without a four-year degree in Nutrition (or I believe a few very closely related fields). There are even some fitness certifications you can't get without (any) four-year degree. No amount of self-study or exam passage will get you to be an RN.
Tech is an outlier in that education is secondary to most other factors. I'm happy for that because my Political Science degree isn't worth much, but there are even tech companies that require a degree, or a STEM degree, to be software developers.
Tech is an outlier in that education is secondary to most other factors. I'm happy for that because my Political Science degree isn't worth much, but there are even tech companies that require a degree, or a STEM degree, to be software developers.
I suspect that requirements for degrees in STEM have much more to do with weeding out "undesirables" from your hiring process. Many companies won't even take candidates from non-ivies + soft ivies (Stanford, CM, etc).
That's a pretty strong generalization to present without evidence.
I'm sure some companies favor candidates from certain schools, but I've never seen any evidence that it's a systemic problem. The one exception I can think of is high level, publicly facing positions. I could see a company choosing a CTO with a PhD from MIT over one with a PhD from somewhere else, just to impress investors, for example. For rank and file software engineer positions, alma mater isn't usually so important.
As far as STEM goes, those fields require so much math and other background knowledge that it's almost unbelievable that somebody could learn it all on their own. Not that it's impossible, but it's a pretty wild claim, and it's reasonable that people would be suspicious.
I'm sure some companies favor candidates from certain schools, but I've never seen any evidence that it's a systemic problem. The one exception I can think of is high level, publicly facing positions. I could see a company choosing a CTO with a PhD from MIT over one with a PhD from somewhere else, just to impress investors, for example. For rank and file software engineer positions, alma mater isn't usually so important.
As far as STEM goes, those fields require so much math and other background knowledge that it's almost unbelievable that somebody could learn it all on their own. Not that it's impossible, but it's a pretty wild claim, and it's reasonable that people would be suspicious.
I'm guessing you're not a high school principal.
With that level of honesty you'll never be the CEO of a company like Yahoo.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/13/technology/yahoo-ceo-out/
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/13/technology/yahoo-ceo-out/
It doesn't seem to matter as much in the technology world. When I look at people's resumes I barely even glance over the Education section. I mean, I'll take note if it's something extreme like a 4.0 at Stanford, but for the most part nobody cares anymore.
> Are credentials not verified when hiring someone?
The verification work is probably outsourced to some company that does that kind of background checks. Or just takes your money and doesn't do any work, as the case might be.
The verification work is probably outsourced to some company that does that kind of background checks. Or just takes your money and doesn't do any work, as the case might be.
What sort of credentials are required to do background checks? Who verifies the verifiers?
There are several independent sources that will verify graduate information. They have a list of schools that work with them and get some subset of personal information (name + DOB and degree conferred, I would imagine) each quarter/year which they just keep and use to verify. National Student Clearinghouse[0] is the largest, I believe.
For schools not using any of these programs, you can always just call the school. My alma mater is part of NSC but will also respond to individual requests directly.
[0] http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/
For schools not using any of these programs, you can always just call the school. My alma mater is part of NSC but will also respond to individual requests directly.
[0] http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/
This isn't doing much to dispel my feeling that the entire field of Human Resources is a farce.
I've had a conversation with a well credentialed school principal that had, uh, lost track of the concept of the multiplication table.
[deleted]
Great journalism by the students. What I fear just as much as unaccredited "diploma mill" universities are the accredited ones that hand out education degrees just as easily. It seems like anyone can pay for an education masters (or PhD) these days.
I love stories like this. Look into 'Gerd postel' if you like that stuff. He imposted as director of a medical clinic for years and is very outspoken about it. Narcissism at its best
This is how journalism should work. Not like the Washpo, acting as Jeff Bezos Anti-Trump propaganda machine. Don't get me wrong here, this is not a Trump fan writing, but I can't stand the biased bs media publishes these days.
"these days."?
The media has always been biased.
The media has always been biased.
Yeah, no joke. Immediately at the end of the article, one of the suggested articles is "America is ‘over-stored’ and Payless ShoeSource is the latest victim". Looking at the other recent articles, it is a theme.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/0...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/0...
A story that comes to a conclusion you dislike is not necessarily propaganda. Nobody is immune from legitimate criticism.
While I was in high school, my father taught at a small private college in Wisconsin, where he was on the hiring committee for the new college president. After being hired, the chosen candidate's behavior was surprisingly erratic, prompting my my father to continue researching his background.
After a bit of digging, he found that the new college president had falsified almost his entire resume. Thinking he had solid proof of this, and not being politically savvy, my father presented his evidence to the other faculty who had been on the hiring committee.
To his surprise, he (rather than the fraudster) was promptly fired from his supposedly tenured position for "gross insubordination". Shortly thereafter, the "fake" college president pocketed the proceeds from remortgaging the college dorms, drove his college provided little-red-sports-car out of town, and was never heard from again.
Embittered by the lack of backing from his purported colleagues, my father never returned to academia, and instead turned to odd jobs and house painting. Not long after, the college lost its accreditation, and went out of business: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Senario_College.