> On Jul 15, 10:52 pm, ri...@
tpg.com.au (Rifty) wrote:
>> You don't know much about how performance is measured in the academic
>> world, do you?
>
> Sure do, at the university level it is solely based on how many papers you
> get published.
Ah... and now you are going to explain why students do course and staff
evaluations at the end of every unit, which are necessary for every
staff member to put in their applications when going for promotion based
on their teaching record.
Some day you may also learn that it is not research papers that count so
much as successful research grant applications. And that promotions have
also been given on the grounds of community service as a significant
component.
But of course you know all about these things... huh!
You know little but stereotypes. You have not been taught to think.
>At the high school and primary school, a persons pay is based on how
>many years they have been a teacher.
Nonsense. Go and check the link between staff development and a group of
teachers' wages. Go and see who gets promoted to subject heads, Deputy
Principal and Principal, and why. You are out of your depth.
> The most successful academics have to be the most > self-centred,
> self-promoting intellectual capitalists the world has ever > seen. Your
> vision is at least forty years out of date, which is funny > because you
> can't possibly have made it to forty yourself. You think and > write like
> an adolescent, though you are older, which means you have > less excuse
> for your naivety.
>
> Obviously you are still in school and believe all the left wing crap you
> are fed.
As I am in my seventh decade on this planet, half of them teaching
undergrads and postgrads rather like you in some ways, it's obvious
you're blowing a good deal of hot air.
>>> So educated lefty is an accurate description of academic with no real
>>> world experience.
>>
>> Like who? Give an example. This phenomenon you are describing is a
>> figment of your rather flaccid imagination.
I see you couldn't manage this one. Your silence is eloquent.
> That was not part of this famous saying. If by 40 you haven't figured out
> that capitalism is a better system than socialism you have no brain.
I figured that out at 20, actually, but at the same time made a careful
distinction between selfishness and compassion. That is far more
important than the divide between socialism and capitalism. But you may
never realise that, and you'll be a lesser man for your ignorance.
>>>> I think you will find that Liberals generally have a selfish and
>>>> self centred attitude. > It's the "I'm alright Jack" mentality.
>>
>>> Not at all true, it is the leftest that is more selfish, they want
>>> someone else to support them with social welfare instead of working
>>> hard to get ahead and supporting themselves.
>>
>> If you seriously believe that, then whatever education you have had has
>> been entirely worthless.
>
> Well most of it was useless in the real world.
Which bits? You seem to have failed to make good use of some of the
really valuable ones, which have obviously been too much for you to
grasp. We can improve many things about you, but not your intelligence
level.
> I think the whole system is badly in need of reform so students have
> skills that can get them jobs, not wasteful memorisaton and regurgitation.
In which subjects, barring languages where rote learning is often the
only way to go, are students rewarded purely for memorisation and
regurgitation?
If you did that in my discipline, you wouldn't get very far. Most
subjects challenge you to think independently and make your own
judgments. Seems you've been going to the wrong institution or
discipline area.
> Universities should value research based on commercial outcomes not
> academic paper
Then some of the greatest contributors to human knowledge would never
have got a job. Some of the greatest discoveries and inventions could
never have occurred, because there was no obvious commercial payoff.
> and teachers should be evaluated by students and parents which impacts
> their pay, not years of service.
You really think the best teachers are necessarily the ones who please
their students most? Up to a point, that may be true, but some of the
greatest thinkers and researchers would not have made their mark based
on this criterion. There are times when those who are not experts do not
necessarily make the best judgments about the qualities of their
teachers, especially at university level.
>>> Hence the "I don't watch the ABC so I > don't want > my tax dollars
>>> spent on it" statements. Do you want your tax dollars spent > on >
>>> public Health, Education, Old Age Pensions, Human Resources? Probably
>>> not > because it > doesn't benefit you. What about then arts?
>>> Coservation?
>>
>>> Oh spare us the rhetoric, the ABC is not an essential service lik
>>> public health or education.
>>
>> If you seriously believe that, then you have not the faintest idea how
>> information is bought and sold.
>
> I pay for my Foxtel, you should pay for your ABC.
Once more you miss the point, but I expected that.
>> Why should not each child with the same abilities as another have the
>> same opportunity at an equal quality of education in a country rolling
>> in surplus capital?
Ignoring this one, I see!
>>>> Tell us what else you don't want your tax dollars spent on?
>>
>>> Social welfare for able bodied people. The dole should be cutoff for
>>> those physically able to work.
>>
>> And if they cannot find a job, in spite of their best endeavours? What
>> then, little fella?
>
> Well little fella it means people like you have to take any job available
> instead of bludging off the system and when you have a job you save for a
> rainy day.
And if there is no job you are capable of doing that is available? You
think that everyone can do something on offer. I could. You could. But
not everyone can. But I also don't expect you to understand that.
>> You should certainly have to pay for something as useless and elitist as
>> Foxtel.
>
> Spoken like a true elitist brainwashed ABC viewer. I respect your right
> to watch what you want as long as you pay for it.
Nahhh - I just want something everyone can make some sense of that is
not sponsored by a gigantic multinational corporation. That only leaves
a public broadcaster paid by the public. Get over it.
>> Only a fool raises the spectre of Saddam's misdeeds when ignoring the
>> same sorts of misdeeds of several other dictators around the world at
>> the same time. You are kidding yourself. One word, three letters... OIL
>> - got it? Right now the US supports or ignores dictators who do just as
>> much evil as Saddam, so get that one out of the equation. It's a moral
>> sop for simpletons. Right now, Iraq is far, far worse off than it ever
>> was under Saddam, and the worst is yet to come for them, thanks entirely
>> to US miscalculations, arrogance and ignorance.
>
> Getting rid of Saddam was not a bad think
No, but what has been imposed now is far worse. We have replaced a
functioning, brutal dictatorship with dysfunctional even more brutal
one.
>and most Iraqi's
One Iraqi. Two Iraqis. Plurals just add s. How hard is that? Why the
hell do semi-literates think they need to stick apostrophes into every
plural? (Now you can stick me for a spelling flame, but I am educating
you, so thank me instead. You will look less ignorant next time you
write that word.)
> were happy he was gone. Of course you live an easy ife in Oz where you
> don't have to care about those who are victims of ruthless dictators.
Now you're being silly. You have absolutely no idea where I live and
have lived and under what conditions I have worked. But one thing I
would take a bet on. You will never in your life have had to work as
hard as I have, or in as dangerous conditions.
Rifty
-- riftynet - put a dot after rifty
