Best paid profession

Zach,

I have seen over the years that the best paid profession, by far, is in
medicine.

If this is not a runner, then you are likely to be clever enough to qualify
as an accountant.

The hours are typically long, due to both work and study, and the money is
not that great, at least in my experience (ACCA).

I shall probably find my first year as a secondary schoolteacher much more
remunerative.

Good luck.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Samsonknight

2005-07-27 07:09:14 UTC

Post by John Porcella
I shall probably find my first year as a secondary schoolteacher much more
remunerative.
Good luck.

Good to hear that you have gone into teaching John, what subject are you
teaching? and are you teaching privately or for the state? I hope it is
maths! As I feel that the quality of teaching in that subject-area in state
schools is just lacking.

John Porcella

2005-07-27 14:50:44 UTC

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
I shall probably find my first year as a secondary schoolteacher much more
remunerative.
Good luck.

Good to hear that you have gone into teaching John,

I have been teaching, albeit part time, since 1998 as an adjunct to my
accountancy career, which might well be over due to my advanced age (41)!

what subject are you

Post by Samsonknight
teaching?

I am trained in Business and Economics for the 14-19 age group. However,
once I am awarded my PGCE, then I suppose I could teach anything. I could
teach critical thinking, and once I have studied a bit more maths and
statistics, I might offer this.

and are you teaching privately or for the state?

I am aiming to move into a state position first, but if something better
comes along in the private sector, I should really consider it.

I hope it is

Post by Samsonknight
maths! As I feel that the quality of teaching in that subject-area in state
schools is just lacking.

Not sure that my input would help though!

Why do you think that maths teaching in schools is poor? Could it be that
too many maths teachers are not maths graduates, or, as I believe, because
they are not great teachers anyway, even if they had more technical
knowledge?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Samsonknight

2005-07-28 05:50:04 UTC

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
I shall probably find my first year as a secondary schoolteacher much

Post by Samsonknight

Post by John Porcella
remunerative.
Good luck.

Good to hear that you have gone into teaching John,

I have been teaching, albeit part time, since 1998 as an adjunct to my
accountancy career, which might well be over due to my advanced age (41)!
what subject are you

Post by Samsonknight
teaching?

I am trained in Business and Economics for the 14-19 age group. However,
once I am awarded my PGCE, then I suppose I could teach anything. I could
teach critical thinking, and once I have studied a bit more maths and
statistics, I might offer this.
and are you teaching privately or for the state?
I am aiming to move into a state position first, but if something better
comes along in the private sector, I should really consider it.
I hope it is

Post by Samsonknight
maths! As I feel that the quality of teaching in that subject-area in

state

Post by Samsonknight
schools is just lacking.

Not sure that my input would help though!
Why do you think that maths teaching in schools is poor? Could it be that
too many maths teachers are not maths graduates, or, as I believe, because
they are not great teachers anyway, even if they had more technical
knowledge?

Well, I cannot speak nationally but from my experience for the reason why
mathematic teaching was poor when I was doing mathematics at my school was
simply due to the fact that the majority of the teachers that taught the
subject at the time I was doing it taught it arrogantly right from GCSE.

In my school, the majority of teachers who taught the subject expected you
to understand everything they taught first time round. Otherwise the student
would just be patronized by the teacher, or will be ignored. Where instead,
the teacher will put more emphasis on helping the more gifted
mathematicians, as it will look good for the school if they are able to get
an A/A* overall. So, as the course progressed and things became more
difficult, the student whose basic mathematical problems were not addressed
properly first time round would naturally find it extremely difficult to
cope with the latter part of the course, as the latter part puts strong
emphasis on the earlier part of the course. The student due to being
patronized first time round by not meeting expectations will then be scared
to consult the teacher about the problem he/she is facing as they feel as
though they are committing a crime by not knowing what the teacher is on
about for that topic.

Other reasons why mathematics was taught badly was simply because aside from
the above, mathematics was taught as though it was based on remembering
formulae, rather then as a language. Calculus at A-level was taught as if it
was just a formulae, dy/dx = nx^-1, the teachers at either GCSE or A-level,
treated mathematics as a result very abstractly. Which is why you often hear
students say "Why do we need any of this mathematic rubbish, not like we
will ever apply this to a real life situation" - when ironically all of this
"mathematical rubbish", is practical.

So often students did mathematics without any proper understanding on what
they were doing in the first place, or why they were using so and so topic
for a certain equation. This combined with what I have mentioned earlier
about impatient/arrogant teachers is a good explanation for the poor pass
rate in A-level mathematics and why not many people do A-level mathematics
in the first place, rather opting for the "mickey mouse" subjects.

I feel that the real problem for why "mathematics is seen as hard" is not
secondary school education, but really stems from primary school education.
So I feel that, once you get to secondary school, teachers there are
arrogant and impatient, because they expect you to know fundamental
mathematics from primary school as if it is was second nature. Therefore
they carry the attitude they have because they refuse to pick up the pieces;
well I don't blame them to an extent.

The problem with primary school teaching is that we had in the majority of
cases one teacher to teach 7 different subjects including mathematics. This
is problematic, as that teacher may not be a qualified mathematician to
begin with, so if the 8 year old kid has a problem with fractions then there
is no guaranteed it will be sorted out. This is absurd, because even the
most advanced parts of Mathematics requires you to have a good understanding
of fractions - partial fractions with binomial expansion, integration etc.

John Porcella

2005-07-28 23:33:21 UTC

Post by Samsonknight
Well, I cannot speak nationally but from my experience for the reason why
mathematic teaching was poor when I was doing mathematics at my school was
simply due to the fact that the majority of the teachers that taught the
subject at the time I was doing it taught it arrogantly right from GCSE.
In my school, the majority of teachers who taught the subject expected you
to understand everything they taught first time round.

Perhaps they had high expectations of their students to be able to take it
in one go!

Otherwise the student

Post by Samsonknight
would just be patronized by the teacher, or will be ignored.

Time pressures?

Where instead,

Post by Samsonknight
the teacher will put more emphasis on helping the more gifted
mathematicians, as it will look good for the school if they are able to get
an A/A* overall. So, as the course progressed and things became more
difficult, the student whose basic mathematical problems were not addressed
properly first time round would naturally find it extremely difficult to
cope with the latter part of the course,

I am not surprised.

as the latter part puts strong

Post by Samsonknight
emphasis on the earlier part of the course. The student due to being
patronized first time round by not meeting expectations will then be scared
to consult the teacher about the problem he/she is facing as they feel as
though they are committing a crime by not knowing what the teacher is on
about for that topic.

I suppose that if the school still got many top grades, then you cannot
blame the teachers.

Post by Samsonknight
Other reasons why mathematics was taught badly was simply because aside from
the above, mathematics was taught as though it was based on remembering
formulae, rather then as a language. Calculus at A-level was taught as if it
was just a formulae, dy/dx = nx^-1, the teachers at either GCSE or A-level,
treated mathematics as a result very abstractly. Which is why you often hear
students say "Why do we need any of this mathematic rubbish, not like we
will ever apply this to a real life situation" - when ironically all of this
"mathematical rubbish", is practical.

I objected to mathematics for the reasons you give. Now, I am older, I mind
less if I cannot immediately see a practical application.

Post by Samsonknight
So often students did mathematics without any proper understanding on what
they were doing in the first place, or why they were using so and so topic
for a certain equation. This combined with what I have mentioned earlier
about impatient/arrogant teachers is a good explanation for the poor pass
rate in A-level mathematics and why not many people do A-level mathematics
in the first place, rather opting for the "mickey mouse" subjects.

Ah, so their strategy did not work! Oh dear! Back to the drawing board,
but in the meantime they have messed up a poor student's examination results
and career.

Post by Samsonknight
I feel that the real problem for why "mathematics is seen as hard" is not
secondary school education, but really stems from primary school education.
So I feel that, once you get to secondary school, teachers there are
arrogant and impatient, because they expect you to know fundamental
mathematics from primary school as if it is was second nature. Therefore
they carry the attitude they have because they refuse to pick up the pieces;
well I don't blame them to an extent.

Which is why I like learning maths from a private tutor...you can stop them
at any time and press them to repeat something or explain it a different way
until it gets through into my tiny brain!

Post by Samsonknight
The problem with primary school teaching is that we had in the majority of
cases one teacher to teach 7 different subjects including mathematics.

I was observing a maths class in a primary school taught by a very good
literacy co-ordinator. She taught the mechanics of how to find the area of
squares and rectangles without any introduction as to what an area was.
Consequently, the pupils were constantly confusing perimeter and area. When
one child asked why there was a number two written above cm or m, the
teacher said, "I don't know!" Maybe they do not need to know.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Samsonknight

2005-07-29 12:53:06 UTC

Perhaps they had high expectations of their students to be able to take it
in one go!

Yeah they probably did. But that is no excuse, they as teachers should
contemplate students not "knowing" everything first time round, as it is
only natural for all students regardless of their intellect to have strong
areas in mathematics and likewise weak areas in mathematics. Otherwise what
is the point in having teachers in the first place?

Post by John Porcella
Otherwise the student

Post by Samsonknight
would just be patronized by the teacher, or will be ignored.

Time pressures?

You could rule it out on time pressures, but after doing mathematics this
year I see it as no excuse. I had a tutor once a week for 3 hours, which is
barely the recommended teaching time for AL mathematics (as I had 6 modules
to cover, can't cover both mechanics and pure in 3 hours). Therefore I had
to self teach myself 80-90% of the syllabus.

If I had an issue with a certain topic or concept, at most it will take 15
minutes to sort out - usually it took 5 minutes to sort out, due to me
misunderstanding a concept. Which is nothing, considering that once that
problem is addressed that I am able to progress forward in the field of
mathematics.

When I did do mathematics at my old sixthform,all we were covering was P1
and S1 in the first year, so either way it is just absurd to think that they
were under "time pressures". The only modules in Mathematics that are
demanding IMO are the A2 units and mechanics. So it is extremely important
that P1 is solidified for all students before the end of the year.
Otherwise, students will buckle on the later modules due to weak
foundations.

Post by John Porcella
Where instead,

Post by Samsonknight
the teacher will put more emphasis on helping the more gifted
mathematicians, as it will look good for the school if they are able to

get

Post by Samsonknight
an A/A* overall. So, as the course progressed and things became more
difficult, the student whose basic mathematical problems were not

addressed

Post by Samsonknight
properly first time round would naturally find it extremely difficult to
cope with the latter part of the course,

I am not surprised.
as the latter part puts strong

Post by Samsonknight
emphasis on the earlier part of the course. The student due to being
patronized first time round by not meeting expectations will then be

scared

Post by Samsonknight
to consult the teacher about the problem he/she is facing as they feel as
though they are committing a crime by not knowing what the teacher is on
about for that topic.

I suppose that if the school still got many top grades, then you cannot
blame the teachers.

Yes at GCSE most bright individuals got an A-C in mathematics. However at
A-level, where the course got much more demanding, the majority (including
those that got A's/A* and B's at GCSE) buckled at P1. If one did pass, it
would be an E in P1, and as P1 was weak, the future looked bleak for the
later modules (where the examiners assume that the concepts in P1 are second
nature). Only one individual got an A overall, he is now at Cambridge
studying natural sciences.

Post by Samsonknight
Other reasons why mathematics was taught badly was simply because aside

from

Post by Samsonknight
the above, mathematics was taught as though it was based on remembering
formulae, rather then as a language. Calculus at A-level was taught as if

Post by Samsonknight
was just a formulae, dy/dx = nx^-1, the teachers at either GCSE or

A-level,

Post by Samsonknight
treated mathematics as a result very abstractly. Which is why you often

hear

Post by Samsonknight
students say "Why do we need any of this mathematic rubbish, not like we
will ever apply this to a real life situation" - when ironically all of

this

Post by Samsonknight
"mathematical rubbish", is practical.

I objected to mathematics for the reasons you give. Now, I am older, I mind
less if I cannot immediately see a practical application.

I can imagine that calculus can be practical, finding stationary points or
using such tools such as trapezium rule couldbe handy if you are developing
graphically intense software like Adobe photoshop. In turn, the concepts you
learn in mechanics could again be very handy if you go into games
programming, where you have to program the recoil of a gun, the movement of
a bouncing ball etc (collisions? from M2).

I am also pretty certain that those individuals that are doing engineering
degrees are constantly applying mathematics of A-level standard and beyond.

Ah, so their strategy did not work! Oh dear! Back to the drawing board,
but in the meantime they have messed up a poor student's examination results
and career.

Yeah, why not go murder someone whilst at it and then blame it on the
students. The things some teachers get away with...

Leaving sarcasm aside, I am no way implying that it is totally the teachers
fault, as there are some students that deserve to fail due to their own
sheer lazyness. But, all I am pointing out is if students have faults then
so do teachers - yet they will never admit theirs and would rather blame the
students for their own failures.

Post by Samsonknight
I feel that the real problem for why "mathematics is seen as hard" is not
secondary school education, but really stems from primary school

education.

Post by Samsonknight
So I feel that, once you get to secondary school, teachers there are
arrogant and impatient, because they expect you to know fundamental
mathematics from primary school as if it is was second nature. Therefore
they carry the attitude they have because they refuse to pick up the

pieces;

Post by Samsonknight
well I don't blame them to an extent.

Which is why I like learning maths from a private tutor...you can stop them
at any time and press them to repeat something or explain it a different way
until it gets through into my tiny brain!

I agree, which is why even though teaching time was severly limited (3 hrs a
week), I opted for a private tutor this year.

Post by Samsonknight
The problem with primary school teaching is that we had in the majority of
cases one teacher to teach 7 different subjects including mathematics.

I was observing a maths class in a primary school taught by a very good
literacy co-ordinator. She taught the mechanics of how to find the area of
squares and rectangles without any introduction as to what an area was.
Consequently, the pupils were constantly confusing perimeter and area.
When
one child asked why there was a number two written above cm or m, the
teacher said, "I don't know!" Maybe they do not need to know.

Exactly, so absurd. Really it is! and people wonder why they are bad at
mathematics!... Mathematics is a language, so if everything that is basic is
not addressed properly, then people will be bad at mathematics regardless if
they have the potential to do complex numbers flawlessly. Yet often people
associate being "bad" at mathematics as "not" being able to do mathematics -
its a defeatist cop out. Yeah sure, some people are gifted at mathematics,
just like some people are gifted at the English language, but that does not
mean I/you cannot pass A-level or GCSE mathematics because there are people
that do through sheer hardwork and good teaching.

On the other hand, if you are not gifted at mathematics and plan to get a
1st after doing a degree in mathematics then ....

b***@yahoo.com

2005-07-30 15:20:46 UTC

About the whole accountancy thing...I don't know a great deal as I'm
only ickly and starting out with in Corporate Finance with one of the
Big-4 accountants, but...

Big 4 starting salary is £26ish (in London) this year. Hours are
reasonable but there is the required study for the first three years.
Rumours abound that the *average* Big-4 partner pulls in 500k a year -
obviously many earn less, some earn much more.

After qualification, many ACA/ACCA's jump ship to industry due to
higher pay. However, if they hand around, the eventual benefit of the
jump gets disproportionatley bigger (apparently) when they finally make
the move. I think the accountancy qualification (not that I'll be doing
it, I'm doing some new CFQ by the ICAEW(?)) is a good springboard - the
most frequently held quals by top managers and board members are
accountancy ones.

IB slaves earn more (£30k-£45k starting) but never see daylight.
Consultants are well paid but they too sold their lives to a company
and spend all their time working and travelling. +demand for them is
falling as people realise they're, by and large, just a load of hot
air.

'Well paid and reasonable hours' (possibly combines with 'rewarding')
is a dream. I think I'll find Big-4 Corporate Finance fulfilling 2 of
the above, but I'll happily trade off the silly money for the a bit
more free time! Good luck finding something.

With the exception of IB and some very top level management positions
in industry, nobody gets RICH working for someone else. Startign a
business is the main way people achieve that..but that sure as hell not
an easy option!

jrg

2005-07-30 21:02:07 UTC

Post by b***@yahoo.com
Rumours abound that the *average* Big-4 partner pulls in 500k a year -
obviously many earn less, some earn much more.

Jesus, I didn't know it was anything like that much. Maybe I should
have tried to get a proper graduate job after all. The idea of earning
500k in a year makes me go a bit wibbly, that's, like, a major lottery
win every year.

James

John Porcella

2005-07-30 21:50:47 UTC

Post by b***@yahoo.com
Rumours abound that the *average* Big-4 partner pulls in 500k a year -
obviously many earn less, some earn much more.

Jesus, I didn't know it was anything like that much.

Yes, but you forget that it costs money, a lot of it, to buy partnership
equity! Don't think that the retiring and existing partners are happy to
see a reduction in their equity unless somebody makes it worth their while.

Maybe I should

Post by jrg
have tried to get a proper graduate job after all. The idea of earning
500k in a year makes me go a bit wibbly, that's, like, a major lottery
win every year.

Dream on! I have got my accountancy qualifications and the only way I am
going to see £0.5m is to work for the rest of my life!

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

b***@yahoo.com

2005-07-31 01:55:57 UTC

Apparently [this is all 2nd hand info, i'll post how it really is in 10
years! :p ] there are a lot of people 'accumulating' just below
partner level and reaching a progression plateau. And the only way to
make it the full way is to bring in serious business, either a constant
reliable flow or a big lump (ie to be a 'rainmaker' of sorts and to
bring a net benefit for all by becoming a partner).

On the other hand, for lotsa reasons, many do not want to become a
partner. The work focus changes and the responsibility skyrockets.

If you can be arsed with 5 years or so of exams (the first of which are
pretty easy - the later ones will only vaguely make sense if you've
done applied econometics/stats before), an actuary is a pretty cushy
job. Given the regular hours, the pay is pretty damn good. The
perceived (slightly stereotypical) drawbacks can be found by googling
actuary jokes/humour!

Aldi/Lidl etc seem like dead end jobs, but their management training
schemes are not at all badly renumerated, especially given the
work/hours!

There are also some (mainly compliance) accountancy jobs with IBs. The
hours are apparently a happier medium...though the pay is higher than
avg for accountants, at least in the early years. On the other, that
'flavour' of accountancy will be pretty hard to ply outside of that
specific environment.

As for realistically getting in: Banking pretty much requires you to
live, breath and eat banking, to be really fired up about it and keen
as mustard - the competition is severe and it's not a nice environment
- not unless you REALLy want to be there. Accountancy (Audit/Tax) is
much more accessible, thougth the Corporate Finance, Restructuring,
Consultancy type departments sides of the bigger accountants can be as
competitive as banking as they attract the same type of people.

This has all got a finance/management skew...but there are a lot of
jobs there. Teaching is all well and good...but i've heard it's damn
hard at times (though what isn't!). Have you considered academia?
Friends are doing OK on PhD's (£14ish K tax free) and being a lecturer
looks like a pretty easy deal... I'm sure i'll get shot down in flames
on that one though by some of the regualrs on here! :p

John Porcella

2005-07-31 11:47:26 UTC

This has all got a finance/management skew...but there are a lot of
jobs there.

Not when you have reached your mid-thirties, I am afraid. Now that I am in
my forties, I can forget a finance career.

Teaching is all well and good..

Better than good!

.but i've heard it's damn
hard at times (though what isn't!).

It is not that hard if you have prepared the lesson.

Have you considered academia?

Yes, the money is worse than in secondary schools and the job is never over
as once teaching is over, it is all about reading and writing.

Friends are doing OK on PhD's (£14ish K tax free)

I doubt I would ever get paid to do a PhD, even if I were mad enough to want
to fit it in a busy schedule, already!

and being a lecturer
looks like a pretty easy deal...

Too poorly remunerated for the qualifications needed.

I'm sure i'll get shot down in flames
on that one though by some of the regualrs on here! :p

Probably!

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Stuart Williams

2005-07-31 14:33:48 UTC

Post by b***@yahoo.com
.but i've heard it's damn
hard at times (though what isn't!).
It is not that hard if you have prepared the lesson.

Oh boy, have you got a shock coming.

Post by b***@yahoo.com
Have you considered academia?
Yes, the money is worse than in secondary schools and the job is never over
as once teaching is over, it is all about reading and writing.

I assume this means that you think teachers don't do any reading once
they've got their qualifications out of the way. As someone who is
reading/has read since term ended three weeks ago

Coase: Lectures on Economics and Economists
Levitt: Freakonomics
Kay: Everlasting Lightbulbs
Ormerod: Butterfly Economics
Briscoe: Britain in Numbers

I can say once again: boy, have you got it wrong. You'll never make a
decent teacher if you think the job is all over once the holidays start.

SW

John Porcella

2005-07-31 20:27:26 UTC

Post by b***@yahoo.com
.but i've heard it's damn
hard at times (though what isn't!).
It is not that hard if you have prepared the lesson.

Oh boy, have you got a shock coming.

Post by b***@yahoo.com
Have you considered academia?
Yes, the money is worse than in secondary schools and the job is never over
as once teaching is over, it is all about reading and writing.

I assume this means that you think teachers don't do any reading once
they've got their qualifications out of the way.

You assume wrongly!

Whereas the academic is expected to as part of their job, a secondary
schoolteacher is wise to keep up to date and to improve subject and other
knowledge, but any bright teacher should know enough not to make it
necessary most of the time.

As someone who is

Post by Stuart Williams
reading/has read since term ended three weeks ago
Coase: Lectures on Economics and Economists
Levitt: Freakonomics
Kay: Everlasting Lightbulbs
Ormerod: Butterfly Economics
Briscoe: Britain in Numbers

Well done for reading this lot! However, will it make you a better teacher?

Post by Stuart Williams
I can say once again: boy, have you got it wrong.

You cannot say it at at for two reasons, and the main one being that you
were wrong in your initial assumption.

You'll never make a

Post by Stuart Williams
decent teacher if you think the job is all over once the holidays start.

Where/when did I ever state that a teacher's job was done once the holidays
started? If you want to argue with me, fine, you can, but please, do me the
courtesy of arguing with things I state, rather than making arguments for me
and then attacking 'me'.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Post by Stuart Williams
SW

Stuart Williams

2005-08-01 09:10:37 UTC

Post by John Porcella
Whereas the academic is expected to as part of their job, a secondary
schoolteacher is wise to keep up to date and to improve subject and other
knowledge, but any bright teacher should know enough not to make it
necessary most of the time.

But I thought you were going to be teaching Economics? You'll find quite
simply that a very large part of your lesson preparation will involve
reading books, and (much more so) trawling the Internet. For example: in
teaching the OCR Transport module I haven't found a textbook which
remotely serves the purpose - they're either much too abstract or much
too concrete. However, there is masses of excellent stuff on university
and pressure group websites, but you have to look for it, read it, edit
it and then teach around it.

Post by John Porcella
As someone who is

Post by Stuart Williams
reading/has read since term ended three weeks ago
Coase: <snip> etc

Well done for reading this lot! However, will it make you a better teacher?

Yes, of course it will. The fact that you can't see this is truly
amazing. You'd be better off teaching Maths rather than Economics if you
think that what you know at this point is adequate for all of your future
teaching career.

SW

John Porcella

2005-08-01 14:49:09 UTC

But I thought you were going to be teaching Economics?

Yes, so?

You'll find quite

Post by Stuart Williams
simply that a very large part of your lesson preparation will involve
reading books,

Perhaps, but once read and understood, then the teacher should understand it
well enough not to have to pretend to be an academic for all of their
holidays.

and (much more so) trawling the Internet. For example: in

Post by Stuart Williams
teaching the OCR Transport module I haven't found a textbook which
remotely serves the purpose

I taught the Edexcel syllabus which covered more conventional economics. I
have to admit that I too would have to hit the books again for the OCR
Transport module.

- they're either much too abstract or much

Post by Stuart Williams
too concrete. However, there is masses of excellent stuff on university
and pressure group websites, but you have to look for it, read it, edit
it and then teach around it.

Okay for that module, I guess.

Post by John Porcella
As someone who is

Post by Stuart Williams
reading/has read since term ended three weeks ago
Coase: <snip> etc

Well done for reading this lot! However, will it make you a better teacher?

Yes, of course it will.

Really? It might make you more knowledgeable, but the secret of success is
not in teaching just knowledge, but teaching students the higher cognitive
skills of application, analysis and evaluation.

The fact that you can't see this is truly

Post by Stuart Williams
amazing.

Where are you finding this 'fact'? I wish you would not make 'my' arguments
for me, so that you can knock them down! Leave these poor straw men in
peace in their fields.

You'd be better off teaching Maths rather than Economics if you

Post by Stuart Williams
think that what you know at this point is adequate for all of your future
teaching career.

Where did I state this silly nonsense?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Stuart Williams

2005-08-01 17:17:21 UTC

Post by John Porcella
Whereas the academic is expected to as part of their job, a secondary
schoolteacher is wise to keep up to date and to improve subject and

other

Post by John Porcella
knowledge, but any bright teacher should know enough not to make it
necessary most of the time.

But I thought you were going to be teaching Economics?

Yes, so?
You'll find quite

Post by Stuart Williams
simply that a very large part of your lesson preparation will involve
reading books,

Perhaps, but once read and understood, then the teacher should understand it
well enough not to have to pretend to be an academic for all of their
holidays.

But Economics changes. What's more, the syllabuses change. Since there
are always optional modules, you may find that you want to switch from
one to t'other if the former is not proving interesting or successful (as
I went from Development Econ to The UK Economy). And a good deal of
successful teaching is about using your imagination, and trying to teach
every topic better than you did last year. I think continuing self-
education is a necessary part of stimulating that imagination.

Post by John Porcella
and (much more so) trawling the Internet. For example: in

Post by Stuart Williams
teaching the OCR Transport module I haven't found a textbook which
remotely serves the purpose

I taught the Edexcel syllabus which covered more conventional economics. I
have to admit that I too would have to hit the books again for the OCR
Transport module.

The Transport module isn't unconventional - it's how OCR tests market
structure in depth. But the stress (as you know) is on applying
theoretical models to real-life markets. One can't downplay the latter
because the former doesn't seem to change much.

Post by John Porcella
As someone who is

Post by Stuart Williams
reading/has read since term ended three weeks ago
Coase: <snip> etc

Well done for reading this lot! However, will it make you a better

teacher?

Post by Stuart Williams
Yes, of course it will.

Really? It might make you more knowledgeable, but the secret of success is
not in teaching just knowledge, but teaching students the higher cognitive
skills of application, analysis and evaluation.

Er, yes, I know. It's precisely my point that one can do that better the
more one has read (and thought and synthesised and been spurred to
adapt).

Post by John Porcella
You'd be better off teaching Maths rather than Economics if you

Post by Stuart Williams
think that what you know at this point is adequate for all of your future
teaching career.

Where did I state this silly nonsense?

Up above, pretty much:
"a secondary schoolteacher is wise to keep up to date and to improve
subject and other knowledge, ***but any bright teacher should know enough
not to make it necessary most of the time***. (My emphasis.)

I'm telling you from the perspective of over thirty years of teaching
Economics that you really don't know what you're talking about when you
come out with that sort of guff. If you don't grow as a teacher and a
person, your pupils won't ever be more than exam-passing automata, though
I suspect that that's exactly how you conceive of the process of
education.

SW

John Porcella

2005-08-02 22:59:59 UTC

Post by John Porcella
Whereas the academic is expected to as part of their job, a secondary
schoolteacher is wise to keep up to date and to improve subject and

other

Post by John Porcella
knowledge, but any bright teacher should know enough not to make it
necessary most of the time.

But I thought you were going to be teaching Economics?

Yes, so?
You'll find quite

Post by Stuart Williams
simply that a very large part of your lesson preparation will involve
reading books,

Perhaps, but once read and understood, then the teacher should understand it
well enough not to have to pretend to be an academic for all of their
holidays.

But Economics changes.

Does it change that greatly?

What's more, the syllabuses change.

Now, this I can believe!

Since there

Post by Stuart Williams
are always optional modules, you may find that you want to switch from
one to t'other if the former is not proving interesting or successful (as
I went from Development Econ to The UK Economy).

Good point. I suppose that careful selection is needed, though I might be
stuck with teaching what I am told to!

And a good deal of

Post by Stuart Williams
successful teaching is about using your imagination,

Definitely!

and trying to teach

Post by Stuart Williams
every topic better than you did last year.

Definitely!

I think continuing self-

Post by Stuart Williams
education is a necessary part of stimulating that imagination.

This is where I need convincing. Self-education can improve, indeed, should
improve subject knowledge, but at 'A' level the subject is so superficial
that it does not seem an efficient usage of leisure time.

Post by John Porcella
and (much more so) trawling the Internet. For example: in

Post by Stuart Williams
teaching the OCR Transport module I haven't found a textbook which
remotely serves the purpose

I taught the Edexcel syllabus which covered more conventional economics.

Post by John Porcella
have to admit that I too would have to hit the books again for the OCR
Transport module.

I see...

Post by John Porcella
As someone who is

Post by Stuart Williams
reading/has read since term ended three weeks ago
Coase: <snip> etc

Well done for reading this lot! However, will it make you a better

teacher?

Post by Stuart Williams
Yes, of course it will.

Really? It might make you more knowledgeable, but the secret of success is
not in teaching just knowledge, but teaching students the higher cognitive
skills of application, analysis and evaluation.

Er, yes, I know. It's precisely my point that one can do that better the
more one has read (and thought and synthesised and been spurred to
adapt).

Maybe.

Post by John Porcella
You'd be better off teaching Maths rather than Economics if you

Post by Stuart Williams
think that what you know at this point is adequate for all of your future
teaching career.

Where did I state this silly nonsense?

"a secondary schoolteacher is wise to keep up to date and to improve
subject and other knowledge, ***but any bright teacher should know enough
not to make it necessary most of the time***. (My emphasis.)

Which just shows that I made no such silly claims as a few lines above!
Notice that I used the word "most'. Whilst I acknowledge that it is
sometimes necessary to brush up, MOST of the time it is not needed for
economics at 'A' level as the subject is very straightforward.

Post by Stuart Williams
I'm telling you from the perspective of over thirty years of teaching
Economics that you really don't know what you're talking about when you
come out with that sort of guff.

If I came out with the sort of interpretation that you put on my words then
I would be the first to agree! As I did not state anywhere that economics
teachers (or any teachers) should never read up, then I do not stand
corrected.

If you don't grow as a teacher and a

Post by Stuart Williams
person, your pupils won't ever be more than exam-passing automata, though
I suspect that that's exactly how you conceive of the process of
education.

The teacher's role is to prepare her/his students to be able to perform as
well as possible on examination day. Where is the harm in that?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Stuart Williams

2005-08-03 10:47:22 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
If you don't grow as a teacher and a

Post by Stuart Williams
person, your pupils won't ever be more than exam-passing automata, though
I suspect that that's exactly how you conceive of the process of
education.

The teacher's role is to prepare her/his students to be able to perform as
well as possible on examination day. Where is the harm in that?

No harm, but not as much good as you could do. Education in the Sixth
Form is heavily skewed by the need to do well in exams, but you can do so
much more besides - to teach them to think for themselves (which in exams
is hardly necessary, unfortunately, even if it is occasionally rewarded).

SW

John Porcella

2005-08-31 14:25:14 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
If you don't grow as a teacher and a

Post by Stuart Williams
person, your pupils won't ever be more than exam-passing automata, though
I suspect that that's exactly how you conceive of the process of
education.

The teacher's role is to prepare her/his students to be able to perform as
well as possible on examination day. Where is the harm in that?

No harm,

Thank you...that is all the answer I need.

but not as much good as you could do. Education in the Sixth

Post by Stuart Williams
Form is heavily skewed by the need to do well in exams, but you can do so
much more besides

Yes, you could waste the teacher's time and that of the students, I agree,
by teaching them something that might risk their examination success.

- to teach them to think for themselves (which in exams

Post by Stuart Williams
is hardly necessary, unfortunately, even if it is occasionally rewarded).

If it is "hardly necessary", then why waste precious time? Hardly efficient
use of time!

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Post by Stuart Williams
SW

Robert de Vincy

2005-08-31 15:37:16 UTC

- to teach them to think for themselves (which in exams is hardly
necessary, unfortunately, even if it is occasionally rewarded).

If it is "hardly necessary", then why waste precious time? Hardly
efficient use of time!

Yes. Preparing them for anything beyond A-levels is a waste of time.

</irony>

--
BdeV

John Porcella

2005-09-30 01:27:15 UTC

Post by Robert de Vincy

- to teach them to think for themselves (which in exams is hardly
necessary, unfortunately, even if it is occasionally rewarded).

If it is "hardly necessary", then why waste precious time? Hardly
efficient use of time!

Yes. Preparing them for anything beyond A-levels is a waste of time.
</irony>

You do not need to be ironic! If you are teaching the A level syllabus,
then unless the school/college is extremely odd, then there is no time to
waste.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-08-31 22:30:39 UTC

I've come late to this argument - my apologies if what little I have
to say has already been said.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:25:14 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella
Yes, you could waste the teacher's time and that of the students, I agree,
by teaching them something that might risk their examination success.

We have a real problem at my place. We get them in in Year 9 and
they're OK - not great, but OK. They've done some good stuff at middle
school but it can be patchy.

Then we start cramming them. KS3 first off, followed by GCSE. And,
hell, we cram em. The English department gives each kiddie a booklet
with each piece of lit analysed in huge detail. They get so much stuff
to read and learn, but no-one ever really takes the time to teach them
how to think. In fact, we basically do it all for them so they never
have to think - and then they get fat and lazy and used to
forcefeeding.

They do very well at GCSE and KS3 - very well indeed. County looks at
us and compares us to Fisher and comes to ask how we do it (honestly).

And then they get to A Level and they start falling down. The result
of the force feeding is that they've forgotten how to think. And,
suddenly, we're asking them to have an opinion, to really think and to
go away and work really independently on things. And they can't do it
(so then the English dept does the same thing as before - which helps
to an extent, but is basically teaching them to regurgitate someone
elses ideas.... :-( )

Post by John Porcella
- to teach them to think for themselves (which in exams

Post by Stuart Williams
is hardly necessary, unfortunately, even if it is occasionally rewarded).

If it is "hardly necessary", then why waste precious time? Hardly efficient
use of time!

I'd disgree firstly with Stuart. I think it's hugely necessary at
post-16. To really do well you must be able to think for yourself -
OK, now perhaps I see this as a geographer where thinking on your feet
is probably a wee bit more important, but I think that generally it's
the thinming ones who do best at post-16. Hard work pays off too, to
an extent, but if you can really think then it's the big hitter.

So, we try and teach them to think - but we do it in Year 12. Madness.
Start in Year 9 - hell, start in Year 1 please. The single most
important thing we can do, beyond I guess basic literacy ad numeracy,
is teach people to think properly. It isn't a waste of precious time;
I think it does actually benefit people not only at school but beyond
- both academically and in other ways.

Or is this all about producing a sub-servient, unthinking workforce
after all? :-)

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

Stuart Williams

2005-09-01 19:53:58 UTC

Post by Ian/Cath Ford

Post by Stuart Williams
- to teach them to think for themselves (which in exams

Post by Stuart Williams
is hardly necessary, unfortunately, even if it is occasionally rewarded).

If it is "hardly necessary", then why waste precious time? Hardly efficient
use of time!

"To really do well...." - yes, I agree entirely. But it is possible to do
pretty well (at least grade B, and maybe the lower slopes of grade A)
without having to develop the habits of independent tought.

SW

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-09-02 19:20:20 UTC

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:53:58 +0100, Stuart Williams

Post by Stuart Williams
"To really do well...." - yes, I agree entirely. But it is possible to do
pretty well (at least grade B, and maybe the lower slopes of grade A)
without having to develop the habits of independent tought.

B? Hmmm, maybe - someone who's quite bright and/or works like stink
can get there or there abouts I guess. I'd put it as marginal B
territory - but then I'm looking at this pretty much soleyl from a
geographical pov - and we had synoptic papers before anyone else knew
what they were :-)

Not sure about an A however...

We, incidently, had a pyramid Prof Devt Day today which featured some
really nice examples of thinking skills development - in primary
schools. Which was really interesting and made me think of this....

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

John Porcella

2005-09-30 01:55:24 UTC

Post by Ian/Cath Ford

Post by Stuart Williams
- to teach them to think for themselves (which in exams

Post by Stuart Williams
is hardly necessary, unfortunately, even if it is occasionally rewarded).

If it is "hardly necessary", then why waste precious time? Hardly efficient
use of time!

Very tough, I should imagine.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

John Porcella

2005-09-30 01:54:44 UTC

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
I've come late to this argument - my apologies if what little I have
to say has already been said.
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:25:14 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella
Yes, you could waste the teacher's time and that of the students, I agree,
by teaching them something that might risk their examination success.

Perhaps this is why some schools/colleges offer Critical Thinking at AS.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
They do very well at GCSE and KS3 - very well indeed. County looks at
us and compares us to Fisher and comes to ask how we do it (honestly).

Fisher?

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
And then they get to A Level and they start falling down. The result
of the force feeding is that they've forgotten how to think.

"Forgotten"? I doubt that they ever knew! The trick for AS and A2 teachers
is to go beyond mere rote learning and to teach those higher cognitive
learning skills. I do not think that they come that naturally, but can be
taught.

And,

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
suddenly, we're asking them to have an opinion,

??? What?? Schoolchildren without opinions of their own and a mouth to
make sure everybody else knows it? Hmm, ich don't think so as somebody
greater than me once said.

to really think and to

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
go away and work really independently on things. And they can't do it

This I can agree with!

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
(so then the English dept does the same thing as before - which helps
to an extent, but is basically teaching them to regurgitate someone
elses ideas.... :-( )

Not good!

Post by Ian/Cath Ford

Post by John Porcella
- to teach them to think for themselves (which in exams

Post by Stuart Williams
is hardly necessary, unfortunately, even if it is occasionally rewarded).

If it is "hardly necessary", then why waste precious time? Hardly efficient
use of time!

I'd disgree firstly with Stuart. I think it's hugely necessary at
post-16.

I agree with you fully! In economics and business studies and many other
subjects I am sure, the examiners look for more than mere displays of
knowledge, no matter how stunning. The teacher has the very tricky job of
teaching classes how to attack questions so as to display analysis and
evaluation where required.

To really do well you must be able to think for yourself -

Absolutely right.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
OK, now perhaps I see this as a geographer where thinking on your feet
is probably a wee bit more important, but I think that generally it's
the thinming ones who do best at post-16. Hard work pays off too, to
an extent, but if you can really think then it's the big hitter.

Yep!

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
So, we try and teach them to think - but we do it in Year 12.

Are there more than a few marks for displays of thinking at GCSE?

Madness.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Start in Year 9 - hell, start in Year 1 please.

I am not sure that we should go quite that far! To be able to argue at
least slightly convincingly it is necessary to have a portfolio of facts to
bring to the argument. The higher level thinking skills can be kept for
later.

The single most

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
important thing we can do, beyond I guess basic literacy ad numeracy,
is teach people to think properly.

Not sure about that loaded word "properly", but otherwise, yes you are
right.

It isn't a waste of precious time;

Of course not, not at AS and A2 level. What is irrelevant is going off
syllabus! What is the point of spending time on chaos theory (or whatever)
if not relevant to the syllabus being taught. Schools are likely to have
time to spare.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
I think it does actually benefit people not only at school but beyond
- both academically and in other ways.

Sure!

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Or is this all about producing a sub-servient, unthinking workforce
after all? :-)

Probably that too!

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Dr A. N. Walker

2005-08-01 14:29:41 UTC

[...] You'd be better off teaching Maths rather than Economics if you
think that what you know at this point is adequate for all of your future
teaching career.

No he wouldn't. [I suppose this could be the start of a
particularly silly competition.]

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk

John Porcella

2005-08-02 22:48:02 UTC

[...] You'd be better off teaching Maths rather than Economics if you
think that what you know at this point is adequate for all of your future
teaching career.

No he wouldn't. [I suppose this could be the start of a
particularly silly competition.]

Fine, but why not?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Dr A. N. Walker

2005-08-03 11:21:01 UTC

[...] You'd be better off teaching Maths rather than Economics if [...]

No he wouldn't. [...]

Fine, but why not?

Under SW's hypothesis, I wouldn't want you teaching anything
in any school or any subject. Whether that hypothesis actually applies
to you is another matter, of course. But economics as a school subject
is largely confined to older pupils and to specialists who may possibly
be able to overcome the handicap of a rotten teacher -- eg by doing the
reading around that you, hypothetically, are not. Maths OTOH is taught
throughout all age groups, and to those who need it for other subjects
such as physics, CS and engineering, so a rotten maths teacher is a much
more serious disaster. [And, sadly, a disaster that is already much too
common.]

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk

jrg

2005-08-03 11:42:39 UTC

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Under SW's hypothesis, I wouldn't want you teaching anything
in any school or any subject. Whether that hypothesis actually applies
to you is another matter, of course. But economics as a school subject
is largely confined to older pupils and to specialists who may possibly
be able to overcome the handicap of a rotten teacher -- eg by doing the
reading around that you, hypothetically, are not. Maths OTOH is taught
throughout all age groups, and to those who need it for other subjects
such as physics, CS and engineering, so a rotten maths teacher is a much
more serious disaster. [And, sadly, a disaster that is already much too
common.]

I believe John's question is "How come a Maths teacher needs to read
around their subject in order to successfully teach?". I must admit, I
too am surprised - I can't imagine there are many new research
breakthroughs in maths that have implications for what one learns at
GCSE/A-level?

James

Dr A. N. Walker

2005-08-03 13:46:21 UTC

Post by jrg
I believe John's question is "How come a Maths teacher needs to read
around their subject in order to successfully teach?".

If so, then he should not have tacked it on to the question
of whether maths or economics is the more deserving subject.

Post by jrg
I must admit, I
too am surprised - I can't imagine there are many new research
breakthroughs in maths that have implications for what one learns at
GCSE/A-level?

Nothing to do with research breakthroughs [though even
there it is Good if a maths teacher is able to talk convincingly
about things like Wiles's proof of FLT, or about the Mandelbrot
set, or about NP-completeness and its connexion with codebreaking,
eg.].

A teacher may be in post for some 40 years; in that time,
you might be surprised by how much maths changes. The maths that
*I* did for A-level bears almost no relation to that done by my
mother, and almost no relation to that done today. Topics like
matrices, vectors, geometry, statistics, data handling, complex
numbers, invariants, ... come in, go out, come back in with a
different emphasis. There is "topic drift" by something of the
order of 2%/year, over the last 100+ years.

Something else to consider in a school is that teachers
also act as a knowledge base for their colleagues. In the case
of maths, that means that physicists/economists/etc are going to
come to you with DEs that need solving, matrices to invert, etc.
It also means that whenever maths is in the news, you will the
pundit [for colleagues and pupils]. You need to be "up to speed"
on things like, say, Sudoku, Rubik's Cube, stats of cot deaths,
likelihood of asteroid impacts, winning at poker, Duckworth-Lewis,
largest known primes, how to show that pi is transcendental, ....

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk

John Porcella

2005-08-05 00:56:13 UTC

Post by jrg
I believe John's question is "How come a Maths teacher needs to read
around their subject in order to successfully teach?".

If so, then he should not have tacked it on to the question
of whether maths or economics is the more deserving subject.

You need not worry as I never asked the question!

Post by jrg
I must admit, I
too am surprised - I can't imagine there are many new research
breakthroughs in maths that have implications for what one learns at
GCSE/A-level?

Why? Don't students just want to understand the relevant material, practice
it and pass?

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
A teacher may be in post for some 40 years; in that time,
you might be surprised by how much maths changes. The maths that
*I* did for A-level bears almost no relation to that done by my
mother, and almost no relation to that done today. Topics like
matrices, vectors, geometry, statistics, data handling, complex
numbers, invariants, ... come in, go out, come back in with a
different emphasis. There is "topic drift" by something of the
order of 2%/year, over the last 100+ years.

Yes. I can see that if something were added that the teacher had not
studied (as not fashionable when they were learning) then they would have to
hit the books again to understand it. Fair enough.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Something else to consider in a school is that teachers
also act as a knowledge base for their colleagues. In the case
of maths, that means that physicists/economists/etc are going to
come to you with DEs that need solving, matrices to invert, etc.
It also means that whenever maths is in the news, you will the
pundit [for colleagues and pupils]. You need to be "up to speed"
on things like, say, Sudoku,

What does this have to do with mathematics?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Dr A. N. Walker

2005-08-05 11:15:04 UTC

Post by John Porcella
Why? Don't students just want to understand the relevant material, practice
it and pass?

Many students indeed are like that [or worse -- some don't
care whether they understand it, do not want to practise it, and
want to pass only if no work is involved]. But some students have
a genuine interest in their subject.

You seem not to accept or understand the educational roles
associated with being a teacher. *You* are the person the young
mathematician [or whatever] is looking up to as an expert, as the
fount of mathematical knowledge. If the newspapers carry articles
on FLT or Mandelbrot, *you* may find yourself fielding questions
about the associated maths. Why was this not known earlier? How
do we know the chaos goes on "for ever"? How can you prove that
something *can't* happen? Why should anyone be interested in the
prime factors of numbers with thousands of digits? Etc. To tell
a child "Go away, you don't want to know that, it's not on the
syllabus" is, IMNVHO, a sacking offence, easily on a par with
stealing from the common room or lusting after sixth-formers.
You *must* be able to seize the moment, follow up on something
of interest to the child, or you simply aren't a teacher.

[...] You need to be "up to speed"
on things like, say, Sudoku,

What does this have to do with mathematics?

It's "numbers", innit? Not really, of course, but it *is*
logic, and if it gets members of the general public, inc teachers
and children, thinking positively about maths, it's a Good Thing.
I expect the same thing happened to English teachers when crosswords
first came out. You get street cred from being able to do things
that most people can't, and street cred is important in education.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk

John Porcella

2005-08-10 23:10:31 UTC

Post by John Porcella
Why? Don't students just want to understand the relevant material, practice
it and pass?

Many students indeed are like that [or worse -- some don't
care whether they understand it, do not want to practise it, and
want to pass only if no work is involved].

The latter must be a nightmare for teachers!

But some students have

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
a genuine interest in their subject.

Which might be a good reason to study it at university!

Maybe, but if it is not relevant to the examination at hand, then it is just
a digression away from the main/sole objective to get people through as best
as possible.

If the newspapers carry articles

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
on FLT or Mandelbrot,

Even assuming that they do, if is then an enormous assumption that the pupil
would ask, except to waste time or to appear 'smart'...or just maybe, I have
only ever been in Inner London state establishments where reading a
newspaper for anything other than the TV and sport would be a miracle!

*you* may find yourself fielding questions

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
about the associated maths. Why was this not known earlier? How
do we know the chaos goes on "for ever"? How can you prove that
something *can't* happen? Why should anyone be interested in the
prime factors of numbers with thousands of digits? Etc. To tell
a child "Go away, you don't want to know that, it's not on the
syllabus" is, IMNVHO, a sacking offence,

No, a "sacking offence" is to wander needlessly away from the task in hand,
ie to teach the syllabus, practice it and, God willing, pass. To discuss
things not in the syllabus is frittering away time that will be lost
forever.

easily on a par with

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
stealing from the common room or lusting after sixth-formers.

My goodness!

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You *must* be able to seize the moment, follow up on something
of interest to the child, or you simply aren't a teacher.

Fine, then I am not a teacher, if being a teacher means wandering off the
point.

[...] You need to be "up to speed"
on things like, say, Sudoku,

What does this have to do with mathematics?

Hmm, interesting viewpoint! I have no opinion on this yet!

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

K. Edgcombe

2005-08-11 09:17:26 UTC

Post by John Porcella
No, a "sacking offence" is to wander needlessly away from the task in hand,
ie to teach the syllabus, practice it and, God willing, pass. To discuss
things not in the syllabus is frittering away time that will be lost
forever.

I am appalled by the idea that anyone is going into teaching with this
sort of approach.

Katy

John Porcella

2005-08-31 14:25:14 UTC

Post by K. Edgcombe

I am appalled by the idea that anyone is going into teaching with this
sort of approach.

If I am hired to get the best results possible out of students, then I am
not afraid to declare myself 'guilty' as charged! What on earth do you
expect from a teacher, that is relevant?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Dr A. N. Walker

2005-08-11 14:12:51 UTC

Post by John Porcella
Maybe, but if it is not relevant to the examination at hand, then it is just
a digression away from the main/sole objective to get people through as best
as possible.

More-or-less as Katy says, every time you say this you just
make it more appalling that you are thinking of teaching as a career.

Post by John Porcella
If the newspapers carry articles

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
on FLT or Mandelbrot,

Even assuming that they do, if is then an enormous assumption that the pupil
would ask, except to waste time or to appear 'smart'... [...]

Most of them may not. But if *one* does, then your response,
and your attitude to it, *will* make a huge difference to that pupil,
and *may* influence other pupils as well.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] To tell
a child "Go away, you don't want to know that, it's not on the
syllabus" is, IMNVHO, a sacking offence,

No, a "sacking offence" is to wander needlessly away from the task in hand,
ie to teach the syllabus, practice it and, God willing, pass.

The task is to teach mathematics, as part of the education of
the young people at the school. "The syllabus" and the assessment of
it are only a small part of that education. I am not joking -- if I
were Education Tsar, I would *close down* any school, college or univ
which espoused your attitude and *sack* any individual teacher with
it. But I don't have that power, so you may well be let loose on the
country's children. Please stay away from maths.

Post by John Porcella
To discuss
things not in the syllabus is frittering away time that will be lost
forever.

You are simply wrong on this. As wrong as a cartload of wrong
things. With attitude.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk

Ellie

2005-08-11 15:14:42 UTC

Post by John Porcella
Maybe, but if it is not relevant to the examination at hand, then it is just
a digression away from the main/sole objective to get people through as best
as possible.

It is sometime since I posted with queries on behalf of my daughter, but I
still read this group with interest.
I have to say, as someone who works with primary children, and as a parent,
I am *horrified* at your attitude.
Education, even in this results-obsessed culture in which we live, *has* to
be about more than force-feeding facts to be regurgitated for exams.

A huge part of the pleasure of working with young children is following
where their minds lead. Obviously there is a timetable and a curriculum to
be followed, and yes, most of the time it must be adhered to. BUT,
sometimes, going off on a tangent, following a lead from elsewhere, produces
the best, most informative and inspiring lessons. The best ones I have
witnessed have been off the cuff and apparantly unrelated to the topic in
hand.

And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary school which
thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
More-or-less as Katy says, every time you say this you just
make it more appalling that you are thinking of teaching as a career.

Post by John Porcella
If the newspapers carry articles

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
on FLT or Mandelbrot,

Even assuming that they do, if is then an enormous assumption that the pupil
would ask, except to waste time or to appear 'smart'... [...]

Maybe they *are* smart...

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Most of them may not. But if *one* does, then your response,
and your attitude to it, *will* make a huge difference to that pupil,
and *may* influence other pupils as well.

I will never forget my 3rd year maths teacher at grammar school who was very
knowledgeable about astronomy. He often would digress from the subject in
hand. I loved his lessons. If you can catch someones attention with one
thing, you may hold it in others.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] To tell
a child "Go away, you don't want to know that, it's not on the
syllabus" is, IMNVHO, a sacking offence,

No, a "sacking offence" is to wander needlessly away from the task in hand,
ie to teach the syllabus, practice it and, God willing, pass.

Or any other subject for that matter.

Post by John Porcella
To discuss
things not in the syllabus is frittering away time that will be lost
forever.

You are simply wrong on this. As wrong as a cartload of wrong
things. With attitude.

Exactly.

--
Ellie

Caroline

2005-08-11 18:47:42 UTC

Post by John Porcella
Maybe, but if it is not relevant to the examination at hand, then it is just
a digression away from the main/sole objective to get people through as best
as possible.

It is sometime since I posted with queries on behalf of my daughter, but I
still read this group with interest.
I have to say, as someone who works with primary children, and as a
parent, I am *horrified* at your attitude.
Education, even in this results-obsessed culture in which we live, *has*
to be about more than force-feeding facts to be regurgitated for exams.
A huge part of the pleasure of working with young children is following
where their minds lead. Obviously there is a timetable and a curriculum to
be followed, and yes, most of the time it must be adhered to. BUT,
sometimes, going off on a tangent, following a lead from elsewhere,
produces the best, most informative and inspiring lessons. The best ones I
have witnessed have been off the cuff and apparantly unrelated to the
topic in hand.
And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary school which
thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
More-or-less as Katy says, every time you say this you just
make it more appalling that you are thinking of teaching as a career.

Post by John Porcella
If the newspapers carry articles

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
on FLT or Mandelbrot,

Even assuming that they do, if is then an enormous assumption that the pupil
would ask, except to waste time or to appear 'smart'... [...]

Maybe they *are* smart...

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Most of them may not. But if *one* does, then your response,
and your attitude to it, *will* make a huge difference to that pupil,
and *may* influence other pupils as well.

I will never forget my 3rd year maths teacher at grammar school who was
very knowledgeable about astronomy. He often would digress from the
subject in hand. I loved his lessons. If you can catch someones attention
with one thing, you may hold it in others.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] To tell
a child "Go away, you don't want to know that, it's not on the
syllabus" is, IMNVHO, a sacking offence,

No, a "sacking offence" is to wander needlessly away from the task in hand,
ie to teach the syllabus, practice it and, God willing, pass.

Or any other subject for that matter.

Post by John Porcella
To discuss
things not in the syllabus is frittering away time that will be lost
forever.

You are simply wrong on this. As wrong as a cartload of wrong
things. With attitude.

Exactly.
--
Ellie

I, like you, Ellie, haven't posted here for years. One of the reasons why my
son has just graduated from Cambridge with a first (BA & MSci) is BECAUSE
his teachers at school were prepared to discuss anything with him - whether
in the syllabus or not. They were also only to pleased to be able to get
away from the syllabus at times :)

Thank goodness that there are still some excellent teachers around.

Caroline

John Porcella

2005-08-31 14:25:16 UTC

Post by Caroline
I, like you, Ellie, haven't posted here for years. One of the reasons why my
son has just graduated from Cambridge with a first (BA & MSci) is BECAUSE
his teachers at school were prepared to discuss anything with him - whether
in the syllabus or not.

No, he got such a good result because he had a good brain and was motivated.
It might also have to do with his middle class background and the type of
school that he went to.

They were also only to pleased to be able to get

Post by Caroline
away from the syllabus at times :)

Don't get me started about the corrupt university system in the UK...

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Caroline

2005-09-01 19:18:39 UTC

Post by Caroline
I, like you, Ellie, haven't posted here for years. One of the reasons why

Post by Caroline
son has just graduated from Cambridge with a first (BA & MSci) is BECAUSE
his teachers at school were prepared to discuss anything with him -

whether

Post by Caroline
in the syllabus or not.

Post by Caroline
away from the syllabus at times :)

Don't get me started about the corrupt university system in the UK...

John

I think that you have missed the point. It is the teachers who are prepared
to discuss subjects outside of the curriculum and elaborate on those in the
curriculum, that develop the real interest in the subject for the pupil.
It's no wonder that pupils are not going on to study sciences, for example,
at higher levels if they are encouraged to fully explore the subject at
school. Pupils should be encouraged to have an enquiring mind, not limited
by the boundaries of the curriculum enforced by pedantic teachers.

Caroline

John Porcella

2005-08-31 14:25:16 UTC

Post by John Porcella
Maybe, but if it is not relevant to the examination at hand, then it is just
a digression away from the main/sole objective to get people through as best
as possible.

It is sometime since I posted with queries on behalf of my daughter, but I
still read this group with interest.
I have to say, as someone who works with primary children, and as a

parent,

Post by Ellie
I am *horrified* at your attitude.
Education, even in this results-obsessed culture in which we live, *has* to
be about more than force-feeding facts to be regurgitated for exams.

Ellie,

If this is what I had written, then I would agree with you! I have NEVER
EVER even suggested that teaching is merely "force-feeding facts to be
regurgitated for exams"! As I wrote elsewhere, for 'A' level, knowledge
counts for perhaps around 25% of the examination, so I would be insane only
to concentrate on this alone. Teaching is about getting results, in this
climate, so teaching has to involve getting pupils/students competent in
aplication, analysis and evaluation also, for many humanities type subjects.

Post by Ellie
A huge part of the pleasure of working with young children is following
where their minds lead. Obviously there is a timetable and a curriculum to
be followed, and yes, most of the time it must be adhered to.

Fine.

BUT,

Post by Ellie
sometimes, going off on a tangent, following a lead from elsewhere, produces
the best, most informative and inspiring lessons. The best ones I have
witnessed have been off the cuff and apparantly unrelated to the topic in
hand.

Perhaps you and your pupils enjoyed those unprepared for classes (!), but I
left wondering whether time would have been better spent sticking to what
you had prepared (if anything) that was directly relevant to getting them
through their examinations?

Post by Ellie
And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary school which
thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.

But did the students maximise their examination results potential?

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
More-or-less as Katy says, every time you say this you just
make it more appalling that you are thinking of teaching as a career.

If Katy has misunderstood what I have written, then you would both be right
to be appalled, but I declare myself innocent of your initial charge at the
top of this post.

Post by John Porcella
If the newspapers carry articles

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
on FLT or Mandelbrot,

Even assuming that they do, if is then an enormous assumption that the pupil
would ask, except to waste time or to appear 'smart'... [...]

Maybe they *are* smart...

Maybe they are, but they can show off irrelevant knowledge when it is
relevant, rather than wasting the time of the whole class, including the
teacher.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Most of them may not. But if *one* does, then your response,
and your attitude to it, *will* make a huge difference to that pupil,
and *may* influence other pupils as well.

The real skill is to catch and hold the pupils' attention with what is
relevant, not with what is irrelevant.

Post by Ellie
Or any other subject for that matter.

Do not send me your children if you do not want me to stick to the relevant.

Post by John Porcella
To discuss
things not in the syllabus is frittering away time that will be lost
forever.

You are simply wrong on this. As wrong as a cartload of wrong
things. With attitude.

Exactly.

How is Andy correct for his false statement?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Stuart Williams

2005-08-31 20:15:30 UTC

Post by Ellie
BUT,
sometimes, going off on a tangent, following a lead from elsewhere, produces
the best, most informative and inspiring lessons. The best ones I have
witnessed have been off the cuff and apparantly unrelated to the topic in
hand.

Perhaps you and your pupils enjoyed those unprepared for classes (!),

Well, one might say your definition of "unprepared" is revealing. Good
teachers are ready for anything. You seem to me to be terrified of
anything you perceive to be a digression, presumably because it takes you
outside your (very narrow) "comfort zone".

Post by John Porcella
but I
left wondering whether time would have been better spent sticking to what
you had prepared (if anything) that was directly relevant to getting them
through their examinations?

And here's another of your assumptions that everyone else on this group
has questioned - that the only legitimate purpose of schools and teachers
is to get pupils through exams. You seem immune to the suggestion that
this is only part of their function. (And by the way, a vivid
illustration of a problem you have always had - an inability to debate:
all you do is reiterate your position without any kind of engagement with
a different viewpoint.)

Post by Ellie
And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary school which
thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.

But did the students maximise their examination results potential?

Her point is that, yes they did - and not only the in the immediate term,
but in the long term too: you're not just teaching people to tackle A
level - the skills and ideas (and enthusiasms) that you inculcate (or
inspire) in them will serve them well through BA, MA and PhD (not to
mention the University of Life).

"Teaching is about getting results, in this climate" you say: so
presumably you can imagine other climates, other philosophies of
teaching. Are you simply a time-server, with no beliefs of your own, or
is it the case that you temperamentally agree with the DfES's current
obsession with maximising results? In other words, are you still, deep
down, an accountant?

SW

John Porcella

2005-09-30 01:42:50 UTC

Perhaps you and your pupils enjoyed those unprepared for classes (!),

Hardly. I would be happy to digress and teach them everything that I know,
but there is neither the time, and I would not be doing my job.

And here's another of your assumptions that everyone else on this group
has questioned - that the only legitimate purpose of schools and teachers
is to get pupils through exams.

'Legitimate' is a good word, if not exactly the right one! A teacher is
contractually obliged to teach what the head/principal has ordained.

You seem immune to the suggestion that

Post by Stuart Williams
this is only part of their function.

I take that as a compliment! Teaching is the main part of the job, I agree.

(And by the way, a vivid

Post by Stuart Williams
all you do is reiterate your position without any kind of engagement with
a different viewpoint.)

Nonsense! I refute other arguments or assertions when presented to me.

If you mean that I simply collapse in a heap and agree with the first person
or argument that is contrary to mine, then you are mistaken.

Post by Ellie
And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary school which
thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.

But did the students maximise their examination results potential?

Her point is that, yes they did

Really! I wish I could be so sure!

- and not only the in the immediate term,

Post by Stuart Williams
but in the long term too: you're not just teaching people to tackle A
level - the skills and ideas (and enthusiasms) that you inculcate (or
inspire) in them will serve them well through BA, MA and PhD (not to
mention the University of Life).

If it can be done whilst staying "on topic" then I have no objection at all.
Wise words...

so

Post by Stuart Williams
presumably you can imagine other climates, other philosophies of
teaching.

Yes. As far as I know, English schoolchildren are the most examined in
Europe, so the emphasis has to be to do one's very best to maximise
potential in those examinations. There is barely time for anything
else...in fact there is not really time to do the modules taught full
justice.

Are you simply a time-server,

Who is not?

with no beliefs of your own,

I have plenty to beliefs, as you can see for yourself by the furore that I
have inadvertantly caused by stating what I thought was the bleedin'
obvious.

or

Post by Stuart Williams
is it the case that you temperamentally agree with the DfES's current
obsession with maximising results?

Hmm...good question! The thing is that we are where we are now, with
school/college pupils/students heavily and repeatedly examined. As a
consequence teachers have to adopt strategies that aid their students to
succeed in this regime. Now, if there were some other non-examined regime,
then I think that I am flexible enough to be able to cope with change.

In other words, are you still, deep

Post by Stuart Williams
down, an accountant?

Definitely! Thanks!

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Ellie

2005-09-30 20:11:21 UTC

<snip>

Post by Ellie
And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary school

which

Post by Ellie
thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.

But did the students maximise their examination results potential?

Her point is that, yes they did

Really! I wish I could be so sure!

Talk about resurrection!

And *I* made the point, and *I* am sure. If you give any credence to league
tables, the school is rather close to the top for both GCSE and A-Level
every year.

<further snip>

I think any continuation of this conversation would probably be pointless.

--
Ellie

John Porcella

2005-10-08 23:24:45 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
<snip>

Post by Ellie
And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary school

which

Post by Ellie
thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.

But did the students maximise their examination results potential?

Her point is that, yes they did

Really! I wish I could be so sure!

Talk about resurrection!

I did not realise that there was a statute of limitation.

Post by Stuart Williams
And *I* made the point, and *I* am sure. If you give any credence to league
tables, the school is rather close to the top for both GCSE and A-Level
every year.

All that the tables might be showing is that the intake is strong, hence the
strong performance. The tables do not show how much the teachers have
added.

Post by Stuart Williams
<further snip>
I think any continuation of this conversation would probably be pointless.

Your choice...

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Ellie

2005-10-09 22:01:45 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
<snip>

Post by Ellie
And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary school

which

Post by Ellie
thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.

But did the students maximise their examination results potential?

Her point is that, yes they did

Really! I wish I could be so sure!

Talk about resurrection!

I did not realise that there was a statute of limitation.

It was an observation.

Post by Stuart Williams
And *I* made the point, and *I* am sure. If you give any credence to

league

Post by Stuart Williams
tables, the school is rather close to the top for both GCSE and A-Level
every year.

All that the tables might be showing is that the intake is strong, hence the
strong performance. The tables do not show how much the teachers have
added.

But they do. It's called 'Value Added'.

Post by Stuart Williams
<further snip>
I think any continuation of this conversation would probably be pointless.

Your choice...

<sigh>
Just couldn't resist...

--
Ellie

John Porcella

2005-10-12 22:14:15 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
<snip>

Post by Ellie
And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary school

which

Post by Ellie
thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.

But did the students maximise their examination results potential?

Her point is that, yes they did

Really! I wish I could be so sure!

Talk about resurrection!

I did not realise that there was a statute of limitation.

It was an observation.

So what? Is that meant to excuse it?

Post by Stuart Williams
And *I* made the point, and *I* am sure. If you give any credence to

league

Post by Stuart Williams
tables, the school is rather close to the top for both GCSE and A-Level
every year.

All that the tables might be showing is that the intake is strong, hence the
strong performance. The tables do not show how much the teachers have
added.

But they do. It's called 'Value Added'.

I know. I was doubting that much value was added. If you can provide a
link to the tables, then I can examine them.

Post by Stuart Williams
<further snip>
I think any continuation of this conversation would probably be pointless.

Your choice...

<sigh>
Just couldn't resist...

Resistance is futile.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Ellie

2005-10-12 23:49:13 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
<snip>

Post by Ellie
And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary

school

Post by John Porcella
which

Post by Ellie
thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.

But did the students maximise their examination results potential?

Her point is that, yes they did

Really! I wish I could be so sure!

Talk about resurrection!

I did not realise that there was a statute of limitation.

It was an observation.

So what? Is that meant to excuse it?

Excuse it? I wasn't trying to excuse anything.
What is the excuse for your rudeness?

Post by Stuart Williams
And *I* made the point, and *I* am sure. If you give any credence to

league

Post by Stuart Williams
tables, the school is rather close to the top for both GCSE and A-Level
every year.

All that the tables might be showing is that the intake is strong,
hence
the
strong performance. The tables do not show how much the teachers have
added.

But they do. It's called 'Value Added'.

I know. I was doubting that much value was added. If you can provide a
link to the tables, then I can examine them.

I see. I have to provide proof. You do not choose to believe me. Your
perogative.

Post by Stuart Williams
<further snip>
I think any continuation of this conversation would probably be pointless.

Your choice...

<sigh>
Just couldn't resist...

Resistance is futile.

Not entirely.

--
Ellie

John Porcella

2005-10-25 09:30:19 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
<snip>

Post by Ellie
And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary

school

Post by John Porcella
which

Post by Ellie
thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.

But did the students maximise their examination results potential?

Her point is that, yes they did

Really! I wish I could be so sure!

Talk about resurrection!

I did not realise that there was a statute of limitation.

It was an observation.

So what? Is that meant to excuse it?

Excuse it? I wasn't trying to excuse anything.
What is the excuse for your rudeness?

What rudeness are you referring to?

Post by Stuart Williams
And *I* made the point, and *I* am sure. If you give any credence to

league

Post by Stuart Williams
tables, the school is rather close to the top for both GCSE and A-Level
every year.

All that the tables might be showing is that the intake is strong,
hence
the
strong performance. The tables do not show how much the teachers have
added.

But they do. It's called 'Value Added'.

I know. I was doubting that much value was added. If you can provide a
link to the tables, then I can examine them.

I see. I have to provide proof. You do not choose to believe me. Your
perogative.

What are you basing your assertions on other than gut instinct? You were
the one who insisted, did you not, that there were tables for value
added...I am curious to see them!

Post by Stuart Williams
<further snip>
I think any continuation of this conversation would probably be pointless.

Your choice...

<sigh>
Just couldn't resist...

Resistance is futile.

Not entirely.

Tell that to the Borg.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Stuart Williams

2005-10-10 10:34:00 UTC

Ellie said And thank the lord my youngest daughter went to a secondary
school which thrived on letting minds enquire and expand.
Porcella asked But did the students maximise their examination results
potential?

I said Her point is that, yes they did

Porcella exclaimed Really! I wish I could be so sure!
Ellie said And *I* made the point, and *I* am sure. If you give any
credence to league tables, the school is rather close to the top for both
GCSE and A-Level every year.

John then made the bird-brained assertion that this says nothing about
value added,

Post by John Porcella
All that the tables might be showing is that the intake is strong, hence the
strong performance. The tables do not show how much the teachers have
added.

which was never the point at issue: Ellie was saying that the good
teaching her daughter received was not in any way at the expense of her
grades:

John obviously can't accept this, since he is wedded to a philosophy of
education that makes Gradgrind look whimsical.

Stuart Williams

John Porcella

2005-10-12 22:22:55 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
which was never the point at issue: Ellie was saying that the good
teaching her daughter received was not in any way at the expense of her
John obviously can't accept this,

Correct! I really do not believe that teachers in the secondary school
sector have sufficient time to waste it in class. The only way that they
can waste time and still get good results is if the intake is bright and/or
the intake has extra support from tutors or parents.

since he is wedded to a philosophy of

Post by Stuart Williams
education that makes Gradgrind look whimsical.

My favourite actor is Charles Bronson. He was in a film called "The
Streetfighter" in the UK, and "Hard Times" in the USA.

Gradgrind was not entirely wrong! Before people can show off the higher
levels of cognitive skills they need some basis of knowledge, such as facts.
I like the way that many modern 'A' levels test this and the higher skills
too.

Incidentally, I remember reading "Hard Times" (Dickens, not Bronson version)
at school and could not see what the teacher's problem was with Gradgrind.
Obviously a socialist like Dickens was bound to make a caricature of the
political views that he did not agree with.

Another incidentally...I live on the site of a poor house/work house which
apparently inspired Dickens in one of novels ("Bleak House", I think, but I
could easily be wrong).

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Ellie

2005-10-12 23:52:04 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
which was never the point at issue: Ellie was saying that the good
teaching her daughter received was not in any way at the expense of her
John obviously can't accept this,

Correct! I really do not believe that teachers in the secondary school
sector have sufficient time to waste it in class.

There is never going to be any agreement here. If you consider educating
children beyond the confines of the NC a waste of time, then we will have to
agree to disagree.
I am just very glad my children are beyond school age and I despair for the
education of my as yet unborn grandchildren.

--
Ellie

Stuart Williams

2005-10-13 18:20:46 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
which was never the point at issue: Ellie was saying that the good
teaching her daughter received was not in any way at the expense of her
John obviously can't accept this,

Correct! I really do not believe that teachers in the secondary school
sector have sufficient time to waste it in class.

Be fair: Porcella doesn't know it yet, but he is in a tiny tiny minority:
most teachers recognise that the question "is it on the syllabus?" is a
sign of a closed and stupid mind. John is, let's remember, a "rather
stupid man" (Dr M Huntbach) who has as yet no significant experience of
teaching. What disturbs me more than anything, is that through all the
years of his dreary contributions to this group, he has displayed just
that - a closed and ultimately sterile mind. I sincerely wish his PGCE
course had failed him, but we're desperately short of Economics teachers.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to try to stretch our pupils
despite the banalities of the syllabus.

Stuart Williams

John Porcella

2005-10-25 09:30:18 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
most teachers recognise that the question "is it on the syllabus?" is a
sign of a closed and stupid mind.

It is a sign of somebody who is determined to maximise the examination
performance of the class...by sticking to what is relevant.

John is, let's remember, a "rather

Post by Stuart Williams
stupid man" (Dr M Huntbach) who has as yet no significant experience of
teaching.

If teaching, with success, since 1998. in FE and HE and in both state and
private sectors, is "no significant experience" then fine!

What disturbs me more than anything, is that through all the

Post by Stuart Williams
years of his dreary contributions to this group, he has displayed just
that - a closed and ultimately sterile mind. I sincerely wish his PGCE
course had failed him, but we're desperately short of Economics teachers.

True! Mind you, schools are getting around this by dropping economics. 8-(

However, it tends to be replaced with business studies. 8-)

Post by Stuart Williams
Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to try to stretch our pupils
despite the banalities of the syllabus.

Stuart, the difference that I can see between us is that I stick to the
confines of the syllabus (otherwise where would one stop?), whereas you are
unhappy with it and rebel by teaching the irrelevant. If you are unhappy
with the syllabus, campaign for something else.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Dr A. N. Walker

2005-10-25 15:47:44 UTC

In article <djktv9$ir0$***@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
John Porcella <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
[SW:]

Post by Stuart Williams
most teachers recognise that the question "is it on the syllabus?" is a
sign of a closed and stupid mind.

It is a sign of somebody who is determined to maximise the examination
performance of the class

This is *perhaps* an appropriate aim in a "crammer", where you
are being paid very precisely to rescue someone who has, for whatever
reason, done badly and now wishes to get good grades. In schools more
generally, and certainly throughout HE, it shows a confusion between
education and assessment. ...

Post by John Porcella
...by sticking to what is relevant.

... But even within the confines of "assessment", you are
still wrong, and still someone who I would [strongly] prefer not to
be allowed anywhere near the classroom. Does it not occur to you
that students who are *interested* in something will do better than
those who aren't? And that not responding to a question because
"it's not on the syllabus" is one of the best ways of all of turning
off the students, and destroying whatever interest they may have in
your subject? Their interest *makes* that topic relevant, syllabus
or no syllabus.

Post by Stuart Williams
Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to try to stretch our pupils
despite the banalities of the syllabus.

You are like a pianist whose sole objective is to play the
notes that Bach or Mozart or whoever wrote. If you do that, you get
a plodding, indeed dire, performance, and you certainly won't persuade
your audience either that you are competent or that Bach is a composer
whose music is worth listening to. It's the printed notes -- *any*
printed notes -- that are banal, and changing them won't improve Bach.
You need to *interpret* the notes to make them interesting. That is
what Stuart, and any competent teacher/pianist, does. The syllabus,
or the printed page of music, is a *framework* around which to teach,
not the be-all and end-all of education. Stuart is not rebelling,
he's teaching.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk

John Porcella

2005-10-29 15:19:13 UTC

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[SW:]

Post by Stuart Williams
most teachers recognise that the question "is it on the syllabus?" is a
sign of a closed and stupid mind.

It is a sign of somebody who is determined to maximise the examination
performance of the class

This is *perhaps* an appropriate aim in a "crammer", where you
are being paid very precisely to rescue someone who has, for whatever
reason, done badly and now wishes to get good grades.

But, why should examination-focussed teaching be the preserve of the
crammers? Why not teach to the examination to begin with in the schools and
colleges, to render the crammers less relevant?

In schools more

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
generally, and certainly throughout HE, it shows a confusion between
education and assessment. ...

I take your point.

Post by John Porcella
...by sticking to what is relevant.

Not necessarily! I want them to be interested in the relevant, not the
irrelevant. If I am teaching, say, business studies, then I do not want the
student to want me to talke passionately about Arsenal FC and what Wenger
can do to close the gap at the top of the table!

And that not responding to a question because

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
"it's not on the syllabus" is one of the best ways of all of turning
off the students, and destroying whatever interest they may have in
your subject?

Discussion can continue after class, or the student can pay for private
tuition.

Their interest *makes* that topic relevant, syllabus

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
or no syllabus.

But what if what interests them is irrelevant?

If the student is indeed interested in the subject matter, but it is
off-syllabus, then a good teacher will switch that interest towards the
topic in the lesson plan.

Post by Stuart Williams
Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to try to stretch our pupils
despite the banalities of the syllabus.

You are like a pianist whose sole objective is to play the
notes that Bach or Mozart or whoever wrote.

Not really! I am not teaching other people's classes as they would want it
taught; I am teaching what I have to teach my way (which reminds me to
investigate Sinatra at the London Palladium in February).

If you do that, you get

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
a plodding, indeed dire, performance, and you certainly won't persuade
your audience either that you are competent or that Bach is a composer
whose music is worth listening to.

As your analogy was false, I have no need to agree or disagree with you.

It's the printed notes -- *any*

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
printed notes -- that are banal, and changing them won't improve Bach.

As your analogy was false, I have no need to agree or disagree with you.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You need to *interpret* the notes to make them interesting.

If by that you mean that the syllabus should be taught in a way which keeps
students interested and motivated, then, yes, of course! You would be
stating the extremely obvious.

That is

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
what Stuart, and any competent teacher/pianist, does. The syllabus,
or the printed page of music, is a *framework* around which to teach,

Then, my dear doctor, we are in agreement. All that I am stating is that
the teacher should stick to the framework and not go wandering outside. I
am assuming that time is somewhat limited in the classroom.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
not the be-all and end-all of education. Stuart is not rebelling,
he's teaching.

If he is teaching as he wants me to, then he is wasting his students' time,
if their wish is to pass as well as possible.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Stuart Williams

2005-10-30 10:12:34 UTC

Post by John Porcella
That is

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
what Stuart, and any competent teacher/pianist, does. The syllabus,
or the printed page of music, is a *framework* around which to teach,

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
not the be-all and end-all of education. Stuart is not rebelling,
he's teaching.

If he is teaching as he wants me to, then he is wasting his students' time,
if their wish is to pass as well as possible.

But what makes you think it's impossible to maximise achievement while at
the same time going beyond the confines of the syllabus? Indeed, I think
that the latter improves the chances of achieving the former. Just to
give one example: nowhere on the OCR syllabus does it mention the income
and substitution effects of a price change. Am I wasting my pupils' time
by teaching it to them? - in my view I'm improving on the syllabus!

Here's another thought: what if the syllabuses were deliberately
"underspecified" because the exam boards know that (good) teachers will
fill in the gaps and thereby improve pupils' overall performance?

I'll email you two (unsolicited) testimonials which confirm the rightness
of my case.

SW

John Porcella

2005-11-08 16:16:01 UTC

Post by John Porcella
That is

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
what Stuart, and any competent teacher/pianist, does. The syllabus,
or the printed page of music, is a *framework* around which to teach,

Then, my dear doctor, we are in agreement. All that I am stating is that
the teacher should stick to the framework and not go wandering outside.

Post by John Porcella
am assuming that time is somewhat limited in the classroom.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
not the be-all and end-all of education. Stuart is not rebelling,
he's teaching.

If he is teaching as he wants me to, then he is wasting his students' time,
if their wish is to pass as well as possible.

But what makes you think it's impossible to maximise achievement while at
the same time going beyond the confines of the syllabus?

For every minute that is beyond the confines of the syllabus is a minute not
used in sticking to the specification. There are no marks guaranteed for
going beyond the syllabus, though there might be.

Indeed, I think

Post by Stuart Williams
that the latter improves the chances of achieving the former. Just to
give one example: nowhere on the OCR syllabus does it mention the income
and substitution effects of a price change. Am I wasting my pupils' time
by teaching it to them? - in my view I'm improving on the syllabus!

Perhaps you are, Stuart! But nobody is asking you to and if OCR wanted to
ask questions that refer to this, it would have included it. So long as you
are not sacrificing time spent on known parts of the syllabus to teach the
irrelevant (for examination purposes) then you might just get away with it.

Post by Stuart Williams
Here's another thought: what if the syllabuses were deliberately
"underspecified" because the exam boards know that (good) teachers will
fill in the gaps and thereby improve pupils' overall performance?

Why would an examination board do something as silly as that?

Post by Stuart Williams
I'll email you two (unsolicited) testimonials which confirm the rightness
of my case.

Received with thanks.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

John Porcella

2005-10-25 09:30:17 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
which was never the point at issue: Ellie was saying that the good
teaching her daughter received was not in any way at the expense of her
John obviously can't accept this,

Correct! I really do not believe that teachers in the secondary school
sector have sufficient time to waste it in class.

There is never going to be any agreement here. If you consider educating
children beyond the confines of the NC a waste of time, then we will have to
agree to disagree.

I cannot disagree with you.

Post by Ellie
I am just very glad my children are beyond school age and I despair for the
education of my as yet unborn grandchildren.

8-)

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

John Porcella

2005-10-25 09:30:19 UTC

Post by Stuart Williams
which was never the point at issue: Ellie was saying that the good
teaching her daughter received was not in any way at the expense of her
John obviously can't accept this,

Correct! I really do not believe that teachers in the secondary school
sector have sufficient time to waste it in class.

There is never going to be any agreement here. If you consider educating
children beyond the confines of the NC a waste of time, then we will have to
agree to disagree.

I do not teach NC subjects, so I cannot really comment on whether it is a
waste of time or not.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

John Porcella

2005-08-31 14:25:15 UTC

Post by John Porcella
Maybe, but if it is not relevant to the examination at hand, then it is just
a digression away from the main/sole objective to get people through as best
as possible.

More-or-less as Katy says, every time you say this you just
make it more appalling that you are thinking of teaching as a career.

What nonsense are you typing here? Do you want me to fritter time away in
class with discussion of the irrelevant? Or would you prefer teachers to
stick to the subject at hand? I know which answer I prefer.

Post by John Porcella
If the newspapers carry articles

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
on FLT or Mandelbrot,

Even assuming that they do, if is then an enormous assumption that the pupil
would ask, except to waste time or to appear 'smart'... [...]

Most of them may not. But if *one* does, then your response,
and your attitude to it, *will* make a huge difference to that pupil,
and *may* influence other pupils as well.

If that day ever occurs, then I shall deal with it at that time, though I
doubt I shall ever have to face such questions in inner London schools.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The task is to teach mathematics, as part of the education of
the young people at the school.

No, it is to teach the mathematics syllabus at hand, not the same as
teaching mathematics generally.

"The syllabus" and the assessment of

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
it are only a small part of that education.

Maybe, but it is the only relevant bit.

I am not joking -- if I

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
were Education Tsar, I would *close down* any school, college or univ
which espoused your attitude

But you are not, thank goodness! Luckily for you I am not such a Czar,
since you would be collecting your P45 for such an attitude! 8-))

and *sack* any individual teacher with

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
it. But I don't have that power, so you may well be let loose on the
country's children. Please stay away from maths.

That is up to the schools that might hire me.

Post by John Porcella
To discuss
things not in the syllabus is frittering away time that will be lost
forever.

You are simply wrong on this.

How am I wrong? For teaching what is relevant and sticking to that? If you
have time to go awandering in your classes, then may I suggest that you
shorten your classes and spare your students?

As wrong as a cartload of wrong

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
things.

Really?

With attitude.

??

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Stuart Williams

2005-08-16 13:34:59 UTC

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You seem not to accept or understand the educational roles
associated with being a teacher. *You* are the person the young
mathematician [or whatever] is looking up to as an expert, as the
fount of mathematical knowledge.
*you* may find yourself fielding questions
about the associated maths. Why was this not known earlier? How
do we know the chaos goes on "for ever"? How can you prove that
something *can't* happen? Why should anyone be interested in the
prime factors of numbers with thousands of digits? Etc. To tell
a child "Go away, you don't want to know that, it's not on the
syllabus" is, IMNVHO, a sacking offence,

and Porcella replied

Porcella, for God's sake, get a job in a crammer, not a school. There, at
least, your total lack of understanding of the concept of education will
pass largely unremarked.

Stuart Williams

John Porcella

2005-08-05 00:53:28 UTC

Post by jrg
I believe John's question is "How come a Maths teacher needs to read
around their subject in order to successfully teach?"

Nope! I never asked such a question!

However, now that you have posed the question, it is making me wonder too!

. I must admit, I

Post by jrg
too am surprised - I can't imagine there are many new research
breakthroughs in maths that have implications for what one learns at
GCSE/A-level?

I suppose that stuff may be added to the syllabus which the maths teacher
does not know at all or well, but the way things are going I imagine things
are removed rather than added.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

John Porcella

2005-08-05 00:51:29 UTC

[...] You'd be better off teaching Maths rather than Economics if [...]

No he wouldn't. [...]

Fine, but why not?

Under SW's hypothesis, I wouldn't want you teaching anything
in any school or any subject. Whether that hypothesis actually applies
to you is another matter, of course.

You might state that the alternate hypothesis applies!

But economics as a school subject

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
is largely confined to older pupils and to specialists who may possibly
be able to overcome the handicap of a rotten teacher -- eg by doing the
reading around that you, hypothetically, are not.

There is an academy school opening locally in a couple of years which wants
to start teaching business studies in the first year (Year Seven)! I
thought that qualifying to teach BS and Econ. would mean that I would
probably only have to teach the older students.

Maths OTOH is taught

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
throughout all age groups, and to those who need it for other subjects
such as physics, CS and engineering, so a rotten maths teacher is a much
more serious disaster. [And, sadly, a disaster that is already much too
common.]

Rotten teachers are not good for any subject, but I understand your logic.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

wooks

2005-07-31 13:41:00 UTC

Post by b***@yahoo.com
Rumours abound that the *average* Big-4 partner pulls in 500k a year -
obviously many earn less, some earn much more.

He's right. The partner who wrote my reference is on that sort of money.

jrg

2005-07-31 14:22:31 UTC

Post by wooks

Post by b***@yahoo.com
Rumours abound that the *average* Big-4 partner pulls in 500k a year -
obviously many earn less, some earn much more.

He's right. The partner who wrote my reference is on that sort of money.

Heh, I genuinely find your efforts to belittle me amusing.

James

wooks

2005-07-31 15:40:10 UTC

Post by wooks

Post by b***@yahoo.com
Rumours abound that the *average* Big-4 partner pulls in 500k a year -
obviously many earn less, some earn much more.

He's right. The partner who wrote my reference is on that sort of money.

Heh, I genuinely find your efforts to belittle me amusing.
James

You'll probably conclude when you look back later that that wasn't the
intent of my comment.

Anyway it's interesting to note that that snippet of information has
led you to so rapidly revise the aspirations you spoke about in the
other thread.

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-07-26 09:06:43 UTC

Post by Zach
I'm studying Natural Sciences (fairly general subject, although quite
analytical) at Cambridge and have two years to go. I dont really have a
'passion' for any particular field and I dont want to work in research.
I dont come from a very well off family and so my primary aim is to
earn as much as possible working reasonable hours (nothing like
investment banking). So what offers the best salary?

Teaching.

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

Mark Thakkar

2005-07-26 11:05:46 UTC

Zach,

Post by Zach
I'm studying Natural Sciences (fairly general subject, although quite
analytical) at Cambridge and have two years to go. I dont really have
a 'passion' for any particular field and I dont want to work in
research.
I dont come from a very well off family and so my primary aim is to
earn as much as possible working reasonable hours (nothing like
investment banking). So what offers the best salary?

For a damned good salary without ludicrous hours, you might want to look
into actuarial work. It pays well because not everyone can do it, but
here's a rough idea of the difficulty involved: if accountancy consists
of addition and subtraction, actuarial work extends to multiplication
and division. (Which is a facetious way of saying that, despite what
some say, you needn't worry if you're not a top-notch mathematician.)

And you'd get the added bonus of being able to work out the probability
that people you don't like are going to die within the next N years.

Mark.

geletine

2005-07-26 11:41:56 UTC

How much would you pay for someone to save your life?
Many would answer anything, life is priceless.
One reason there is alot of money in Medicine.
Only recently of course, the old days of a Dr visiting Sick patients in
there home without pay are long gone.

Accountants earn alot , due to the fact and hope there save you alot in
taxes, otherwise your just paying the accountant instead of more tax,
there have a lot of clients too.

More you study does not always equal more money, Look at the Buisness
world, Managers can earn too much , there boss people about , you
proberly know what i mean.

I don't know to much about what a scientists or engineer earns, after
all there have a manager above them, who dictates that accordingly to
the market.

Mark Thakkar

2005-07-26 12:06:53 UTC

Geletine,

Post by geletine
How much would you pay for someone to save your life?
Many would answer anything, life is priceless.
One reason there is alot of money in Medicine.
Only recently of course, the old days of a Dr visiting Sick patients
in there home without pay are long gone.

As far as I know, medicine has *always* been a lucrative business, for
precisely the reason you give - if anything, it's less well-paid these
days, and it certainly has nothing like the social status it used to.

Mark.

--
- Doctor, Doctor, you have to help me out!
- Certainly. Which way did you come in?

John Porcella

2005-07-27 00:33:14 UTC

Post by geletine
How much would you pay for someone to save your life?
Many would answer anything, life is priceless.
One reason there is alot of money in Medicine.

Not really! It is because the supply of doctors was kept down for many
years. I am not wholly convinced that all doctors need to be quite as
bright as many are.

Post by geletine
Only recently of course, the old days of a Dr visiting Sick patients in
there home without pay are long gone.
Accountants earn alot ,

Really? How come I never did despite having all of the qualifications and
experience?

This might have been the case once, but there is over-supply, as in law.

due to the fact and hope there save you alot in

Post by geletine
taxes, otherwise your just paying the accountant instead of more tax,
there have a lot of clients too.

Nope! Practice does not pay that well, usually, as clients are reluctant to
pay and there is much competition.

Post by geletine
More you study does not always equal more money,

True.

Look at the Buisness

Post by geletine
world, Managers can earn too much , there boss people about , you
proberly know what i mean.

Actually, I do not know what you meant by that!

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

geletine

2005-07-27 09:08:13 UTC

How were the supply of doctors be kept down?
University refusuals?

There proberly are poor doctors too, due to the funding not available,
not just accountants.

Depends where you live, in a big city, you could refuse clients or just
not give in to there low prices.

Being a manager involves or getting someone to organise roles,
positions etc.
Alot of the time the employers undertaking the roles are doing a lot
harder work than there managers, who are just concerned that profit is
being made, weather you still have your job next week, is no real
concern to them.

Manufacturing is proberly a good example, the designers, engineers,
workforce etc, get a wage according to experience and qualification
which never compares to the managers income. Thats why engineers setup
there own company, to combat that..

John Porcella

2005-07-27 22:44:35 UTC

Post by geletine
How were the supply of doctors be kept down?
University refusuals?

The government would only fund so many each year.

Post by geletine
There proberly are poor doctors too, due to the funding not available,
not just accountants.

???

Post by geletine
Depends where you live, in a big city, you could refuse clients or just
not give in to there low prices.

Clients are not stupid, they shop around, and in big cities there are plenty
of suppliers.

Post by geletine
Being a manager involves or getting someone to organise roles,
positions etc.
Alot of the time the employers undertaking the roles are doing a lot
harder work than there managers, who are just concerned that profit is
being made, weather you still have your job next week, is no real
concern to them.

Really? I think that managers remain human and some/many must be affected
by making tough choices.

Post by geletine
Manufacturing is proberly a good example, the designers, engineers,
workforce etc, get a wage according to experience and qualification
which never compares to the managers income. Thats why engineers setup
there own company, to combat that..

Really?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Dr A. N. Walker

2005-07-27 09:54:48 UTC

[...] I am not wholly convinced that all doctors need to be quite as
bright as many are.

This is a relatively recent phenomenon. "In my day", if
you did "science", you took maths and physics plus either fmaths
or chemistry; unless you couldn't do maths, in which case you
took biology instead and went into medicine. But biology went up
the intellectual scale thanks to DNA/genetics/TV.

Post by geletine
Only recently of course, the old days of a Dr visiting Sick patients in
there home without pay are long gone.

You can thank the NHS for that ...!

Post by geletine
Accountants earn alot ,

Really? How come I never did despite having all of the qualifications and
experience?

No comment on that. But (a) it is still the most common
career for mathematics graduates [and even more so in the more
general sense, inc banking and actuarial work]; and (b) maths
is the highest "value added" subject, according to a survey --
ie, by age 25 or so, maths graduates are the highest paid on
average. You might possibly think that (a,b) are connected.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk

John Porcella

2005-07-27 22:49:06 UTC

[...] I am not wholly convinced that all doctors need to be quite as
bright as many are.

Maths and FM? In my day, you had to be severely clever to attempt both!

Post by geletine
Only recently of course, the old days of a Dr visiting Sick patients in
there home without pay are long gone.

You can thank the NHS for that ...!

Heh-heh!

Post by geletine
Accountants earn alot ,

Really? How come I never did despite having all of the qualifications and
experience?

No comment on that.

None needed!

But (a) it is still the most common

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
career for mathematics graduates

I am surprised! There is this myth that you need to be good at maths to
become a professional accountant, so maybe I should not be.

[and even more so in the more

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
general sense, inc banking and actuarial work]; and (b) maths
is the highest "value added" subject, according to a survey --
ie, by age 25 or so, maths graduates are the highest paid on
average.

I have read this before, or similar.

You might possibly think that (a,b) are connected.

Not sure what to think! Perhaps they are unconnected, or if they are, the
better accountancy roles go to the mathematicians?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Dr A. N. Walker

2005-07-28 09:50:39 UTC

Post by John Porcella
Maths and FM? In my day, you had to be severely clever to attempt both!

My day too ....

IIRC, around 3500 people do a full FMaths A-level each year,
and [wild but somewhat informed guess] 6000 do it at AS. Quite a
lot of those will be going on to do things like physics, computing,
elec eng, ..., but perhaps half will be going on to maths courses of
one sort or another. If so, then around 40% of maths students will
have FMaths, and another 25% or so will have it at AS. Of course,
they are heavily concentrated in the top univs.

[...]

Post by John Porcella
Not sure what to think! Perhaps they are unconnected, or if they are, the
better accountancy roles go to the mathematicians?

We get a flying start. Firstly, maths students in general
are [obviously] numerate, [less obviously] literate and IT-skilled,
and they are perceived to have analytic and logical skills. But
also nearly all have done enough stats modules to gain exemptions
from some of the accountancy/actuarial exams. In our case, these
modules are pre-negotiated/validated with the institutes; I expect
most top univs have something similar.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk

jrg

2005-07-27 14:06:00 UTC

Post by geletine
Accountants earn alot ,

Really? How come I never did despite having all of the qualifications and
experience?
This might have been the case once, but there is over-supply, as in law.

I guess there are different kinds of qualifications and experience. I
know people who have gone to work for big accountancy firms through
graduate training schemes and earnt lots and lots of money. Perhaps
your qualifications/experience were not gained with major international
accountancy firms?

In reply to the original poster, my anecdotal experience is that
acountancy, banking, and consultancy are the three standard graduate
careers that people do if they want lots of money, job security etc.

James

John Porcella

2005-07-27 22:52:23 UTC

Post by geletine
Accountants earn alot ,

Really? How come I never did despite having all of the qualifications and
experience?
This might have been the case once, but there is over-supply, as in law.

I guess there are different kinds of qualifications and experience. I
know people who have gone to work for big accountancy firms through
graduate training schemes and earnt lots and lots of money.

What sort of sums do you consider "lots and lots"?

Perhaps

Post by jrg
your qualifications/experience were not gained with major international
accountancy firms?

You are right! I gained my experience in a tiny accountancy firm, a
government agency, national book retailer and an educational charity, plus
other bits and bobs. However, my accountancy qualifications are as valid as
anybody else.

Post by jrg
In reply to the original poster, my anecdotal experience is that
acountancy, banking, and consultancy are the three standard graduate
careers that people do if they want lots of money, job security etc.

Accountancy is not secure once past the age of about thirty five, and does
not pay well for many years.

Banking tends to burn people out, though well paid at times.

No idea about consultancy.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

jrg

2005-07-28 16:11:55 UTC

Post by geletine
Accountants earn alot ,

Really? How come I never did despite having all of the qualifications

and

Post by John Porcella
experience?
This might have been the case once, but there is over-supply, as in law.

I guess there are different kinds of qualifications and experience. I
know people who have gone to work for big accountancy firms through
graduate training schemes and earnt lots and lots of money.

What sort of sums do you consider "lots and lots"?

In my experience people only admit what they are earning if they earn
less than about £25,000 a year. My initial guess, based on
cars/houses/holidays etc, would be somewhere between £35,000 and
£60,000, with a few years experience.

After making this guess I took a look on the internet, and found the
following:

"A career in accountancy could net you a salary of between £37-42k, or
as much as £80k if you work in the Thames Valley."

So my guess seems about right.

Post by John Porcella
Perhaps

Post by jrg
your qualifications/experience were not gained with major international
accountancy firms?

Valid for what? I'm not saying your exams were any easier or whatever,
or that you deserve any less money than anyone else, but that's simply
the way the world works. Qualifications do not neccessarily equal
higher pay. Working for a major international financial services firm
does equal higher pay.

The original poster was saying they intend to apply for graduate
training schemes, with a degree from the sort of place that impresses
the sort of people who recruit for such schemes. So I think they could
well end up with a job for a major accountancy firm, if that's what
they want.

Accountancy is not secure once past the age of about thirty five, and does
not pay well for many years.

My anecdotal experience is that if you work for a major accountancy
firm you are guaranteed an ever sillier amount of money each year, for
as long as you are happy working 40+ hours a week being very
enthusiastic about things most people find very dull. I personally know
one person who quit, one person who was offered a job and turned it
down, one person who said they went for an accountancy interview and
the interviewer was telling them how much they hated their job, and I
know of another 3 people who quit.

James

John Porcella

2005-07-28 23:39:51 UTC

Post by geletine
Accountants earn alot ,

Really? How come I never did despite having all of the qualifications

and

Post by John Porcella
experience?
This might have been the case once, but there is over-supply, as in law.

I guess there are different kinds of qualifications and experience. I
know people who have gone to work for big accountancy firms through
graduate training schemes and earnt lots and lots of money.

What sort of sums do you consider "lots and lots"?

Post by John Porcella
Perhaps

Post by jrg
your qualifications/experience were not gained with major international
accountancy firms?

Valid for what?

Not "what", just as difficult to obtain as for anybody else.

I'm not saying your exams were any easier or whatever,
or that you deserve any less money than anyone else, but that's simply
the way the world works.

I know!

Qualifications do not neccessarily equal
higher pay.

I know, alas!

Working for a major international financial services firm
does equal higher pay.

Yep, and I stood no chance of getting into these firms.

The original poster was saying they intend to apply for graduate
training schemes, with a degree from the sort of place that impresses
the sort of people who recruit for such schemes. So I think they could
well end up with a job for a major accountancy firm, if that's what
they want.

Yes, if they go to the right university and get a good degree.