Feminism + Baby Formula =

[Heather in Neverland]

...a decline in the quality of American education. Or at least according to the authors of Superfreakonomics it does!

 

I apologize if you have not read the book yet and I am spoiling it for you. You better not read further then. But I read this chapter last night and I am absolutely going to BURST if I don't bounce these ideas off someone!

 

Short background: I taught high school in 3 different districts for 11 years. Then I worked in administration in another district for 3 years. I have worked in an extremely affluent area, a ghetto area, and a blue collar area. I have seen it all. My BFF and I have long wondered why so many teachers that we worked with were so...well...not that smart. I know that sounds terrible but honestly, the overwhelmingly majority (yes I know there are exceptions) of teachers are of average intelligence at best. Not a lot of really, really intelligent people go into teaching. Of course, it does have something to do with workload and income, etc. But the truth is, the quality of American education is just not that great compared to what it used to be and it isn't getting any better.

 

Fast forward to this book. The authors mention statistics from 1940 (I think...don't have the book in front of me) which show the percentage of women who actually received university degrees and what they did with those degrees. At the time the main career fields open to women were nursing and teaching and that was about it. Very few women were doctors, lawyers, CEOs, scientists, etc. Those were male fields and were not open to women.

 

Then the feminist revolution hit in the 1960's and those fields became more open to women. So a lot more women were going into those fields and less into teaching. BUT a lot more women in general were going to college too.

 

So, how to explain this without sounding offensive....hmmm... basically, the authors show statistics of the average IQ of teachers in the 1940s and the average IQ of teachers now and guess what they found? You guessed it. Teachers today are not nearly as smart. The women with higher IQs went into other fields the first chance they got which opened the teaching field up to those of more average intelligence.

 

And the contribution of baby formula was the ability for women to have children AND work/go to college.

 

So basically, the idea is that the quality of American education has declined because the average teacher is, well, average, and the women with really high intelligence don't often go into teaching; they go into fields that have higher intelligence requirements.

 

I found the whole thing fascinating and am still tossing it around in my head. What says the hive?

[Crimson Wife]

Formula was the norm WAY before women started going out into the workforce. Both my grandmas were housewives but they gave their babies formula. It was actually considered a feminist thing in the 1970's when my mom had me to BF (my grandmas were both very dubious about her decision to BF)...

[Laurie4b]

I seriously question whether there are good statistics about the average IQ of teachers in general in the 40's or now. There would have to be some degree of self-selection in order for anyone to have those statistics, and with that in play, you couldn't say that the IQ tests reflect the average teacher.

 

Additionally, I can think of all kinds of confounding variables, like which women went to college vs. stayed home? How has that changed? What was the status of teachers in the 1940's compared to the present? etc.

[OrganicAnn]

I think you can't blame baby formula. Once other jobs opened up to women they went into those fields before they had children. Now in the 70s 80s 90s they might have had an easier time staying in jobs. Of course these days I've known lots of mom's who pump breast milk at work.

 

Even before baby formula, they were making substitutes for breast milk. My mom describes the recipes that people recommended that she hear about that were from the 40s / 50s (from her older half sister).

 

I do think that when higher paid jobs were open to women they went for them. Nursing, Teaching and Secretary was the jobs available for women in my mom's era. I wonder if nursing was affected also. Secretary was affected more by computers.

[Heather in Neverland]

I am not as focused on the baby formula aspect of the idea as the idea that more intelligent women are picking fields other than teaching to go into now that those fields are open to them and that leaves us with teachers who are mostly of average intelligence...and these are the women "educating" the next generation.

 

Still not sure what I think about it, but based on my own anecdotal evidence, there is something about it that rings true. hmm.....

[katilac]

The idea of fewer high achievers going into teaching once other avenues were opened does make a lot of sense.

 

Laurie4B said: I seriously question whether there are good statistics about the average IQ of teachers in general in the 40's or now

 

I think this would probably be fairly easy info to get. There are ways to estimate IQ scores based on standardized test scores - not exact, by any means, but close enough across a group for this purpose. So, as long as you have EITHER IQ or test scores for each time period, you can do a comparison.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

I am not as focused on the baby formula aspect of the idea as the idea that more intelligent women are picking fields other than teaching to go into now that those fields are open to them and that leaves us with teachers who are mostly of average intelligence...and these are the women "educating" the next generation.

 

Still not sure what I think about it, but based on my own anecdotal evidence, there is something about it that rings true. hmm.....

 

Charles Sykes made this case in The Dumbing Down of Our Kids. (I believe it was the mid-to-late 90's?) According to his research, the teaching field is the least...scholarly...course of study and all the highly educated people know it. The only ones who don't know it are some teachers and most parents.

 

In his opinion, that was why "educationalese" (educationese?) ever came into existence. The professors and students all knew that they did not have a very lofty platform on which to stand when it came to field research, training, or anything else academic, so they invented a high-falutin' language that no one but themselves could ever understand. Basically, to make themselves sound smart, and to set themselves apart as experts in their field.

 

I'm not saying I agree with this, or that I think teachers are stupid. I never went to college, and I have no way of knowing if Sykes was right, so I hope no one will flame me! I just thought I'd share that I'd heard this one before.

 

On one level, it makes sense. Teaching jobs do not pay. Some kinds of intelligences would shun the profession simply for that reason, if there were other career opportunities.

[Mama Bear]

The people I know who used the evaporated milk and corn syrup or jello combinations that were passing for infant formula at the time would be confounded at a connection to feminism, as they consider themselves very conservative. My mom nearly gave my grandmother a stroke with her insistence that BFing was the way to go. My mom is much nearer to the definition of feminist than her mother was (not that that's saying much).

 

I'm interested in SuperFreakonomics (on my list, along with Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell). He draws the most interesting comparisons.

[Mommyof4ks]

I have heard this before, and to some degree I do agree with this idea. Most of the extremely intelligent women I know are doctors and college professors not public school teachers, and most of the teachers I know are not any smarter than I am and that isn't saying much for them lol. It does make sense for those who are very bright to pursue careers where they could use their extensive knowledge and understanding, and the public school system does not allow for that at least around here.

[asta]

I am not as focused on the baby formula aspect of the idea as the idea that more intelligent women are picking fields other than teaching to go into now that those fields are open to them and that leaves us with teachers who are mostly of average intelligence...and these are the women "educating" the next generation.

 

Still not sure what I think about it, but based on my own anecdotal evidence, there is something about it that rings true. hmm.....

 

I have had the same anecdotal experience.

 

I lived in the "honors" dorm in college - the one where you had to have a minimum 3.5 GPA? We had an abundance of girls from the teachers college. I remember the girls who were pre-med, pre-vet, engineering, etc. getting pretty "burned up" come mid terms and finals when they were studying their buns off and the teaching students' midterms were... making a colorful calendar. No, I'm not kidding.

 

They weren't the sharpest pencils in the box, no.

 

 

a

[Stacy in NJ]

A few years back a study looked at the average SAT score of individuals who earned particular degrees. Those earning degrees in education had the lowest average SAT's. Those earning degrees in hard sciences had the highest.

[stripe]

I think the Freakanomics people have their own weird agenda.

 

So the point is, when the population is severely restricted to only the "smart," then the averages are higher; when it's thrown open to the unwashed masses, then the averages are more, well, average? Did someone actually spend time and money to come to this brilliant conclusion?

 

First of all, infant formula's been around for, what, a hundred and fifty years? Secondly, in the 50s, almost everyone (smart or average or below-average, housewife or career mother), used formula, because everyone obediently followed the medical establishment's instructions.

 

The real question is (which the Freakanomics people don't touch, of course) -- who says that IQ tests are accurate AND good predictors of being an excellent teacher?

 

And as a point of comparison, in John Taylor Gatto's Weapons of Mass Instruction he cites a rapid decline of literacy as measured by the military, an exclusively male population, over a very similar time period. He attributes it to the change in the educational system, including things like the move from phonics to whole word reading instruction. Not a word in the book (that I saw, anyway) about either feminism or formula.

 

So my question is -- aren't today's teachers the product of the inferior educational system of the last 50 years?

Edited November 21, 2009 by stripe

[Chris in VA]

Well, don't we as homeschoolers say we don't need to be "all that smart," "experts in our field," have a degree, etc. to teach our children? That being their parents is enough? Then we moan and groan about how dumb public school teachers are, how they should have "content" degrees, how they should be picked from the best and the brightest.

 

We can't have it both ways.

 

I don't think you have to be the sharpest tool in the box to teach children. There, I said it.

 

I think the curriculum choices have to be extremely well-written. THAT is where American Education has failed. imo, of course.

[Caribbean Queen]

Teachers need to know their subject matter and know how to teach and manage a classroom. I am not sure IQ scores correlate with how good a teacher someone is.

 

I can see why we might suspect that smart women would not go into teaching. I have a teaching degree, and I love teaching preschoolers, but I will not do it because it doesn't pay enough. Anybody can get a job waitressing or cutting grass and make more money. What is the point in going to college to learn to do something that's pay is so low that it will almost qualify you for food stamps?

 

I have had the same anecdotal experience.

 

I lived in the "honors" dorm in college - the one where you had to have a minimum 3.5 GPA? We had an abundance of girls from the teachers college. I remember the girls who were pre-med, pre-vet, engineering, etc. getting pretty "burned up" come mid terms and finals when they were studying their buns off and the teaching students' midterms were... making a colorful calendar. No, I'm not kidding.

 

They weren't the sharpest pencils in the box, no.

 

 

a

 

:iagree: Ha! This was my experience too.

 

(I was the one making a poster about playing kick ball.) :lol:

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

...a decline in the quality of American education. Or at least according to the authors of Superfreakonomics it does!

 

I apologize if you have not read the book yet and I am spoiling it for you. You better not read further then. But I read this chapter last night and I am absolutely going to BURST if I don't bounce these ideas off someone!

 

Short background: I taught high school in 3 different districts for 11 years. Then I worked in administration in another district for 3 years. I have worked in an extremely affluent area, a ghetto area, and a blue collar area. I have seen it all. My BFF and I have long wondered why so many teachers that we worked with were so...well...not that smart. I know that sounds terrible but honestly, the overwhelmingly majority (yes I know there are exceptions) of teachers are of average intelligence at best. Not a lot of really, really intelligent people go into teaching. Of course, it does have something to do with workload and income, etc. But the truth is, the quality of American education is just not that great compared to what it used to be and it isn't getting any better.

 

Fast forward to this book. The authors mention statistics from 1940 (I think...don't have the book in front of me) which show the percentage of women who actually received university degrees and what they did with those degrees. At the time the main career fields open to women were nursing and teaching and that was about it. Very few women were doctors, lawyers, CEOs, scientists, etc. Those were male fields and were not open to women.

 

Then the feminist revolution hit in the 1960's and those fields became more open to women. So a lot more women were going into those fields and less into teaching. BUT a lot more women in general were going to college too.

 

So, how to explain this without sounding offensive....hmmm... basically, the authors show statistics of the average IQ of teachers in the 1940s and the average IQ of teachers now and guess what they found? You guessed it. Teachers today are not nearly as smart. The women with higher IQs went into other fields the first chance they got which opened the teaching field up to those of more average intelligence.

 

And the contribution of baby formula was the ability for women to have children AND work/go to college.

 

So basically, the idea is that the quality of American education has declined because the average teacher is, well, average, and the women with really high intelligence don't often go into teaching; they go into fields that have higher intelligence requirements.

 

I found the whole thing fascinating and am still tossing it around in my head. What says the hive?

I wonder if they examined other career fields and came up with an average to above average intelligence ratio for workers. And I wonder if that ratio would correlate to the general public.

 

What is the ratio of average to "highly intelligent" people in the general public? I would assume that there are more "average" people. Without doing the research, I would also assume that the highly intelligent people in any career field would be the minorty (unless, perhaps you look at NASA). Especially the law field. Not because I have anything agains lawyers, but because there are so many of them it would stand to reason that there would be a few below average, a lot of average, and a few above average in terms of intelligence. I wonder how other careers would shake out? A bell curve, perhaps?

[KarenC]

She is very bright. She spent 2 semesters in teacher ed classes and couldn't stand it any more. She said it absolutely numbed her brain and could not believe the low quality of students in her classes. She became a vet instead. I absolutely believe this.

 

I have a Ph.D in nuclear engineering. I know 50 years ago, I would not have had the employment opportunities that I had when I graduated in 1992. Teaching would have been one of my few options at the time.

 

Karen

[Stacy in NJ]

I don't think you have to be the sharpest tool in the box to teach children. There, I said it.

 

I think the curriculum choices have to be extremely well-written. THAT is where American Education has failed. imo, of course.

 

:iagree:

 

I happen to think the curriculum focus in most public and private schools is so fragmented it actually causes failure for some kids.

 

I've become an old fuddy-duddy. If done well, I think reading, writing and math are almost enough. Reading material at an ever increasing level of difficulty and discussing what's read, learning grammer and writing increasingly with more sophistication, studying math persistently and patiently, all these lead to a better educated individual. The schools do this poorly. Being able to concentrate on what's important is the single greatest advantage of homeschooling, imo.

 

Besides reading, writing and math, throw in a foreign language, music and/or art instruction, and content knowlege of history and science and you have a very well rounded individual.

[kpupg]

I remember the girls who were pre-med, pre-vet, engineering, etc. getting pretty "burned up" come mid terms and finals when they were studying their buns off and the teaching students' midterms were... making a colorful calendar. No, I'm not kidding.

 

:lol: BTDT -- only in my dorm, they were making alphabet posters.

 

Karen

[Heather in WI]

I don't believe the correlation between education majors and low IQ/SAT/GRE scores is new. I read The Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure of American Public Schools by Martin L. Gross awhile back where he demonstrated the same thing.

 

 

Well, don't we as homeschoolers say we don't need to be "all that smart," "experts in our field," have a degree, etc. to teach our children? That being their parents is enough? Then we moan and groan about how dumb public school teachers are, how they should have "content" degrees, how they should be picked from the best and the brightest.

 

I certainly don't argue this! Although, I do hear this from time to time in homeschooling circles. I think it's a shame. I fall into the "The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers" camp." (link to Mmv blog)

[nmoira]

 

I think the Freakanomics people have their own weird agenda.

There was some uproar among homeschoolers at the assertion in the first book that reading aloud was of no benefit to children. But if you went back and looked at the study referenced (at that time the actual survey was available online), there were only two or three questions on reading, and none asked how long parents read (aside from possibly a low threshold) or what parents read. I was less than impressed.

[nmoira]

 

Then the feminist revolution hit in the 1960's and those fields became more open to women. So a lot more women were going into those fields and less into teaching. BUT a lot more women in general were going to college too.

I was under the impression a major factor in the shift was the restructuring of education in the late 50's, post Sputnik, when for a brief time the education of bright kids (of both sexes) in sciences and math became a high priority.

[Heather in the Kootenays]

Charles Sykes made this case in The Dumbing Down of Our Kids. (I believe it was the mid-to-late 90's?) According to his research, the teaching field is the least...scholarly...course of study and all the highly educated people know it. The only ones who don't know it are some teachers and most parents.

 

 

 

That was certainly the case when I was in university - education as a field of study had a terrible reputation.

[Pink Fairy]

I don't think super smart engineering types would necessarily make great teachers anyway. You have to be able to present the material in an interesting way in order to keep the students' attention. It doesn't matter if you are telling them the secrets of life--they won't listen if they aren't being entertained. Them's just the facts.

 

Being intelligent seems like a necessary component to being a good teacher or a good anything else for the most part. But being super intelligent? Not so much.

[kokotg]

So back when teaching was one of the only career paths open to women, more smart women went into teaching? Well, sure. So the answer is what? Close off most career paths to women again, so that the smartest ones will have no choice but to become teachers? Or, umm, maybe we could make teaching a more valued career path so that it would attract more highly qualified people? Feminism didn't only happen in America, after all, so I'm not sure how valuable this can be for an argument about the decline of American education. Is there a similar decline in IQ scores in other countries?

 

I'm skeptical about the conclusion, but even if I weren't...I guess I'm having trouble understanding what they're trying to say....is it bad that women started going to college and entering the workforce because this led to a decline in American education? If, indeed, the strength of America's pre WWII education system depended on women who would rather have entered other fields becoming teachers, then that seems a bit...problematic to me. I bet we could get more highly qualified teachers by rounding up all the smartest MEN and telling them they could either become teachers, nurses, or maids, too.

[Holly IN]

hhhmmm

 

didn't read any of the replies....

 

I couldn't breastfeed at all. Not because I didn't want to but because my breast had severe infections. So it was recommended to me not to breastfeed.

 

There were other reasons....

 

hhhmmmm

 

Looks like I will have to find time to read the replies.

 

Holly

[hornblower]

I couldn't breastfeed at all. Not because I didn't want to but because my breast had severe infections. So it was recommended to me not to breastfeed.

 

 

 

I don't think this is a bf thread & I don't want to hijack but I want to stress that this is not current evidence based practice. Mastitis, even abcesses, and even chronic bacterial and fungal infections are all treatable and not considered reasons,on their own, to cease breastfeeding.

 

There were other reasons....

 

Of course every woman must make her own infant feeding decision with the advice and counsel of informed hcp's.

 

best wishes,

 

~ hornblower, IBCLC :)

[stripe]

Another thing -- in my experience, public school teachers are not very poorly paid. They are fairly well paid. Many university professors get paid less. And they get 2 months or more off every year, so it is possible that they get a summer job to supplement their income.

 

According to the AFT, "The average salary for traditional public school teachers increased 4.5 percent in 2006-07 to $51,009." I don't think that's a low-paying job for, let's say, 10 months of work.

 

Well, don't we as homeschoolers say we don't need to be "all that smart," "experts in our field," have a degree, etc. to teach our children? That being their parents is enough? Then we moan and groan about how dumb public school teachers are, how they should have "content" degrees, how they should be picked from the best and the brightest.

 

We can't have it both ways.

 

I agree.

[stripe]

There was some uproar among homeschoolers at the assertion in the first book that reading aloud was of no benefit to children. But if you went back and looked at the study referenced (at that time the actual survey was available online), there were only two or three questions on reading, and none asked how long parents read (aside from possibly a low threshold) or what parents read. I was less than impressed.

As the parent of mixed-race children, I was less than impressed by their "research" that children of both black and white heritages had all the problems of both, but on the plus side, were more attractive. Leaving aside the first part of the conclusion, I cannot even imagine that they bothered to test the beautiful hypothesis; I think they just went with stereotypes on that one.

[Lovedtodeath]

Well, don't we as homeschoolers say we don't need to be "all that smart," "experts in our field," have a degree, etc. to teach our children? That being their parents is enough? Then we moan and groan about how dumb public school teachers are, how they should have "content" degrees, how they should be picked from the best and the brightest.

 

We can't have it both ways.

 

I don't think you have to be the sharpest tool in the box to teach children. There, I said it.

 

I think the curriculum choices have to be extremely well-written. THAT is where American Education has failed. imo, of course.

 

I Love You. There. I said it.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Another thing -- in my experience, public school teachers are not very poorly paid. They are fairly well paid. Many university professors get paid less. And they get 2 months or more off every year, so it is possible that they get a summer job to supplement their income.

 

According to the AFT, "The average salary for traditional public school teachers increased 4.5 percent in 2006-07 to $51,009." I don't think that's a low-paying job for, let's say, 10 months of work.

 

 

I agree.

 

Oh my. That IS a lot of money for 10 months. Around here teachers are NOT paid anywhere near that, even if they pick up the extras (coaching, drivers ed, ect.) Most teachers I know make around $40k or less.

[Heather in WI]

Another thing -- in my experience, public school teachers are not very poorly paid. They are fairly well paid. Many university professors get paid less. And they get 2 months or more off every year, so it is possible that they get a summer job to supplement their income.

 

According to the AFT, "The average salary for traditional public school teachers increased 4.5 percent in 2006-07 to $51,009." I don't think that's a low-paying job for, let's say, 10 months of work.

 

Here in WI, the starting salary for teachers holding only a bachelor's degree in 2008 was $32,078 and the average salary was $52,171. That doesn't account for the value of their benefits, which averaged another $35,800.

[OHGrandma]

More than 100 years ago, George Bernard Shaw is credited with saying, "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches."

But the greatest success for a teacher is to have the pupil surpass the teacher in knowlege and achievement.

[Jean too]

http://teacherportal.com/salary/Arizona-teacher-salary

 

According to this link the average teacher's salary in AZ is $44,672.

[grace'smom]

Or, umm, maybe we could make teaching a more valued career path so that it would attract more highly qualified people? QUOTE]

 

:iagree:And no one is bringing up the other large variable that's occured since the 50's. Television. Brain rotting, mind sucking television. I'm pretty sure that has reduced the potential of a few healthy minds, my own included, LOL.

[mirth]

In Freako I, Levitt said that legalized abortion is responsible for the drop in crime rate over the last 25 years.

 

So all we have to do is raise the price of baby formula, or tax it into oblivion, and USA education will improve over a generation? It sounds worth a try.

 

In HRC's It Takes a Village, she went on about universal daycare. If this took root with her now as Sec of State, then I guess the bottom would drop out all together from USA teacher intellect.

[merry gardens]

...So, how to explain this without sounding offensive....hmmm... basically, the authors show statistics of the average IQ of teachers in the 1940s and the average IQ of teachers now and guess what they found? You guessed it. Teachers today are not nearly as smart....So basically, the idea is that the quality of American education has declined because the average teacher is, well, average, and the women with really high intelligence don't often go into teaching; they go into fields that have higher intelligence requirements.

 

I found the whole thing fascinating and am still tossing it around in my head. What says the hive?

Fascinating. I sometimes wonder if those in NEA who take a strong stand against homeschooling think the material they teach in school is difficult.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

So all we have to do is raise the price of baby formula, or tax it into oblivion, and USA education will improve over a generation? It sounds worth a try.

Most people that choose formula over breastfeeding already have less money.

[zaichiki]

She spent 2 semesters in teacher ed classes and couldn't stand it any more. She said it absolutely numbed her brain and could not believe the low quality of students in her classes.

 

I have to agree with what Karen wrote.

 

I came from a very acadmically-oriented high school and spent my first college year intending to go into linguistics (took a bunch of classes geared for that major as well), but ended up going for my bachelor's of science in deaf education. I really loved ASL (well languages in general) and I really loved children, and so I thought I wanted to be a teacher. The students in those classes were... ummm... not the brightest bulbs and the work was the LEAST challenging I'd ever had. I was sorely disappointed, even while a student IN the classes. So... I chose to take extra classes in audiology (with students who were serious about their studying). One of my deaf ed professors encouraged me to develop my own research projects and get involved in language therapy using ASL in the clinic, which I did. Without these extra diversions, I surely would have quit the teacher's program after that first year.

 

I remember hearing students in other majors commenting on how the teacher's college students' studies were a joke. Sigh. They were right.

 

Some day I'll go back to college and do something in genetics... or something research based perhaps...

[moki4]

but, truth be told. Low income families (mothers) use formula at a much higher rate than middle/high income families. I believe this is due to "lack" of education.

The more educated person will chose BFing because it is better. There are exceptions of course...

 

The data is there regarding higher IQ (using many differing tests) and BFing. It is significant (but not dramatically so)

 

I think feminism and bottle feeding have a close relationship. But I think the entire issue of "lower IQ" has more to do with "dumbing down" our citizens through stupid TV, pop culture, and of course poor PS's.

 

I have always thought that teachers (in general) were not the smartest of the bunch. Their college curriculum is lack luster and BORING!

 

OK, enough said. Interested in others!:)

[zaichiki]

I bet we could get more highly qualified teachers by rounding up all the smartest MEN and telling them they could either become teachers, nurses, or maids, too.

 

:smilielol5:

[zaichiki]

I do want to add a little something to the discussion: more intelligence does not necessarily make a person a better teacher.

 

But I agree that (in my opinion and from what I have seen) most teachers are not the brightest bulbs in the box.

 

I have no idea how formula comes into play, but it certainly makes sense that more career opportunities could have drained the more intelligent women from the teaching fields.

[IsabelC]

I do want to add a little something to the discussion: more intelligence does not necessarily make a person a better teacher.

Snap! I think the correlation between IQ and teaching ability, if it exists, would be weak. To be a great educator requires a specific kind of intelligence, together with certain qualities of character and a strong vocation for that work.

 

Also, the analysis sounds far to simplistic for what is clearly a multifaceted issue. Have they considered variables such as changing demographic structure, different values in both education and the workforce (with different ways of measuring 'quality' in education), higher expectations placed on teachers than hitherto, recent education policies and pedagogical fashions/fads, changes in overall lifestyle such as economic pressure, health issues, etc etc? The interplay of these factors and more makes the issue a complex one that cannot be pinned down to a theory such as this work seems to advocate.

 

Btw, why is it women who are apparently to blame? Or is this just because the numbers of male teachers are very low in the US?

[zaichiki]

Snap! I think the correlation between IQ and teaching ability, if it exists, would be weak. To be a great educator requires a specific kind of intelligence, together with certain qualities of character and a strong vocation for that work.

 

Even though more intelligence does not necessarily make a better teacher, I have found that highly intelligent children *need* highly intelligent teachers. I have seen instances where children come up with answers that the teachers either weren't expecting (and don't know how to respond) or don't understand, and so they dismiss the child or belittle their answers. One could say that these are simply not good teachers and it's not related to intelligence... I don't know.

 

One day a group cello teacher admonished my (then) 8 year old for using big words when answering a question. She had given him two choices in the dynamics for a piece, and asked him which was correct. He paused, quite obviously, for a few seconds, so she impatiently asked him again. His response? "The latter."

 

She laughed haughtily: "Oh?! We're using BIG words now are we?! (This was in front of the whole class.) He had chosen the correct dynamic, which she did acknowledge as she continued with the lesson.

 

I don't think a more intelligent/verbal teacher would have chosen to tease a child about using the word "latter."

 

I've also seen kids (not mine) told that their answers in a math class were wrong when they were not. In fact, there was a post on these forums a few months ago about that very thing: the teacher didn't understand the child's answer. It's a shame really. The kids pick up on this very quickly and lose respect for their teachers, who are supposed to be imparting knowledge.

[Chris in VA]

Geez Louise, people.

I graduated with a BS Ed from Ohio State.

Thanks for calling me a moron.

[zaichiki]

Geez Louise, people.

I graduated with a BS Ed from Ohio State.

Thanks for calling me a moron.

 

Relax... I have a BS in Deaf Ed and have worked for several years as a teacher, too. No one is calling *you* a moron... BUT I'm sure you noticed, back when you were in school, that most teacher's college students weren't doing the most challenging coursework. There are other teachers who have posted to this thread, too.

 

(I have many memories from teaching in a classroom. Some were horrid, but many were great. I don't regret becoming a teacher.)

[stripe]

I have a lot of teachers in my family, and I do not feel teachers are less intelligent than the general population. I think some may have been taught to think that certain things are normal and beneficial, and maybe those things are not so important. But what's wrong with making calendars and posters anyway? Being able to graphically present information and make nice displays is a useful skill that is often used with small children; elementary schools and children's library areas are expected to have a certain "look" about them. This is part of perpetuating the system -- when a teacher is a product of that system herself, from her days as a student, then it may be hard to radically reimagine the educational system singlehandedly. For the record, I also don't think children's book writers and illustrators are immature and fixated on bedtimes, bowel movements, and toys.

 

I don't think it's necessary to question the intelligence of teachers and bash baby formula users, when the real question is more about the reason that the educational system is declining, and whether it's about something larger than an individual teacher and her bulletin board displays. It's the nature of IQ testing to divide people up in a bell-curve like formation to demarcate intelligence. There cannot be a high number of geniuses, by definition. And personally, I don't think we should just limit the number of children born and then hothouse them so we have a few smart specimens. So if one questions the importance of IQ testing and other standardized measurements, then I'm not sure it's wise to laugh at those who don't measure up. Or else bring back those tests measuring cranial bumps and whatnot.

[Jen500]

Snap! I think the correlation between IQ and teaching ability, if it exists, would be weak. To be a great educator requires a specific kind of intelligence, together with certain qualities of character and a strong vocation for that work.

 

 

I think your first statement is taking a huge leap, unless you have some studies to back it up. :) And what is a 'specific kind of intelligence'?

 

Hmmm....if teacher A had an IQ of 105, and teacher B an IQ of 145, and you

had to choose one of them to teach your child (w/o knowing any other info

about them), which would you choose?

 

I haven't read this book, but I did read Freakonomics. It's really just entertaining, thought-provoking things he found with data. With quite a bit of his own interpretation.

[unsinkable]

Geez Louise, people.

I graduated with a BS Ed from Ohio State.

Thanks for calling me a moron.

 

I shall join you in your moronitude. (yes, I made that up)

 

I changed my major quite a few times before I chose education.

 

I thought I would love it and I wanted to be able to have a career after college. My parents died when I was a teenager (dad at 16, mom at 19). I had NO GUIDANCE at all about college/career/living up to my potential/ etc...

 

I was very afraid of the world and being alone and not being able to provide for myself.

 

So I picked teaching...I got certifications in elementary ed & middle school certifications for History (Social Studies) and Language Arts.

 

Point? Smart women do choose teaching. JMO

[Lovedtodeath]

I find it absolutely, amazingly hypocritical that some people can pat themselves on the back repeatedly about their own admirable ways of teaching their offspring, yet still manage to degrade and belittle someone who goes to college to become a teacher. Didn't a bunch of posters, a few months ago, reassure someone who only read on an elementary level that she was perfectly capable of teaching her kids? Sorry, this kind of logic is just absolute bunk, and not too intelligent, either.

:iagree:

 

I shall join you in your moronitude. (yes, I made that up)

Point? Smart women do choose teaching. JMO

:iagree:

[Mom-ninja.]

Where I went to college it was the running joke about the um, lack of higher intelligence, in the education department. In order to be accepted into the program you need a 2.5 gpa. I've seen the courses required for the education degree. It's not very academically challenging especially when compared to other majors.

 

My SIL was going to be a teacher. She had a scholarship due to her gpa. I kid you not when I say that her math class was not even algebra level. It was called Quantitative Methods. The english class she was taking was a lower level than the AP english I had taken in high school. Plus, when I see and hear her incorrect grammar in writing and speaking....I always think I would not want her as a professional teacher to my kids.

 

There of course are amazing and very intelligent teachers. I've met many who are not.