Most overpaid/underpaid profession? - Page 26

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

If it's about having the last word or advancing a couple of vested interests rooted in exploiting the poor, then I have no further interest in this thread. I will excuse myself out with this final post on this topic.

If it is the method (of providing an equal opportunity to one and all) that you are questioning, then I could delve at length on how we should go about it. On the other hand, if you are against equal opportunity itself, then I neither have the penchant nor the respect to engage you in discussions. It's not even a question of ideology then. It's a question of justice (the premise on which the topic is based) and who is for it and who is against it.

I answered every question that was brought up. It's not that you are not convinced. It's just that you don't want to be convinced.  For instance, you asked how I propose to improve the school system. I told you how. You asked how I propose to care of the faculty distribution. I told you how. You talked about risks. I answered. I mean, how many owners were injured or died on the job compared to how many employees? Get a report from the internet if you are interested in finding out, I can't spoon feed information. Oh! Workers compensation, right?! That covers everything, right?! But the owner "losing it all" is irreplaceable, right?!

Thanks for your time.

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

Going by your example, if we are in need of 10 teaching staff per university, we would draw the 10 from an available pool of accredited professionals that have registered themselves with a consortium.

That would eliminate the bias that only one university might end up with the best.

I think we are unnecessarily complicating things. I don't want to eliminate the bias completely because I know it's not possible.

"we would draw the 10 from an available pool of accredited professionals that have registered themselves with a consortium"
Where will that pool come from?? It's the population right. If it's the population then we will have to consider the fact that there will be other opportunities for those people. That is why I said that if we want the pool of professors to contain only brilliant people then we will have to offer them a better deal than the other opportunities that are present to them.

 

If we have to attract only brilliant minds to become professor with higher pay, the next question will be, is that feasible? And if it's feasible does it make financial and administrative sense to have most of your brain power in one single profession, i.e. will it be utilised for the purpose for which we are spending the money and won't we lose out on other fronts where there will be a dearth of brain power?

 

If our financial condition permits then yes we will end up with 1000 excellent universities with all brilliant faculties and facilities. But the million students who'll study in these universities, will they all be extraordinary too. Most students are mediocre and can't grasp higher level knowledge as easily as their brighter counterparts. To provide these mediocre students with brilliant professors will be a waste of money, cos whether you give them mediocre professor or brilliant professor, you'll get almost the same output from them.

However, the same is not true for the small percentage of brilliant students, as the output in this case will differ significantly depending on whether you provide them with brilliant or mediocre teaching staff. Which is why we need those 100 excellent universities.

So, instead of 1000 excellent universities, we can have only 100 excellent and the rest 900 mediocre universities and yet fulfill the necessities/ demands of the society. Having more than 100 excellent universities will simply be a waste of resources.

The ones considered mediocre would be put through rigorous training and development. They would be evaluated and tested constantly to ensure that they meet the exacting standards of the consortium. The plan operates under the belief that genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. No one is born genius unless we are talking about that one exceptional guy that comes along once a century (like Einstein or Newton)

I don't know why you're forgetting this, that even after umpteenth training and tests you'll still have some people who'll have better performance and abilities than the others. You simply can't eliminate or discount that fact.

BTW, not all people at the top are brilliant and hard working while the ones who remained at the bottom are mediocre and lazy. To me, that's extreme generalization. Hopefully, we will dispel with such notions moving forward.
The ones at the top are there for a reason and same is true for those who are at the bottom. Brilliance and hard work may or may not be the only factors involved. I don't think I have generalised it that way.

Curriculum, faculty and facilities are but a few dimensions that make a Stanford or an IIT what they are. We need to duplicate the model elsewhere. At the outset, it could look like a daunting task but I believe it's doable.
It's known to everyone that everything has x number of variables and not just 1. But in the current scenario where we are just taking an example can we please explain one factor satisfactorily first before we try to grapple with a zillion factors together.

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

If it's about having the last word or advancing a couple of vested interests rooted in exploiting the poor, then I have no further interest in this thread. I will excuse myself out with this final post on this topic.

If it is the method (of providing an equal opportunity to one and all) that you are questioning, then I could delve at length on how we should go about it. On the other hand, if you are against equal opportunity itself, then I neither have the penchant nor the respect to engage you in discussions. It's not even a question of ideology then. It's a question of justice (the premise on which the topic is based) and who is for it and who is against it.

I answered every question that was brought up. It's not that you are not convinced. It's just that you don't want to be convinced.  For instance, you asked how I propose to improve the school system. I told you how. You asked how I propose to care of the faculty distribution. I told you how. You talked about risks. I answered. I mean, how many owners were injured or died on the job compared to how many employees? Get a report from the internet if you are interested in finding out, I can't spoon feed information. Oh! Workers compensation, right?! That covers everything, right?! But the owner "losing it all" is irreplaceable, right?!

Thanks for your time.

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

You nailed it in the head here. It amuses me howthe basic principles of FIN 101are also ignored along with ECON 101.

Additionally, if one solely focus on job related risk then they should keep in mind that companies cover their employees for on the job or job related injuries/death. Additionally, no employer recruits work force at gun point --- unless one is hell bent on calling underworld a business too!

<div>Souro, you pretty much made all the points I had in mind and then some more.