[Zetice]

Glass houses, my friend. Academia demands people spend their entire lives slowly crawling up a ladder while simultaneously threatening to kick them off that ladder for a large portion of that climb. Spend your life working towards tenure only to get denied and wash out after 15-20 years seems insane.

a decade of your life to get past "novice" level for teaching something like CS to high school students is not something we should be pushing to replicate in other fields.

Education is begging to be disrupted. Maybe this guy doesn't have all the answers, but pretending like what we have is good is a joke. He's on a better track than sitting in a classroom trying to get past "novice" during the most productive time of his life.

[kickaha]

>> “Move fast and break things” is a monument to an aberrant culture of arrogance and dismissive impatience.

> Education is begging to be disrupted.

I rest my case.

Substantively, believe me, I agree with you. Culturally, though, you're proving my point.

[Zetice]

I think you know better than to claim that anyone who disagrees with you "culturally" proves your point.

My whole point is that the culture of academia is not something worth replicating, and indeed needs to be fundamentally... disrupted.

[afavour]

You're talking about different things.

You are talking about the restrictive, punitive world of academia where you constantly have to please the powers that be in order to step up. OP was talking about their own feelings about their own abilities in their job.

The parallel to software engineering feels correct to me, particularly if we're talking about working at a giant company like Google. No matter how good of a developer you are you still need to battle yearly reviews, stack ranking, peer review etc. etc in order to advance. But you can strip all that away and still recognize that after two years in the industry you're not that advanced as a developer.

The crucial difference is that in the software engineering world you can take your misplaced confidence, strike out and try something. Worst case it'll fail and you move on. As a teacher with misplaced confidence you can strike our, try something and mess up the educations of children and parents who put their trust in you.

[lifeonlars]

Statistically, what are the odds that you're someone who actually understands enough about teaching and learning to be able to identify why education is 'broken' and successfully 'disrupt' it, as opposed to someone who just thinks they understand it but actually is suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome?

If a guy in a dirty denim jacket comes to you outside the bus station and tells you he's Jesus, he absolutely might be Jesus. However assuming that he's not is a perfectly good heuristic.

[Zetice]

"Statistically" implies some kind of measurable "teacher skill unit" that one is

a) fully aware of or

b) could be measured, and

c) is precise enough to differentiate between "able to help improve education" and "not able to improve education", and

d) this skill unit is in any way accurate.

Of course none of these are true, and in fact teaching is an amorphous and situation-specific concept that defies all attempts to replicate or quantify success. All attempts thus far to do so have failed in glorious and spectacular ways at every level (e.g. No Child Left Behind Act of 2002).

In reality, the skillset a person who can successfully improve the state of CS education has may or may not be related to their time spent actually teaching or their skill at teaching.

Hell, even one's time spent teaching is mostly uncorrelated with one's skill at teaching. We all know teachers in our childhoods who had many years of experience and yet remained terrible at their jobs.

A good teacher may in fact be the very worst kind of person to fix teaching.