Comments on: Have You Ever Been Experienced?

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 23:52:00 +0000

Experience is a crucial way of knowing and a fundamental resource for creativity. When it is belittled, we lose a great deal, in business, in schools, in love and in politics, and many other human endeavors. Of course, experience is not the only resource. The advantage of a new view may on some occasions be more significant. Yet, I think the fundamental problem Halton is highlighting is the systematic dismissal of experience as an excuse to save money. Fire the teacher who has been in the trenches and knows the lay of the land, not as is often declared to get a young a creative person, but to get a young and cheap one.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:56:00 +0000

That’s a rather heuristic approach to what is actually a much more complex issue. So there are those who are ambitious, hardworking, and productive and then the rest of the poor slobs who ride their coattails. And if you knew one teacher that fits the stereotype of the incompetent, lazy teacher that proves the stereotype. Really? And then there’s black and there’s white, and Atlas shrugged, and that’s that.

By: Christian Flores-Carignan

Christian Flores-Carignan — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 01:10:00 +0000

Let’s not romanticize seniority, Eugene. Some older workers have much to offer, while others just did a good job of not stepping on anyone’s toes for 30 years. I remember an English teacher at my high school who wasn’t mentally competent anymore. He had his students teach his class. Of course the union made it hard to force him out.

Our bureaucratic society is based on the principle of conformity. In this system, the one’s with the greatest desire for status and material wealth make it to the top and in the process gain much social capital. Out of those who don’t belong to this group, some are able to keep their vigor for teaching or engineering while tolerating the domination from above. Others can’t and drop out of the mainstream. Probably the majority just follow along without much vigor, cynically doing what’s necessary to get by. Some do it for 30 years. And no, they usually don’t have much to offer.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:33:00 +0000

Republicans value “productive” people; in particular, people who produce wealth. They argue that this wealth benefits society, but we know that is not always the case, and seems to be less and less the case. However, people who do not “produce” per se, not the idle rich of course, but those who either receive government benefits or who receive a government salary are considered “leeches.” They are a “burden” on society, and by “society” I assume they mean “taxpayers.” But if we consider “production” in more than just monetary terms, we would know that “seniors,” in whatever form, do contribute to society. (Even in ways that might indirectly contribute to the GDP.) I think even corporations, before they decided to trim the fat by laying off those with seniority, might consider the non-monetary contributions an employee makes. (Although perhaps not as often as we would like.) If you move beyond the morality of the dollar, and consider production in a broader (qualitative) sense, especially cumulative production over a life time, I think things like “seniority” might come to be valued more.