Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

> The social bs (beers and games up etc) are not mentioned in case of techers, because teachers are not expected to socialize with each other

You would be surprised then how common it is that men cite work culture issues when leaving the teaching profession. It is mentioned in the government report that I mentioned in a other comment.

Imagine a profession with incorporate gender identity into the work culture, and try to see what form of social BS it will produce for both men and women. Which one will would include beers and games?

For example, let's assume for the sake of example that objective evaluation of teachers and even schools is impossible. This is true in other jobs in the service industry.

Then it should be possible to have a subjective rating system that is accessible by consumers (parents, students) and employers (schools). Teachers that relatively rate well would benefit. Teachers that rate relatively poorly would have incentive to improve. Teachers that cannot improve could either be supported by their bosses for their good "intangibles" or be removed from their positions with better evidence than "Well, I think he is a bad teacher".

Thought experiment. Why doesn't this happen?

* Parents don't always have the ability to switch teachers or schools, so there's a lot of conflict of interest in providing publicly available feedback; students shouldn't suffer more because their teacher is called out for something.

* Unions absolutely don't want this. They get more power in numbers, so there's very little incentive to serve the top 10th percentile and introduce risk to the bottom 50th percentile.

* I don't see why the education regulators would care about this approach. Ask a regulator for solutions, and you'll get regulations (standardized testing, lunch nutrition standards, etc.).

* Teacher pay would have to be more subjective and negotiable (set by the superintendent or something). This means all the teacher contracts would have to be renegotiated.

* Teacher mobility is low. Jumping to a new district in a different state that takes good ratings seriously might actually involve a loss of seniority and a pay cut.

* New public schools aren't going to be started to "try this out". Private schools, maybe.

* So, ultimately, school districts don't tangibly benefit from a change like this. They benefit more from property values going up. Or from more student attendance.

* Finally, given all of the above, who will build Yelp/LinkedIn for teachers? It seems like a political hot potato with plenty of external barriers to actually working. Maybe legislators or regulators decide to design one by committee, but I'll be skeptical that they can create a product that gets any real traction that way.

I don't think it's a particularly great idea, to be clear. I'm just exploring why established parties aren't interested in change. And I don't say that to say everyone in education is uniquely greedy or self-interested. I think people in education often have noble hearts, but they're people at the end of the day, like the rest of us. Putting nobility at odds with economic interest limits achievement. We're all human, after all.

I'm definitely not a historian so I could very well be wrong.

What were the technologies that made public education possible exactly?

Reading about USA during 1870-1916, USA was quite busy ruthlessly exploiting it's own people (what else is new), the thought of educating them was not a concern - making millions off the broken backs of your own people and building mansions was much more appealing.

"The lives of the people in the cities contrasted sharply.

A small percentage of them had enormous wealth and enjoyed lives of luxury. Below them economically, the larger middle class lived comfortably. But at the bottom of the economic ladder, a huge mass of city people lived in extreme poverty." [0]

Goes perfectly in line with what I've been saying before - capitalists are busy making profits - the British Empire from it's colonies, the USA from it's own people and the floods of immigrants. You know, you exploit what/who you can, it's a hard world out there.

Technology preventing public education? I've heard you need to not live in extreme poverty before public education is even an option for you.

Extreme poverty ended due to technological advancements too I suppose?

[0] http://www.theusaonline.com/history/industrialization.htm

Please upvote me then. I don't have enough karma to downvote yet. ;)

Eh, that's a potentially true narrative, but not really what I'm taking about. I'm referring more to lower income neighborhoods where as many as 80 percent of children's fathers will be absent for at least a year of their childhood.