Would I be unreasonable to correct the teacher?

[Horthnangerabbey]

It is a minor thing really but if the teacher had told the class something that you knew was wrong, would you tell her? Or would you just explain to your own child the correct info and keep quiet?

What I don’t really get is, why are universities crying out for pgce applicants from certain subject background, while medicine is hugely oversubscribed?

From what I hear about medical students, there does seem to be a bias in favour of middle-class students. My dad grew up in one of the most infamously poor and violent areas of Belfast btw, so he’s not exactly aristocracy! My siblings and I all went to state secondary school.

But why aren’t they interested in teaching? Is it purely financial? Don’t really know... I imagine I’d prefer to be a teacher, simply due to less potential for gore and (theoretically) more sociable hours, but as I say, I don’t think I’d be good as a doctor or teacher.

I wonder if, in the future, we’ll have fewer teachers. So either huge class sizes or maybe virtual classrooms. That way, maybe less desperation for applicants and therefore a higher standard, (whether that be based on academic qualifications or other assets).

@evelyn

I think the medical world is starting to recognise what you say about skills which aren’t traditionally well honed in medicine. My sister has to do a huge module in teaching this year and also is writing a chapter of a book to show empathy! These are compulsory modules in her medical degree now. It’s not enough to ‘just’ be good at science etc.

Captain all credit to your sister. She is absolutely not typical though! Something like 50% of medical students have a doctor in the family already, 80% have a parent in a professional job, 25% are privately educated.

Yes @evelyn, she says there is a noticeably higher percentage of extremely well off students in her university. She doesn’t like that either. It doesn’t smell right.

Captain I honestly believe it's all about status.

I have some relatively young doctor relatives (a married doctor couple) who I don't know all that well but spent several days with recently; I solved some mundane dilemma we were having and one of them piped up "thinking like that is what makes you such a good doctor" ... Then she backtracked, clearly embarrassed when she remembered that I'm not a doctor :o It really was rather amusing. Being a doctor is an instant VIP pass. Being a teacher certainly isn't. It's not only about the money.

She’s doing better in her degree than most of them though, which she puts down to her genuine interest in humanity through her care work and reason A C Grayling ‘for fun’ . She’s pretty awesome really (but don’t tell her I said that ).

Bahahaha at “that’s what makes you such a good doctor”! Whoops!

Reading*

Gold is not a better conductor of electricity than Copper, with Silver being the best. However, Gold is generally used in high frequency work such as computers because electricity only travels on the surface and gold doesn't tarnish - which make silver and copper poor choices.

I don't think it's reasonable for people to say teachers can't know everything. If we are expecting a 10 year old to know the curriculum at primary, then its reasonable that a teacher would easily know it and not make these mistakes. Its the core of the job - the damage that could be done is immense.

"There is no real reason to see people who are better at one traditionally male subject as special and people who are good at other traditionally girls' subjects as run of the mill."

Well, it's the economy that values science more than arts subjects. A person who is excellent at an art subject will be respected though.

I have a friend who's a doctor who said 'Who was this Kafka bloke anyway?' He didn't think 'I'll go home and google it', he thought there was no shame in not knowing though he ridicules me for being weak in maths and science.
I've found that on the continent, they still expect people who are good at science to have a good general education and my friend's comment wouldn't have gone down well.

"the damage that could be done is immense."

Bit dramatic. We all learn things at 10 that might not be right because they've been simplified so much or just because knowledge changes. Not the end of the world is it?

Gwenhwyfar

Not really - at this age children are like sponges and teachers are gods to them. If it's being taught it's important, otherwise why teach it? Teach the wrong thing and its very hard to correct later on.

I had this same thing the other day, a supply teacher taught the wrong definition of radius and the main class teacher has been correcting this for over a week.

This isn't being simplified - its just wrong.

Agree that its a fine balance when simplifying, and do struggle with this. Is there any point for instance of GCSE chemistry, when its basically just thrown in the bin at A-Level? Teaching of electricity in KS2/3 probably also causes significant problems when trying to correct the misconceptions later on - in the modern era I would suggest this understanding is of greater importance than examining 18th century novels.

Blink why?

Jane Austen's novels were all published in the early 19th century She critiques 18th century society, tropes and assumptions and moves literature and attitudes forwards into the 19th century.

Valuing science over arts is your subjective opinion of what is important, but it's narrow, restrictive and cold. A well rounded person in any profession, and indeed a reflective parent or human benefits from a more well rounded education than you are suggesting!

Evelynismyspyname

Because if you want a bright future for future generations then its important not to live in the past but to have the skills that will generate the economy of the future. It is almost universally recognised (government and in reflection of industry) that this means that the current generation needs to be much more scientific and technically minded than at present, and so we need to make space in the teaching schedule to make this happen.

I'm not suggesting that historical art cannot be enjoyed, just that its not a priority for society in schools. Society doesn't value much of it, it generally is subsidised by people not interested in it - and it detracts from what really is going to be important.

Modern art forms which are a thriving industry (music, animation, tv, film, design etc...) are of course immensely important and have come more so as our lives have improved. We need to be teaching these rather than focussing on the past.

It's not art/science - I would also say, there is no point spending time on historical sciences that are no longer relevant. The world is probabilistic, it should never be taught as clockwork for instance; and we don't need to understand 12th century medicine.

If you love the books, just read them - but really not very important for modern life or the modern economy to devote school time to them. Well rounded doesn't mean stuck in the past - hopefully you've noticed a lack of Latin hasn't caused society to collapse - but you can learn it yourself if you want.

Ermmmmmm... quite a lot of doctors have Latin GCSE....

Blink are you seriously suggesting that history, as well as literature, should not be taught in schools because the is no point in learning about the past?

"Ermmmmmm... quite a lot of doctors have Latin GCSE...."

Must be to do with the over-representation of former private school pupils. Latin is rarely taught in state schools these days.

Haven't RTFT but I remember a friend's DC's teacher correcting his spelling. He had spelt the word wrong but the the teacher corrected with another wrong spelling. My friend crossed it out and corrected it with the right spelling.

I'd have a quiet word with my DC's teacher unless it was something major (like life threatening due to poor facts) and then make a bigger deal of it. Teachers are human and they will make mistakes. It could have been a one off so a quiet word is usually best. I'd also let my DC know the facts at home (although knowing DD1 shed end up blabbing to all her friends)

It possibly is ... but it is taught in my state comprehensive. Latin is on the rise.

quite a lot of doctors have Latin GCSE...."

Must be to do with the over-representation of former private school pupils. Latin is rarely taught in state schools these days.

I learnt Latin in a state school. Also, of course, most doctors have not been in school 'these days' anyway, they will have been through years of further education since school, to be doctors.
So, many doctors having learnt Latin doesn't necessarily indicate that they went to private schools.

I work in a state school that teachers latin.

" Also, of course, most doctors have not been in school '"

Yes, they have.

" 'these days' anyway, they will have been through years of further education since school, to be doctors."

They will have been through higher education, not further education.
GCSEs are not part of post16 education whether that's further or higher.

"I work in a state school that teachers latin."

Yes. And?
Most state schools don't teach Latin any more.

" Also, of course, most doctors have not been in school '"

Yes, they have.

" 'these days' anyway, they will have been through years of further education since school, to be doctors."

Wow, Gwen, so you actually split my sentence in two, where there wasn't even a comma, so that you could change the meaning completely to argue with it! Surely there is something more useful you could do?

I obviously was not saying that doctors have not been to school.