Jump to content

vikingTON

Gold Members
  • Posts

    27,580
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    107

Everything posted by vikingTON

  1. You can be as certain as you want to be. You're still wrong though: https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/big-fall-applications-postgrad-teaching-teacher-training-courses There were just under 14,000 applications submitted for the postgraduate route alone in January 2022 - and that was a low year coming off nearly 20k applicants in 2021. There is clearly not a shortage in the supply of potential teachers due to miserable pay and conditions then - there is in fact a reliable surplus. The failure to provide sufficient, trained teachers lies with the limited extent of government funding, as well as the limited competence of universities in recruiting and retaining the fraction of applicants who are able to get a funded spot. If we want to move to a genuinely market-based approach* then we'd open up far more paths to enter teaching and allow individual schools to set wages according to the value of individual employees. Which would mean that the wages of some teachers in scarce disciplines (and outside the Central Belt) would go up, while the wages of most replacement level drones in the Central Belt would fall. That's a market approach to wages - not the complete fiction that teachers want to tell themselves is responsible for their current terms. *We shouldn't.
  2. Well no they couldn't, because teaching is a public sector job and a profession. No government would get away with actually applying 'market' (lowest possible) wage rates for that job. They also couldn't get away with massively differentiating between the wages of teachers in the most urgently needed or valuable subject knowledges, compared to primary school teachers (for example). Yet if the wage structure was actually aligned to the market, that would also be in place and there wouldn't be as acute a shortage of teachers in certain subjects. The wages of teachers - just like the majority of public sector roles - are entirely divorced from genuine market forces. Which is justified, but makes pretending that the terms are actually reflecting the market utter nonsense. It's not about some graduates earning the median wage or less for a while - although I'm sure that your Victoria Cross is in the post. It is the career-long reality for a large chunk of the wage-earning population, now that there are over 300,000 students in higher education on an annual basis. https://www.sfc.ac.uk/news/2022/news-89795.aspx The idea that teacher's wages and conditions need to track with other professional jobs is therefore false. So long as the terms of a teaching job remain better than the vast majority of non-professional jobs for the same level of education/skills/experience, then there will always a surplus of qualified applicants for training posts. The only thing that is bizarre here is your 'those people earning £30k aren't yet equipped to do their job' claim. It's above the maximum pay ceiling for many roles in the Scottish economy regardless of the amount of training and experience those workers have.
  3. If there are logical flaws in the argument then you've failed to identify them. If teacher salaries were already aligned with the market, then there'd be a near equilibrium between the demand for teacher training posts by applicants and the supply of funded places available. The private market and other, comparable non-teaching posts in the public sector would after all sweep up the rest of the demand with their equivalent wage and condition packages. That's not and has never been the case. In a market-driven model, access to teacher training in Scotland would be significantly widened and/or broken up into more varied training paths, and then the increased supply of qualified teachers would lead to an overall fall in wages for employed teachers. Well no, there are plenty of people who earn £31k per year (or less) and are perfectly equipped to do their job - through a combination of qualifications, training and experience. Many of them being graduates who could have transferred over to teacher training but either opted not to do so or were unsuccessful in obtaining a funded place due to demand outstripping supply (an inefficient market). It's frankly bizarre that you think people on a full-time salary of just over £30k per year across the country are more often than not glorified trainees tbh.
  4. And this financial emergency will automatically be solved... when exactly? When pesky seaside league outfits stop having the temerity to defend against you or you stop shipping 3 goals to Clyde? Doesn't seem like the sure thing to bet ten years' of future revenue on, but then I'm not a gullible moron and so don't support Falkirk FC. Oh and if you think that a scheme that will generate £125k now will only cost £7,500 per year in lost revenue over ten years, then you should go back and sit National 5 Maths. Then you can perhaps move on to the basic accounting principles that you also completely failed to understand. So many thousands of season tickets sold and yet here you are, facing a "financial emergency" and trying to flog utterly tragic IOUs to your own gormless fans to keep the lights on. Swing and a miss indeed.
  5. Except that you then have nine subsequent years without any season ticket income from those 25 gullible morons. So the actual change to the hole in your finances is precisely zero - all you have done is adjusted cashflow, while at the same time adding some unsecured creditors (hence 'gullible morons') through 2033. There's a reason why other Scottish football clubs are not lowering themselves to this Angelo Massone-esque exercise in book-cooking.
  6. No it wouldn't, because the demand of applicants for teacher training places is several times higher than the supply of places allocated and funded by the government every year. I've no problem with public sector jobs being allocated and paid on a non-market basis, but to pretend that Scottish teaching needs to offer the current terms or else graduates will all do something else is wishful thinking. We produce an enormous number of graduates each year who could enter the teaching profession with postgraduate training - and there are nowhere near enough 'graduate jobs' (not that they're the benchmark of quality work) in Scotland to employ them instead. So the meaningful comparison is not between a teaching job and another professional job, but rather between teaching and the median salary in the country. Because many of those who are capable of teaching end up with no job at all after university, or one not even remotely tied to their degree.
  7. How does flogging a ten year season ticket fill any of that hole in the finances? Have your mob been using Barcelona's accountants?
  8. Erm, market forces do not dictate the pay of the vast majority of teachers in Scotland. If they did, then it would in all likelihood be lower than it currently is. The 'employer' is a local authority as a function of the state. The same applies to countless roles that are performed within the public sector. You can justify increases (or relative reductions) in pay based on need and social value, but stating that the market has somehow established the existing rate of pay for their roles is nonsense.
  9. Anyone cutting around as a fully-grown adult calling themselves 'Si' is a grade A c**t.
  10. Shite to be traipsing up to that midden but it'll add more money to Sir Douglas' January transfer warchest. Not least after Sir Efe dumps them in the mud and secures our 5th round spot.
  11. 'Won't somebody please think of people who want a job promotion?!' is an interesting angle to take during a Cost Of Living Crisis™, but given the poster it's hardly surprising.
  12. The main problem with Forthbank is that it's not really in Stirling. The Uni would be an acceptable tie but not the epic away day that the Scottish Cup should dangle in front of every fanbase in the country at the next stage. We are next available to view at Fortress Cappielow on December 17th. Being neither a money-spinner nor a pushover for any opponent right now, we're perhaps the least popular option in Monday's draw. Long may that continue.
  13. I don't think our performance changed today because of Kabia (he was okay). Quitongo was just as wasteful with the space that he had on the opposite side, although was drawing fouls. The difference was Gillespie moving back. But if it brings McGrattan back into the team to make us more balanced again next week, then that's the most important thing. Perhaps Imrie was looking for an excuse to justify that after all.
  14. The first goal was deflected but it was entirely merited based on the previous chances - including a superb goal line clearance from Muirhead's header - that our pressure had forced previously. It wasn't against the run of play at all - the equaliser was also merited by the time it arrived.
  15. You didn't fall into any trap, we just moved Gillespie back to cover the space in front of the defence that you kept exploiting in the first half to pretty good effect. We don't normally have that gap: it was sloppy from us to create it today. Once that hole was plugged, the innate superiority of our players and system won out. A commendable effort at the toughest away game in Scottish football right now though.
  16. Other than Linlithgow, is there a non-SPFL club left that doesn't involve a rancid away day? Cup exploits granted, but Drumchapel and Darvel have all the appeal of syphilis. Get me Elgin away.
  17. Never heard a penalty for clattering somebody in the box (as opposed to clattering Quitongo and Strapp everywhere else on the park) being classed as a 'set piece' before either.
  18. Deserved win in the end. There was too much of a gap between our centre backs and midfield in the first half - Queens tactics exploited that well, and so it was far too open a game from our point of view. 1-1 was a fair reflection. Gillespie sat deeper in the second half to remove that gap and gave us a fair amount of control. Playing into the swirling wind helped with that too (and hindered us in the first half of course). I don't remember Schwake having anything serious to do until after the second goal. Muirhead's free-kick made up for the header that he had to bury at the far post earlier- he was excellent today. A superb individual goal from King to put some gloss on it at the end too.
  19. If Germany lose to Spain then they're out. Which is the most likely outcome, so there's no point seriously discussing them as a knockout force at this point in the competition. I'd put Spain in a higher bracket than Portugal (previously put together) and Argentina should still be in the mix in the knockout stages. Brazil and France look strongest but it's still quite open. Denmark fluffed their lines and so France are overwhelming favourites to do that now. If you can't tolerate speculation of likely paths to the final then a discussion forum about an international tournament mebbe isn't for you.
  20. Really not sure what opportunities for positivity you've got under the current Gardiner-Dodds dream team - while still haemorrhaging money hand over fist. But at least they can count on mebbe 50 Werther's Originals rustlers like yourself to stay on board for the journey.
  21. There's no guarantee that Livingston will be playing top flight level football in two seasons. I'd be surprised if you didn't offer him a contract just to nail down any compensation money though (which we wouldn't be paying).
×
×
  • Create New...