The rhetoric in the article is a little ridiculous, but for a moment let's gloss over his glossed over details:
Professional football teams have an extreme financial incentive to accurately predict an athlete's potential. They have a sizable data set to examine, and a lot of money to spend, but there have still been some very notable failures.
Our education system does not have the resources of the NFL to determine who will be a good teacher. But even if they did, it would be a misappropriation of funds. Instead of focusing on pre-facto credentials (graduate degrees, etc.), we should put them in the mix and see how they perform, and pay the best teachers accordingly.
These seem like the most salient points from the article, and I don't think any of them are particularly false or oversimplified. If you know a lot about something and the article is for a general audience, it's bound to seem like a bunch of outright lies. Life is never as elegant as the New Yorker makes it seem, but that doesn't mean it's not entertaining (and sometimes informative) to read.
"Our education system does not have the resources of the NFL to determine who will be a good teacher. But even if they did, it would be a misappropriation of funds. Instead of focusing on pre-facto credentials (graduate degrees, etc.), we should put them in the mix and see how they perform, and pay the best teachers accordingly."
Professional football teams have an extreme financial incentive to accurately predict an athlete's potential. They have a sizable data set to examine, and a lot of money to spend, but there have still been some very notable failures.
Our education system does not have the resources of the NFL to determine who will be a good teacher. But even if they did, it would be a misappropriation of funds. Instead of focusing on pre-facto credentials (graduate degrees, etc.), we should put them in the mix and see how they perform, and pay the best teachers accordingly.
These seem like the most salient points from the article, and I don't think any of them are particularly false or oversimplified. If you know a lot about something and the article is for a general audience, it's bound to seem like a bunch of outright lies. Life is never as elegant as the New Yorker makes it seem, but that doesn't mean it's not entertaining (and sometimes informative) to read.