Matt Damon is even sexier than before

  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 03, 2011 2:54 PM GMT
    As someone who grew up as the child of parents who were teachers and who currently teaches too, I went all mushy... after he took that reporter to school.






    ...and he doesn't look bad without hair.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Aug 03, 2011 2:59 PM GMT
    i agree!

    short hair and the "butch military look" Works Well for MD.


    icon_biggrin.gif


    icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 3:06 PM GMT
    He's awesome. Huge fan since Good Will Hunting and so happy to see him taking up this issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 4:44 PM GMT
    Well Well WELL~!
  • kcbronc

    Posts: 36

    Aug 03, 2011 4:49 PM GMT
    Hot and intelligent. My mother would be so happy to call him her son in law if we got married.
  • NerdLifter

    Posts: 1509

    Aug 03, 2011 4:55 PM GMT
    kcbronc saidHot and intelligent. My mother would be so happy to call him her son in law if we got married.

    Ah, we all can dream...icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 4:56 PM GMT
    He's ok
  • metatextual

    Posts: 774

    Aug 03, 2011 5:00 PM GMT
    Edward22 saidHe's ok


    He definitely has a cocky attitude, but it's backed up with quite a bit of intelligence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 5:10 PM GMT
    calibro saidAs someone who grew up as the child of parents who were teachers and who currently teaches too, I went all mushy... after he took that reporter to school.


    I had the same reaction icon_smile.gif
  • Latenight30

    Posts: 1525

    Aug 03, 2011 5:29 PM GMT
    My mother, now retired, taught 33 years with most of it in middle school range 7th-9th grade one of the hardest and most crucial developmentally for kids. What our country is doing with education is just a shame. Charlotte is laying off teachers and moving them around to get less experienced cheaper "teach for america." In Atlanta they have a huge scandal of cheating on standardized testing. I think some of them were strong armed into making adjustments and I know they aren't allowed to teach, many times directives are sent down that say on September 15th 2011 you have to be on page 22 line 33 no matter what. That isn't fair.

    Teachers have a gift. They have skills that few really posses. They can communicate and keep interested 30 young minds for 50 mins at a time. Matt Damon is right on.
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Aug 03, 2011 5:40 PM GMT
    Just shut up and stick to the brilliant acting Matty!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 5:47 PM GMT
    He totally nailed it, I think I caught half chub when he ripped that reporter.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 03, 2011 5:58 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidHe totally nailed it, I think I caught half chub when he ripped that reporter.


    yeah... sadly, they edited out the part where he goes after the cameraman... (loose) transcript...


    Cameraman: Aren't 10 percent of teachers bad?

    Matt's Mother: Where did you get that number from?

    Cameraman: I don’t know 10 percent of people maybe should think of something else.

    Matt Damon: OK, well maybe you’re just a shitty cameraman.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 6:02 PM GMT
    Mepark saidJust shut up and stick to the brilliant acting Matty!


    Why don't you take your own advice. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Vaughn

    Posts: 1880

    Aug 03, 2011 6:02 PM GMT
    Shouldn't he be aging or something?
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Aug 03, 2011 6:24 PM GMT
    he DOES look good in that "International Male" shirt!




    icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 7:11 PM GMT
    Here's the full interview - personally I think he looks silly in the video, anyone who has actually gone to school or even knows of kids who go to school know that not all teachers are created equal. There are amazing teachers. There are also bad teachers - in the context of the level of job security and benefits, to deny this makes him look well, silly -



    As for his claim that teachers get paid "shitty"? Again, it just makes him look ahem, uneducated -

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/02/is-matt-damon-right-that-teach

    At last Saturday's "Save Our Schools" rally, a fairly livid actor Matt Damon told Reason.tv that teachers make a "shitty" salary. Is the Oscar winner right about that?

    The short answer is no. The longer answer? Also no.

    According to Department of Education statistics for 2007-2008 (the most recent year listed), the average public school teacher brought in a bit over $53,000 in "total school-year and summer earned income." That figure, which is about $13,000 more than what the average private-school teacher gets in straight salary, does not include health and retirement benefits, places where teachers almost always get better deals and bigger employer contributions than the typical private-sector worker. For more on teacher compensation, go here.

    An average salary of $53,000 may not be much for a movie star such as Damon, but it's a pretty good wage when compared to U.S. averages. Indeed, the Census Bureau reports that median household income in 2008 was $52,000. Teaching in most public schools requires a bachelor's degree and here teachers fare less well on first glance, though still not awful. The median income for a man with a B.A. was $82,000; for a woman, it was $54,000. About three-quarters of teachers are women, so the average salaries when gender comes into play hew closely to one another.

    More to the point, Bureau of Labor Statistics and other surveys that take into account the reported number of hours worked in a year consistently show that on a per-hour basis, teacher income (again, not including fringe benefits, which are typically far more robust than those offered other workers, including college-educated professionals) is extremely strong.

    ednext20033_71fig1.gif

    So teachers are not compensated poorly. And, as the link above suggests and contrary to another assertion made by Damon, it turns out that teachers don't work long hours. At least not compared to other professionals.

    None of this is to argue that teaching is easy or unimportant. But K-12 educators are not paid poorly. They may have good reason to be mad at their collective bargaining units, however. Since 1991, teacher salaries have generally kept pace with inflation while inflation-adjusted per-pupil funding has gone up by more than 25 percent. So even as more dollars are heading to schools, teachers aren't grabbing much of it, at least not at the same rate as the per-pupil funding increases. Their unions and negotiators may be grabbing more. Ther are more teachers per student than ever before, so it appears that part of the money is going into more staffing rather than paying existing employees more.

    The bottom line: Teachers are not paid poorly relative to the average worker or to other professionals.

    Now can we get back to a far more important question: How in the hell is sending even more money to a broken system going to help the students for whom schools exist in the first place?

    The short answer is that it won't.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 7:15 PM GMT


    That graph is misleading.

    For example

    [url]http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/Salary[/url]


    And just look, different kinds of engineers make different wages!

    http://www.payscale.com/rcsearch.aspx?str=engineer&x=0&y=0&CountryName=United+States&SourceId=Job
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 7:17 PM GMT
    http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 7:21 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    That graph is misleading.

    For example

    [url]http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/Salary[/url]


    And just look, different kinds of engineers make different wages!

    http://www.payscale.com/rcsearch.aspx?str=engineer&x=0&y=0&CountryName=United+States&SourceId=Job


    Actually, it's not misleading in that sense - given that as they note directly on the graph that the Department of Labor stats take into account the number of hours teachers work.

    Nevertheless even by your standard, you can't say that teacher's salaries are "shitty" relative to other professions. A better question perhaps should be why does the public education system (it's not just teachers - it's administration and bureaucracy), keep getting more money despite providing for results that aren't any better?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 7:25 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Now can we get back to a far more important question: How in the hell is sending even more money to a broken system going to help the students for whom schools exist in the first place?

    The problem with the school "system" is that there isn't one. Schools are local. And local conditions (property taxes) are what the public schools function on. School districts get state and federal money to supplement local deficiencies...unless you have a libertarian voting bloc in those institutions.

    Teachers (oh, and their unions) are being targeted because they are the ONE organized counterpoint to the libertarian approach. Without them there is nothing to defend against the privatization wave (and mantra of--what's the euphemism--"personal responsibility") being railroaded by conservatives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 7:28 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    riddler78 said
    Now can we get back to a far more important question: How in the hell is sending even more money to a broken system going to help the students for whom schools exist in the first place?

    The problem with the school "system" is that there isn't one. Schools are local. And local conditions (property taxes) are what the public schools function on. School districts get state and federal money to supplement local deficiencies...unless you have a libertarian voting bloc in those institutions.

    Teachers (oh, and their unions) are being targeted because they are the ONE organized counterpoint to the libertarian approach. Without them there is nothing to defend against the privatization wave (and mantra of--what's the euphemism--"personal responsibility") being railroaded by conservatives.


    Note that the quote isn't what I said but what I quoted from the original article, but I do agree with the sentiment. The underwhelming results are pretty universal though and the teachers unions are also quite powerful. Irrespective of politics, I'm sure you'd agree something has to change. It is unclear at best - and in fact, it seems a bit insane to keep throwing money into a broken system - or broken systems if you want to be specific.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 03, 2011 7:31 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidHere's the full interview - personally I think he looks silly in the video, anyone who has actually gone to school or even knows of kids who go to school know that not all teachers are created equal. There are amazing teachers. There are also bad teachers - in the context of the level of job security and benefits, to deny this makes him look well, silly -



    As for his claim that teachers get paid "shitty"? Again, it just makes him look ahem, uneducated -

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/02/is-matt-damon-right-that-teach

    At last Saturday's "Save Our Schools" rally, a fairly livid actor Matt Damon told Reason.tv that teachers make a "shitty" salary. Is the Oscar winner right about that?

    The short answer is no. The longer answer? Also no.

    According to Department of Education statistics for 2007-2008 (the most recent year listed), the average public school teacher brought in a bit over $53,000 in "total school-year and summer earned income." That figure, which is about $13,000 more than what the average private-school teacher gets in straight salary, does not include health and retirement benefits, places where teachers almost always get better deals and bigger employer contributions than the typical private-sector worker. For more on teacher compensation, go here.

    An average salary of $53,000 may not be much for a movie star such as Damon, but it's a pretty good wage when compared to U.S. averages. Indeed, the Census Bureau reports that median household income in 2008 was $52,000. Teaching in most public schools requires a bachelor's degree and here teachers fare less well on first glance, though still not awful. The median income for a man with a B.A. was $82,000; for a woman, it was $54,000. About three-quarters of teachers are women, so the average salaries when gender comes into play hew closely to one another.

    More to the point, Bureau of Labor Statistics and other surveys that take into account the reported number of hours worked in a year consistently show that on a per-hour basis, teacher income (again, not including fringe benefits, which are typically far more robust than those offered other workers, including college-educated professionals) is extremely strong.

    ednext20033_71fig1.gif

    So teachers are not compensated poorly. And, as the link above suggests and contrary to another assertion made by Damon, it turns out that teachers don't work long hours. At least not compared to other professionals.

    None of this is to argue that teaching is easy or unimportant. But K-12 educators are not paid poorly. They may have good reason to be mad at their collective bargaining units, however. Since 1991, teacher salaries have generally kept pace with inflation while inflation-adjusted per-pupil funding has gone up by more than 25 percent. So even as more dollars are heading to schools, teachers aren't grabbing much of it, at least not at the same rate as the per-pupil funding increases. Their unions and negotiators may be grabbing more. Ther are more teachers per student than ever before, so it appears that part of the money is going into more staffing rather than paying existing employees more.

    The bottom line: Teachers are not paid poorly relative to the average worker or to other professionals.

    Now can we get back to a far more important question: How in the hell is sending even more money to a broken system going to help the students for whom schools exist in the first place?

    The short answer is that it won't.



    and now let's refute those claims.

    1. The average public school teacher earns more than private one because private school teachers are not required to be credentialed to teach. They don't go through the same oversight. As such, you can pick up cheaper labor.

    2. The average salary is completely misleading. Starting salaries aren't above 40,000 in any states to my knowledge, and a lot of that average is skewed by older teachers who are grandfathered in by higher pay. New teachers today cannot be expected to earn that amount anymore, nor to receive the same amount of benefits. It's also important to consider teaching is a job with a tremendous longevity of its employees. When you factor in the decades the work for the amount they receive and the average is 53,000 it's still rather low.

    3. The hours teachers are technically paid for are nowhere close to the actual amount of hours they work. As someone who taught one course with twenty-four students, that only met for 3 hours a week, I was expected to work 20 hours a week to fulfill my obligations, and often did more. Forget the meetings and conferences... just think if an English teacher has 150 students and semester and gets an essay from each one of them. Even if you can make it through one page in five minutes (which is rather fast), a paper that is three pages would still take 37.5 hours to evaluate. If you ever lived with a teacher like I did, you would see the long hours they put into the night simply going over homework.


    And it would be so like you to miss the point. Matt Damon isn't arguing about salaries. What you're doing is making a straw man point. So take your false logic elsewhere. If anything, he's arguing about teacher's loss of power in the classroom and the means by which education is now judged by standardized testing being liked to funds and success.Of course your source would focus on that, because that's the blog of the reporter who got pwned. And of course you would completely miss the entire point, the point Matt lambasts against with "MBA-style paternalistic' thinking. All you hear is money and think economic principles will solve this problem. Why don't you actually listen instead of hear next time when Matt himself says the problem is very complex.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 7:36 PM GMT
    No, he's a dumbass. He schooled no one - he said "O maybe you're a shitty cameraman."

    He may be right, maybe the guy is a shitty cameraman. But in that case, he won't be a cameraman for long.

    When it comes to teachers, MATTDAMON doesn't believe there are any shitty ones, or doesn't want to admit that there are.

    We really shouldn't pile on him, but he brought this on himself. He's another ignorant Hollywood dumbass taking up a "cause" about which he understands nothing.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 7:38 PM GMT
    calibro said
    and now let's refute those claims.

    1. The average public school teacher earns more than private one because private school teachers are not required to be credentialed to teach. They don't go through the same oversight. As such, you can pick up cheaper labor.

    2. The average salary is completely misleading. Starting salaries aren't above 40,000 in any states to my knowledge, and a lot of that average is skewed by older teachers who are grandfathered in by higher pay. New teachers today cannot be expected to earn that amount anymore, nor to receive the same amount of benefits. It's also important to consider teaching is a job with a tremendous longevity of its employees. When you factor in the decades the work for the amount they receive and the average is 53,000 it's still rather low.

    3. The hours teachers are technically paid for are nowhere close to the actual amount of hours they work. As someone who taught one course with twenty-four students, that only met for 3 hours a week, I was expected to work 20 hours a week to fulfill my obligations, and often did more. Forget the meetings and conferences... just think if an English teacher has 150 students and semester and gets an essay fro each one of them. Even if you can make it through one page in five minutes (which is rather fast), a paper that is three pages would still take 37.5 hours to evaluate. If you ever lived with a teacher like I did, you would see the long hours they put into the night simply going over homework.


    Not sure that I'm seeing the refutation here.

    (1) We're not talking about private versus public teachers. We're talking about average teachers salaries.

    (2) We're not talking about starting salaries. We're talking about average salaries. Teachers unions bizarrely have always sacrificed new teachers for older ones in union negotiations - but this doesn't mean they still don't have the potential to earn a lot more or that average teachers do quite well.

    (3) And the department of Labor estimates the prep and time outside of work. It's not like teachers are the only profession where you have to stay late, etc - and it's not throughout the year is the point. It's also shown that after a few years of teaching the same course it gets dramatically faster to prepare. I think the rule of thumb my friends who are teachers have said is about 3-4 years.

    Postscript -

    calibro said
    And it would be so like you to miss the point. Matt Damon isn't arguing about salaries. What you're doing is making a straw man point. So take your false logic elsewhere. If anything, he's arguing about teacher's loss of power in the classroom and the means by which education is now judged by standardized testing being liked to funds and success.Of course your source would focus on that, because that's the blog of the reporter who got pwned. And of course you would completely miss the entire point, the point Matt lambasts against with "MBA-style paternalistic' thinking. All you hear is money and think economic principles will solve this problem. Why don't you actually listen instead of hear next time when Matt himself says the problem is very complex.


    And it would be like you to create a strawman. Matt Damon was *also* arguing about salaries. As for standardized testing and loss of control, I actually tend to agree. I think there needs to be better recognition - not necessarily financial but this should remain a viable option for management to rewards better teachers. There however needs to be some form of accountability and this should not be unreasonable. The reporter didn't get pwned - Matt Damon ended up looking silly.

    Why don't you actually bother to read the responses instead of beginning by attacking others?