NationStates Jolt Archive

i've done them both but i would like to see what you think, before saying what i think.

Doing what exactly?

Depends on the subject. Teaching programming is harder than doing it, whereas teaching creative writing is much easier than doing it. (I've done and taught both)

If you're teaching an old dog: Teaching.

If you're an old dog: Doing.

Definitely depends like AB says, But for the most part it is harder to teach someone something than to do it.

Definitely depends like AB says, But for the most part it is harder to teach someone something than to do it.
Unless it's a suicide class or knife-swallowing clinic. Perhaps a spontaneous combustion workshop also would be a better thing to teach.

In general, I would say teaching. Finding the right way to reach students, keeping them going even when they don't want to go, not to mention all the little distractions that gets added to a teacher's day.

Oh yes, also suddenly becoming a parent for 489 kids.

Still... it has its rewards.

Are you quoting, "those who can, do; those who can't, teach?"
I think that statement is a huge put down of teachers who need more expertise than ever these days, not just to keep up with continuing growth and change in their subject matter, but in coping with disruptive student behaviours. I think that teaching something to someone is the best way to learn/do it as it forces you into a better understanding and appreciation of the subject matter.

Are you quoting, "those who can, do; those who can't, teach?"


You missed off the last bit.

"those who can, do; those who can't, teach, and those that can't teach, lecture!" :p

(I have been both a teacher and a lecturer before you get all uppity.)

Teaching is far easier. If you do something poorly, either you’re superiors or customers are going to notice. On the other hand, you can be a piss poor teacher and the only people who will notice are you’re students, who’s claims are easily dismissible.

Teaching is far easier. If you do something poorly, either you’re superiors or customers are going to notice. On the other hand, you can be a piss poor teacher and the only people who will notice are you’re students, who’s claims are easily dismissible.
Can we add the caviat of "teaching well"? Anyone can do a pisspoor job in anything.

Are you quoting, "those who can, do; those who can't, teach?"
I think that statement is a huge put down of teachers who need more expertise than ever these days, not just to keep up with continuing growth and change in their subject matter, but in coping with disruptive student behaviours. I think that teaching something to someone is the best way to learn/do it as it forces you into a better understanding and appreciation of the subject matter.

I tend to agree. The level of expertise required of teachers in both the subject matter being taught and pedagogy tends to make it more difficult. Personally, after doing and teaching a variety of things (martial arts, composition, literature), I have found that teaching really makes me advance my skills in the field even further and deepen my knowledge of the subject out of necessity in order to be a more effective teacher. And even after this, I still have a long way to go to really master the subject. It's going to take me decades to master those subjects enough to be a really effective teacher.

I'm going to vote for "doing". My theory is this: The best way to teach people how to do something is to first do it yourself until you get it right and then teach them how to do it until they get it right.

So, being that the first step is doing, that should be harder. Right? Right.

I'm going to vote for "doing". My theory is this: The best way to teach people how to do something is to first do it yourself until you get it right and then teach them how to do it until they get it right.

So, being that the first step is doing, that should be harder. Right? Right.
I disagree. I have a number of skills I know how to do well, but knowing how to teach them well is another story.

I can't tell you how many times I have called a parent to talk to them about their kid's progress (or lack thereof) and been told, "It's YOUR problem from 9-3, don't bother me."

Or had them tell me the reason their kid's perpetually late is because they have to take care of a younger kid.

Or that the kid has to run their store so that's why they don't do any work at home.

Or that education is stupid and they are doing just fine without it.

So yeah, when you deal with that and then have parents scream at you because their kid is failing (because the parents are preventing them from doing what's necessary to pass) teaching is a lot harder than doing.

Thank God there are kids whose parents are genuinely concerned and involved, whose kids are inquisitive and argumentative. If there weren't enough of the others, I swear I'd be flipping burgers.

Ancient Japanese Proverb:

"To teach is to learn."

I'd have to go with teaching....I hate trying to teach someone something and I'd hate to be a teacher.

Ancient Japanese Proverb:

"To teach is to learn."

True. And I've learned a great deal from my students. :)

True. And I've learned a great deal from my students. :)
Agreed. Sometimes I'm not sure I wanted to know what I learned from my kids though. ;)

Teaching is far easier. If you do something poorly, either you’re superiors or customers are going to notice. On the other hand, you can be a piss poor teacher and the only people who will notice are you’re students, who’s claims are easily dismissible.

Gee, I've never encountered anyone bad at their job except teaching. Thanks for enlightening me.

Oh, and don't teachers have superiors and customers as well? Why are they less succeptible to those superiors/customers than your average worker?

I tend to agree with Jocabia. If you are a bad teacher, at least in my school, you get it from all sides: disrespect from the students, complaints from the parents, unsatisfactory ratings from your chairperson, personal meetings with the principal, and eventually, the boot.

I disagree. I have a number of skills I know how to do well, but knowing how to teach them well is another story.

It can be that way for some people.

One of my jobs here at work is to train new employees. It can be a little nerve wracking, but quite simple in the long run. The biggest problem I have ever run into is a person's unwillingness to learn.

I tend to agree with Jocabia. If you are a bad teacher, at least in my school, you get it from all sides: disrespect from the students, complaints from the parents, unsatisfactory ratings from your chairperson, personal meetings with the principal, and eventually, the boot.

I agree that the experience of the theoretical is much different than the practical, but teaching, actually teaching people is really difficult. The fact that so many people do it badly is evidence of how difficult it is. We rarely remember that a good consultant or a good manager nearly as much as we note that one special teacher that really made us love some subject or another.

There are a couple teachers in my past I would donate a kidney to. Can't say any such thing about past coworkers or bosses. And I've encountered a lot more people in other professions than I have teachers.

Depends on the subject. Teaching programming is harder than doing it, whereas teaching creative writing is much easier than doing it. (I've done and taught both)
Teaching creative writing is easier than doing it? I don't agree. Unless you have a student who already knows how to do it, it can be a painful process. It is so much easier to write something yourself than guide a student along the process, introduce them to examples, and try to get them into their own groove.

I'd say that teaching something is almost always harder than just doing it yourself. Because if you teach something properly, you are making sure that the person learning the skill really gets it...not just memorises bits of information. If you know enough to teach someone, you can generally already have the skill to do what is being taught yourself. That's not ALWAYS the case, but generally...doing is easier than teaching.

Are you quoting, "those who can, do; those who can't, teach?"

You know how I always read this quote? Imagine a musician who simply doesn't have the opportunity to go out and make a living off of playing music for pay. Perhaps they have a family they want to support more steadily...or can't travel for whatever reason. So they choose to teach music instead, and pass along a great gift. I don't see that as a negative thing...not everyone needs to be a FAMOUS writer/artist/musician/athlete etc in order to excel in their field, and we should be thankful that such people sometimes choose to teach our children.

But I loved the Jeff Black quote in School of Rock:

"Those that can, do; those that can't, teach....and those that can't teach, teach gym.":p

I'd say that teaching something is almost always harder than just doing it yourself. Because if you teach something properly, you are making sure that the person learning the skill really gets it...not just memorises bits of information. If you know enough to teach someone, you can generally already have the skill to do what is being taught yourself. That's not ALWAYS the case, but generally...doing is easier than teaching.


You dont teach history do you?

Teaching creative writing is easier than doing it? I don't agree. Unless you have a student who already knows how to do it, it can be a painful process. It is so much easier to write something yourself than guide a student along the process, introduce them to examples, and try to get them into their own groove.

I'd say that teaching something is almost always harder than just doing it yourself. Because if you teach something properly, you are making sure that the person learning the skill really gets it...not just memorises bits of information. If you know enough to teach someone, you can generally already have the skill to do what is being taught yourself. That's not ALWAYS the case, but generally...doing is easier than teaching.

Teaching creative writing does not require the creativity that doing it does. You can demand the creativity aspect from your students. Now if creativity is something that comes easily to you, then you are very very lucky indeed. For most of us being creative is one of the hardest things of all to do.

What you need to be able to do in teaching creative writing is to teach how to structure writing time and space, how to get around those little bumps in the road, how to get the most out of your creativity. It is a set of technical skills, not creative ones that you teach.

Teaching - in general - demands creativity and flexibility, but of a different nature. It is not the same as trying to create a whole and realistic person or situation in your imagination.

So I stand by my claim that teaching a creative subject - be it writing or art or anything else, is easier than doing it.

I tend to agree with Jocabia. If you are a bad teacher, at least in my school, you get it from all sides: disrespect from the students, complaints from the parents, unsatisfactory ratings from your chairperson, personal meetings with the principal, and eventually, the boot.
Any district I've been in has regular performance reviews, including monitored lessons by administration as part of your evaluation. Everyone knows who the bad teachers are...it's not something you hide for long.

You dont teach history do you?
I absolutely have, and do.

How do you 'do' history though...well, you need to learn research skills, you need to develop critical thinking skills...you need to develop the ability to tie pieces of evidence together to form a better view of the event you are studying. Once you know how to do this, it's easy to keep doing it. TEACHING a student these things, and forcing them to go beyond memorisation, is a long, drawn out, and sometimes frustrating process.

Teaching and doing are often two different skillsets. The best instructor at any discipline is seldom the best at doing it. The best at performing any skill is seldom the best at teaching it. A teacher without students is nothing as is a completely self taught person. Each is incomplete without the other.

I absolutely have, and do.

How do you 'do' history though...well, you need to learn research skills, you need to develop critical thinking skills...you need to develop the ability to tie pieces of evidence together to form a better view of the event you are studying. Once you know how to do this, it's easy to keep doing it. TEACHING a student these things, and forcing them to go beyond memorisation, is a long, drawn out, and sometimes frustrating process.

To "do" history rather than teach it you make it into the history books as other than author of the history book I would think.

You dont teach history do you?
Look at it this way, a good teacher guides you, and that is very hard. It's MUCH easier to just snap out the answer than have to wait, prod, correct, ask again, wait, prod, correct, and do so over and over again till the student FINALLY gets whatever skill you're attempting to teach.

For example, I was working on teaching my second years past tence in English, a rather horrid affair as Japanese, to make something past, changes the verb ending and leaves it at that. ENGLISH decides to change verbs, not always reguarly, and then plays with the pronouns as well.

So I will get work from my students that reads, "He and me playing baseball yesterday." Now it would be far eaiser for me just to red line and write in the corrections. But to make sure my kid understands, I instead spend a few minutes going over and re-teaching the forms until in an "A-ha!" moment, my student re-writes as "He and I played baseball yesterday."

It's harder to teach that than just doing it.

Teaching creative writing does not require the creativity that doing it does. You can demand the creativity aspect from your students. Now if creativity is something that comes easily to you, then you are very very lucky indeed. For most of us being creative is one of the hardest things of all to do.

What you need to be able to do in teaching creative writing is to teach how to structure writing time and space, how to get around those little bumps in the road, how to get the most out of your creativity. It is a set of technical skills, not creative ones that you teach.

Teaching - in general - demands creativity and flexibility, but of a different nature. It is not the same as trying to create a whole and realistic person or situation in your imagination.

So I stand by my claim that teaching a creative subject - be it writing or art or anything else, is easier than doing it.

Not every student is going to actually be capable of creativity in a certain 'creative' subject. Sometimes, the technical aspects are all they can learn. You can't teach creativity, you can simply encourage it. So talking about 'teaching creative writing' is really not about 'teaching creativity'. It's about those skills you've mentioned.

Consider what it takes to teach music to students...*shudders* compared to just playing it yourself. Now, I can't sculpt, so I probably wouldn't be 'teaching' sculpting...but I still believe that the most you can impart to a student are the technical skills. Anything else is going to come from them. If you, as a teacher, are skilled in your field (as you should be), then teaching that creative subject is going to be harder than doing. If you are not skilled, then perhaps the teaching will be easier than the doing.

Teaching and doing are often two different skillsets. The best instructor at any discipline is seldom the best at doing it. The best at performing any skill is seldom the best at teaching it. A teacher without students is nothing as is a completely self taught person. Each is incomplete without the other.

Teaching is a second skill set that has to be applied to the first doing skill set. It may be the case that the best at doing are not the best teachers, but that does not mean that the best teachers do not also have to be good at doing. Teaching skills are insufficient on their own. You need to have the doing skills to be able to apply the teaching skills.

A teacher without students becomes a doer. A student without a teacher is up shit creek without a paddle most of the time.

Look at it this way, a good teacher guides you, and that is very hard. It's MUCH easier to just snap out the answer than have to wait, prod, correct, ask again, wait, prod, correct, and do so over and over again till the student FINALLY gets whatever skill you're attempting to teach.

For example, I was working on teaching my second years past tence in English, a rather horrid affair as Japanese, to make something past, changes the verb ending and leaves it at that. ENGLISH decides to change verbs, not always reguarly, and then plays with the pronouns as well.

So I will get work from my students that reads, "He and me playing baseball yesterday." Now it would be far eaiser for me just to red line and write in the corrections. But to make sure my kid understands, I instead spend a few minutes going over and re-teaching the forms until in an "A-ha!" moment, my student re-writes as "He and I played baseball yesterday."



It's harder to teach that than just doing it.



See post 31. Im not knocking teachers at all. I just think it is easier to teach history than to make history.

Teaching and doing are often two different skillsets. The best instructor at any discipline is seldom the best at doing it. The best at performing any skill is seldom the best at teaching it. A teacher without students is nothing as is a completely self taught person. Each is incomplete without the other.

A teacher without a student is juat a person who performs the discipline. Your statement is basically meaningless.

See post 31. Im not knocking teachers at all. I just think it is easier to teach history than to make history.

Uh-huh. Cuz making history is the alternative to teaching it. Ridiculous comparison.

Meanwhile, how hard would it be for me to climb up on a tower and kill a few people? It would certainly be easier than teaching and yet people have done exactly that and made history.

Teaching is a second skill set that has to be applied to the first doing skill set. It may be the case that the best at doing are not the best teachers, but that does not mean that the best teachers do not also have to be good at doing. Teaching skills are insufficient on their own. You need to have the doing skills to be able to apply the teaching skills.

A teacher without students becomes a doer. A student without a teacher is up shit creek without a paddle most of the time.

So in your case if you were not teaching creative writing you would become a novelist whereas if one of your students dropped out of your creative writing class she would become a burger flipper?

Not every student is going to actually be capable of creativity in a certain 'creative' subject. Sometimes, the technical aspects are all they can learn. You can't teach creativity, you can simply encourage it. So talking about 'teaching creative writing' is really not about 'teaching creativity'. It's about those skills you've mentioned.

Consider what it takes to teach music to students...*shudders* compared to just playing it yourself. Now, I can't sculpt, so I probably wouldn't be 'teaching' sculpting...but I still believe that the most you can impart to a student are the technical skills. Anything else is going to come from them. If you, as a teacher, are skilled in your field (as you should be), then teaching that creative subject is going to be harder than doing. If you are not skilled, then perhaps the teaching will be easier than the doing.

You can not teach creativity. You can encourage it, you can provide the conditions for it to flourish, but it is essentially an interanl thing to the student. That is exactly why teaching 'creative subjects' is easier than doing them.

You can be skilled in the area, in fact you should be - I would never try to teach music for example - but find the process of teaching the techniques, the tricks, the skills, easier than being creative yourself. I can be a very good creative writer, but this depends upon inspiration more than upon application, but as I find the subject fascinating I can teach it as my entusiasm for the subject comes across and I know the technical skills and I have teching skills.

I still find it easier to teach this than do it.

So in your case if you were not teaching creative writing you would become a novelist whereas if one of your students dropped out of your creative writing class she would become a burger flipper?
A teacher is not always a teacher. As in...student can still learn from 'teachers' who don't actually intend to instruct them. The student in your scenario might well 'learn' from other famous novelists simply by studying their techniques...so the 'teacher' is still present.

Uh-huh. Cuz making history is the alternative to teaching it. Ridiculous comparison.

Meanwhile, how hard would it be for me to climb up on a tower and kill a few people? It would certainly be easier than teaching and yet people have done exactly that and made history.

It may be a ridiculous comparison but it is exactly the question asked in this thread. Also I think it would be quite difficult for you to climb a tower and kill people. At least I hope it would be. If not you need a less stressful work environment. Or some calming drugs.

You can not teach creativity. You can encourage it, you can provide the conditions for it to flourish, but it is essentially an interanl thing to the student. That is exactly why teaching 'creative subjects' is easier than doing them.

You can be skilled in the area, in fact you should be - I would never try to teach music for example - but find the process of teaching the techniques, the tricks, the skills, easier than being creative yourself. I can be a very good creative writer, but this depends upon inspiration more than upon application, but as I find the subject fascinating I can teach it as my entusiasm for the subject comes across and I know the technical skills and I have teching skills.

I still find it easier to teach this than do it.
Okay, we agree that you can't teach creativity...only encourage it. So if 'teaching creative subjects' is in fact NOT about teaching 'creativity', but rather the set of skills necessary to express creativity...then we can not compare that to being creative oneself. We must compare it to using the skills sets being taught.

So, once you are well versed in those skills, doing them is going to be easier than teaching them.

Being creative is something altogether separate in this case.

So in your case if you were not teaching creative writing you would become a novelist whereas if one of your students dropped out of your creative writing class she would become a burger flipper?

I actually went to do other things (having a family demands a more predictable income), but I could be a novelist. The student could also be a novelist, as creative writing really is something that can be self taught (teaching it is as much about instilling confidence as anything else). However if it were programming, then yes I could go and be a programmer, while the drop out student flips burgers (or studies something else).

Like most are saying it depends, for instance, I am a student. Now science has got to be the hardest thing to teach me, because im a know it all, unless your privelty tutering me, you can't go advanced because the others still need to learn the basics, therefore i will sleep through all science classes :p ,

However, when it comes to math, the teacher can explain it as well as she/he likes I may or may not understand it because it is not somthing I am A. proficient in B. Intrested in C. Good at

Going to a public school, i'd say both, since NY is so libral the teachers arn't aloud to disciplin the children in a way they will feel punished, and bright students don't want to listen, slow students don't want to listen so it's pretty hard for a teacher.

How ever being a student 6 hours of school can become painfull, it's unimaginable boredom, and it's not like you can walk around or take a break, your doomed to sit in this Hell Hole for six hours wether you like it or not, so i'd say it's tough being a student too.

Like most are saying it depends, for instance, I am a student. Now science has got to be the hardest thing to teach me, because im a know it all, unless your privelty tutering me, you can't go advanced because the others still need to learn the basics, therefore i will sleep through all science classes :p ,

However, when it comes to math, the teacher can explain it as well as she/he likes I may or may not understand it because it is not somthing I am A. proficient in B. Intrested in C. Good at

Going to a public school, i'd say both, since NY is so libral the teachers arn't aloud to disciplin the children in a way they will feel punished, and bright students don't want to listen, slow students don't want to listen so it's pretty hard for a teacher.

How ever being a student 6 hours of school can become painfull, it's unimaginable boredom, and it's not like you can walk around or take a break, your doomed to sit in this Hell Hole for six hours wether you like it or not, so i'd say it's tough being a student too.

Like most are saying it depends, for instance, I am a student. Now science has got to be the hardest thing to teach me, because im a know it all, unless your privelty tutering me, you can't go advanced because the others still need to learn the basics, therefore i will sleep through all science classes :p ,

However, when it comes to math, the teacher can explain it as well as she/he likes I may or may not understand it because it is not somthing I am A. proficient in B. Intrested in C. Good at

Going to a public school, i'd say both, since NY is so libral the teachers arn't aloud to disciplin the children in a way they will feel punished, and bright students don't want to listen, slow students don't want to listen so it's pretty hard for a teacher.

How ever being a student 6 hours of school can become painfull, it's unimaginable boredom, and it's not like you can walk around or take a break, your doomed to sit in this Hell Hole for six hours wether you like it or not, so i'd say it's tough being a student too.

A teacher is not always a teacher. As in...student can still learn from 'teachers' who don't actually intend to instruct them. The student in your scenario might well 'learn' from other famous novelists simply by studying their techniques...so the 'teacher' is still present.


My scenario is merely the logical extension of ABAgain's statement. I question the validity as well.

In your statement I can conclude that people can teach on accident, without intending to teach or even having any knowlege of teaching another person. I daresay that not much can be easier than that form of teaching. In that instance "doing" is far more difficult than teaching.

What you (and the other active teachers) do is much more difficult and often underappreciated.

Okay, we agree that you can't teach creativity...only encourage it. So if 'teaching creative subjects' is in fact NOT about teaching 'creativity', but rather the set of skills necessary to express creativity...then we can not compare that to being creative oneself. We must compare it to using the skills sets being taught.

So, once you are well versed in those skills, doing them is going to be easier than teaching them.

Being creative is something altogether separate in this case.

Of course teaching the techniques is harder than using them. Transferring knowledge from your head to the heads of others is no easy thing to do, ever, even with willing students. But I was arguing that being creative was harder than teaching these techniques. I think we agree but were at slight cross purposes.

It may be a ridiculous comparison but it is exactly the question asked in this thread. Also I think it would be quite difficult for you to climb a tower and kill people. At least I hope it would be. If not you need a less stressful work environment. Or some calming drugs.

It has nothing to do with the original questions. Are the options to teach physics or become physics?

The question is it easier to do a discipline or teach it? The disciply of history teachers, when done makes a historian. People who make history are what they teach about, not the discipline. A physics teachers teaches science. A physicist examines physics. A history teacher teaches history. A historian examines history. That's why the comparison is ridiculous.

A person who makes history may very well know nothing about the discipline of history. However I challenge you to find an electrician who doesn't know anything about electrical elements.

My scenario is merely the logical extension of ABAgain's statement. I question the validity as well.

In your statement I can conclude that people can teach on accident, without intending to teach or even having any knowlege of teaching another person. I daresay that not much can be easier than that form of teaching. In that instance "doing" is far more difficult than teaching.

What you (and the other active teachers) do is much more difficult and often underappreciated.

Teaching well, intentional or no, requires one to be inspiring. I know few people who are inspiring. It's no easy task. There are not many occupations that require one to be inspiring and fortunately so. It takes not only a talent for your discipline but also a talent for inspiration. That is much harder than simply being talented and knowledgeable in your discipline.

Teaching well, intentional or no, requires one to be inspiring. I know few people who are inspiring. It's no easy task. There are not many occupations that require one to be inspiring and fortunately so. It takes not only a talent for your discipline but also a talent for inspiration. That is much harder than simply being talented and knowledgeable in your discipline.

Is the ability to be inspiring an inate talent and something posessed by a only a small portion of the population (God's chosen few, the teachers) or is this something that can be taught and learned?

Is the ability to be inspiring an inate talent and something posessed by a only a small portion of the population (God's chosen few, the teachers) or is this something that can be taught and learned?

Generally, like all other talents it's a combination of the inate and that which is nurtured. Jimi Hendrix was a great guitar player because he had an amazing talent and the foresight to nurture that talent into what it became. People are rarely inspired for long by the lazy.

In general, I'd say teaching is more difficult. Doing involves one skill set, teaching involves at least two. For example, I teach conversational ESL. I mush have a good command of English plus teaching skills. And as I teach in a multilingual and cultural setting, my cross-cultural and Japanese skills are very useful.

You missed off the last bit.

"those who can, do; those who can't, teach, and those that can't teach, lecture!" :p

(I have been both a teacher and a lecturer before you get all uppity.)

The whole and most proper vesion (from Matt Groening's School is Hell):
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, counsel. Those who can't counsel, administrate. Those who can't administrate, enter data into the computer. Those who can't enter data into the computer, take dictation. Those who can't take dictation, alphabetize files. Those who can't alphabetize files, answer the phone. Those who can't answer the phone, fry hamburgers. Those who can't fry hamburgers, fry the cash register. Those who can't run the cash register, wait on tables. Those who can't wait on tables, carry dirty dishes to the kitchen. Those who can't carry dirty dishes to the kitchen, was the dishes. Those who can't wash dirty dishes, peel potatoes. Those who can't peel potatoes, buff the floor. Those who can't buff the floor haul out the garbage. Those who can't haul out the garbage, write poetry. Those who can't write poetry, write clever letters to the editor. Those who can't write clever letters to the editor, write angry letters to the editor. Those who can't write angry letters to the editor, spraypaint graffiti. Those who can't spraypaint graffiti, write screenplays. Those who can't write screenplays, write TV scripts. Those who can't write tv scripts, read scripts for the studios. Those who can't read scripts for the studios, act. Those who can't act, take acting classes. Those who can't take acting classes, sing. Those who can't sing, sing rock 'n' roll. Those who can't sing roc 'n' roll, sing it anyway. Those who can't sing it anyway, become depressed. Those who can't become depressed, get bitter. Those who can't get bitter, get confused. Those who get confused, stay confused. Those who stay confused, find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences. Those who find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences, ________."

It has nothing to do with the original questions. Are the options to teach physics or become physics?

The question is it easier to do a discipline or teach it? The disciply of history teachers, when done makes a historian. People who make history are what they teach about, not the discipline. A physics teachers teaches science. A physicist examines physics. A history teacher teaches history. A historian examines history. That's why the comparison is ridiculous.

A person who makes history may very well know nothing about the discipline of history. However I challenge you to find an electrician who doesn't know anything about electrical elements.

The question was and still is "which is harder: teaching or doing?"

My first throw away statement about history was more inflammatory than I intended but that's probably good for debate.

I can point out quite a few workers in electrical powerplants who are absolutely vital to furnishing electricity to your house who know precious little about how electricity works. They "do" electricity, and it works fine. A good electrician knows the practical rather than the theoretical end of electricity.

For the most part, teaching is more difficult than doing, unless you are teaching someone to make a fortune with no-money-down real estate. Like any seminar, if it was more profitable to do it than to teach it, then people would be doing instead of teaching.

This explains why teaching is difficult:
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert21221420060626.gif

depends on what you're saying, but the way this is going:

For example, writing.

Doing it is one thing, because you have your own developed style and technique that comes to you in seconds, and takes hardly any thought.

Teaching however, you have to go over the basics, grammar, technique, and so on which could take days or even weeks.

So length wise, Teaching can be harder, especially when there are people that don't understand the material.

The question was and still is "which is harder: teaching or doing?"

My first throw away statement about history was more inflammatory than I intended but that's probably good for debate.

I can point out quite a few workers in electrical powerplants who are absolutely vital to furnishing electricity to your house who know precious little about how electricity works. They "do" electricity, and it works fine. A good electrician knows the practical rather than the theoretical end of electricity.

But the electrician was taught by someone. You don't wake up one day and magically have a the skills to "do" electricity.

But the electrician was taught by someone. You don't wake up one day and magically have a the skills to "do" electricity.

Yes. Was it harder to teach him to wire a house or is it harder for him to wire a house?

The question was and still is "which is harder: teaching or doing?"

My first throw away statement about history was more inflammatory than I intended but that's probably good for debate.

I can point out quite a few workers in electrical powerplants who are absolutely vital to furnishing electricity to your house who know precious little about how electricity works. They "do" electricity, and it works fine. A good electrician knows the practical rather than the theoretical end of electricity.

They know their disciplines and could teach it. Your arguments require you to get so far from the subject, the worker, in order to make any point at all.

If I work at a electrical plant as a secretary, I'm not an electrician. I'm a secretary. And I most certainly would know something about being a secretary.

They don't 'do' electricy. They 'do' being a secretary. The electric plant is where they do it, not what they do. Being involved in the process is not the same as 'doing' something. If I happened to get arrested by a cop, it doesn't make me a cop. It makes me a part of the cop's job, but not a cop. If I make a cop's uniform, I supported the officer but I'm still not a cop. If I happen to be permanently employed by the police station making uniforms, I'm still not crimefighting. I'm just a tailor who happens to work for cops.

Yes. Was it harder to teach him to wire a house or is it harder for him to wire a house?

Teaching him to wire the house properly takes much longer than doing it. It's definitely harder. Meanwhile, a teacher could do both.

Besides don't you mean 'was it harder to teach him to wire the house or to become the wire?' That's the equivalent to saying 'was it harder to teach history or to make history?'

They know their disciplines and could teach it. Your arguments require you to get so far from the subject, the worker, in order to make any point at all.

If I work at a electrical plant as a secretary, I'm not an electrician. I'm a secretary. And I most certainly would know something about being a secretary.

They don't 'do' electricy. They 'do' being a secretary. The electric plant is where they do it, not what they do. Being involved in the process is not the same as 'doing' something. If I happened to get arrested by a cop, it doesn't make me a cop. It makes me a part of the cop's job, but not a cop. If I make a cop's uniform, I supported the officer but I'm still not a cop. If I happen to be permanently employed by the police station making uniforms, I'm still not crimefighting. I'm just a tailor who happens to work for cops.

Is it harder for an electrician to wire a house or harder to teach him to wire a house.

You know how I always read this quote? Imagine a musician who simply doesn't have the opportunity to go out and make a living off of playing music for pay. Perhaps they have a family they want to support more steadily...or can't travel for whatever reason. So they choose to teach music instead, and pass along a great gift. I don't see that as a negative thing...not everyone needs to be a FAMOUS writer/artist/musician/athlete etc in order to excel in their field, and we should be thankful that such people sometimes choose to teach our children.

Most profession musicians have no choice but to teach. If you don't play in the big orchestra or band for your region, you simply cannot make a living as a professional musician (Rock and roll being slightly different).

For inexact numbers:

- A player in the Seattle Symphony makes somewhere around (IIRC) 90,000 dollars a year.

- Playing in the Seattle Opera's Pit Orchestra, and a lower level profession symphony in the area you make on the order of 30,000 dollars a year.

That's how large the disparity is (and it's also why a music major is a risky bet).

The other side of it is that music is one of the few areas where you can make a living teaching lessons (it's not much, but it's better than a teacher's salary),

---

I think that it's harder to teach. After all, to teach you not only need to know how to do, you also need to know how to help other people do. That's much harder.

Is it harder for an electrician to wire a house or harder to teach him to wire a house.
Harder to teach him, because to wire a house is a culmination of a lot of different skills, all taught. Now, if you had a good electrician to start with, who knew everything already and you're just going over the plan, it is far easier to teach it (the plan) than to actually put in the labor to actually do so.

But, since I have yet to run into anyone born as an electrican, someone MUST have taught the skills to the guy so he is now capable to read said plan and wire the house right (without killing himself or shutting down the power grid).

Yes. Was it harder to teach him to wire a house or is it harder for him to wire a house?

Well, since the teacher needs to be able to wire a house AND teach the skill, it's more difficult.

Well, since the teacher needs to be able to wire a house AND teach the skill, it's more difficult.

The teacher neednt be able to wire a house. The teacher could be parapalegic for instance. Or even a book.

The teacher neednt be able to wire a house. The teacher could be parapalegic for instance. Or even a book.
Not to be an effective teacher. Effective ones need the skill PLUS the teaching skill. Not to say you cannot learn on your own, but effective teachers are able to spot where the trouble lies.

Besides, you forget that whomever wrote the book needed to know how the hell to do so in order to write a teaching manual. ;)

The teacher neednt be able to wire a house. The teacher could be parapalegic for instance. Or even a book.

Books don't write themselves. And a parapalegic still had to learn it before teaching. The parapelegic still has to know the craft better than most in order to teach it. And the parapelegic still has to inspire the electrician.

The parapelegic is a rare example. Again, you have to add all kinds of nonsense to your examples to make your point. One would hazard a guess that a point that requires nonsense as a premise might include nonsense in the conclusion. What percentage of teaching electricians are parapelegics?

And books don't write themselves, friend.

Books don't write themselves. And a parapalegic still had to learn it before teaching. The parapelegic still has to know the craft better than most in order to teach it. And the parapelegic still has to inspire the electrician.

The parapelegic is a rare example. Again, you have to add all kinds of nonsense to your examples to make your point. One would hazard a guess that a point that requires nonsense as a premise might include nonsense in the conclusion. What percentage of teaching electricians are parapelegics?

And books don't write themselves, friend.

What exactly is your point then? Mine is that teaching is not always more difficult than doing. Yours seems to be that no matter what I say you will disagree with me even if you agree with what I have said. If this is your argument I suggest that you start a Not bad is always wrong thread rather than spam this topic.

Not to be an effective teacher. Effective ones need the skill PLUS the teaching skill. Not to say you cannot learn on your own, but effective teachers are able to spot where the trouble lies.

Besides, you forget that whomever wrote the book needed to know how the hell to do so in order to write a teaching manual. ;)

Ive never once implied that the knowlege to wire a house is self generating. Or that books write themselves. Or that teachers dont need to know how to do something in order to teach it. Or that the author of a reference work shouldnt know the subject material. Ive stuck to the original question of Which is harder teaching or doing. I contend that some things are easier to teach than to do. Wiring a house may very well be one of those things.

Many things are far harder to teach than to do. Some things are not.

What exactly is your point then? Mine is that teaching is not always more difficult than doing. Yours seems to be that no matter what I say you will disagree with me even if you agree with what I have said. If this is your argument I suggest that you start a Not bad is always wrong thread rather than spam this topic.

Who claimed ALWAYS anything? The question was a general one and was answered with a like answer. And unless one is talking about parapelegics or people becoming President or curing cancer, teaching is more difficult, generally, than doing.

It's amusing that you would accuse me of being contradictory while only one of us is coming up with really odd examples just to counter the arguments of people here.

I started talking to you when you made the RIDICULOUS example of the 'do' for history meaning making history rather than being a historian. If you are truly trying to answer the question, your original point said nothing about it.

Ive never once implied that the knowlege to wire a house is self generating. Or that books write themselves. Or that teachers dont need to know how to do something in order to teach it. Or that the author of a reference work shouldnt know the subject material. Ive stuck to the original question of Which is harder teaching or doing. I contend that some things are easier to teach than to do. Wiring a house may very well be one of those things.

Many things are far harder to teach than to do. Some things are not.
Go back and re-read what I wrote to you because you seem to think I am claiming something I am not.

Ive never once implied that the knowlege to wire a house is self generating. Or that books write themselves. Or that teachers dont need to know how to do something in order to teach it. Or that the author of a reference work shouldnt know the subject material. Ive stuck to the original question of Which is harder teaching or doing. I contend that some things are easier to teach than to do. Wiring a house may very well be one of those things.

Many things are far harder to teach than to do. Some things are not.

Wiring a house is harder to teach than do. When you wire a house you are only responsible for your own work. When you teach you are responsible for the work of everyone you teach.

Wiring a house is harder to teach than do. When you wire a house you are only responsible for your own work. When you teach you are responsible for the work of everyone you teach.

It is not true that an instructor teaching students to wire houses is responsible for every house the students wire. Even if it were true responsibility is not the same thing as difficulty. "Is it harder to teach than to do?" is the question not "Does teaching carry more responsibilities than doing?"

Do keep up.

Go back and re-read what I wrote to you because you seem to think I am claiming something I am not.

That feeling is mutual I'm afraid

as i see it, it depends if your work is tested. i have had a few teachers that were complete utter crap and had little to no knowledge or interest in the subject. do you teach for the paycheck or do you teach to improve?

if you teach for the paycheck (your in the wrong career) and you will most likely find teaching to be much easier . mostly because you are just pulling shit out of your ass and displaying it to your students as facts. this may work for something like philosophy. but doesnt really work for a science too much.

if you teach to improve either yourself or your students then teaching will be far more difficult. not only will you need to actually know what you are talking about. you will also need to be able to explain what you know as someone who has experience/knowledge in that field to someone who may know nothing about the field.

That feeling is mutual I'm afraid
I noted that it depends upon how you count the teaching. Do you take ALL the training said electrican had or just the lesson he had for that particular house?

That give you the answer to your question. And, I would say, provides you the answer to the orginal question on is it harder to do or to teach.

The book was pointing out that they are, in a way, written by teachers who have done themselves, or else the book would be worthless.

I never made any of the claims you said I did.

teaching is much harder. And I don't mean just in a classroom with a formal teacher.

You are responsible for a child. That is never a simple job.

It depends entirely on the subject matter and the person in question. Some people are great teachers by birth, others are great doers. That doesn't mean that either group gets to claim superiority over the other. But as a foot note of hypocrasy, I do tend to use the "those who can..." quote when I'm particularly pissed off at my acting teacher. It's not that I believe it, but more that I can't stand to be told I'm not going to make it in acting by a guy who does one-line parts in commercials that only air in Japan.

Great question. I think it's harder to "do" than to "teach." However, it's good to know how to do both!

It is not true that an instructor teaching students to wire houses is responsible for every house the students wire. Even if it were true responsibility is not the same thing as difficulty. "Is it harder to teach than to do?" is the question not "Does teaching carry more responsibilities than doing?"

Do keep up.

Yes, yes, I appear to be the person who is accusing everyone of not understanding him. Oh, wait... that's you. You think how responsible you are for the product has nothing to do with difficulty? It's not a video game. I would say if I taught a person to wire a house and they died because I didn't teach them well or they ended up causing a fire that killed a family due to my faulty teaching that might affect how difficult I felt my job was.

You're scrambling so hard to find a way to make what you're saying be correct. There is nothing more sad than when a poster rather than simply admitting they chose to a position that is untenable simply keeps spinning and getting more and more absurd.

What's your next 'proof'? That being Jesus is harder than teaching about Jesus?

I noted that it depends upon how you count the teaching. Do you take ALL the training said electrican had or just the lesson he had for that particular house?

That give you the answer to your question. And, I would say, provides you the answer to the orginal question on is it harder to do or to teach.

The book was pointing out that they are, in a way, written by teachers who have done themselves, or else the book would be worthless.

I never made any of the claims you said I did.

It's not your fault. Not bad is pushing his difficulties with this topic onto you. It isn't the first time, it won't be the last.

Anyone who is afraid of talking in front of a group of strangers will find teaching hard until they get used to it.

It depends on the subject.

For example, I find it much easier to come up with the answer to a mathimatical problem in my head than to actually think about and explain how I got that answer.

On the other hand, reading and understanding a text is a lot harder than explaining it to someone else.

I would have to say teaching.

When ever I've taught something to someone else I have to resist the urge to just do what I'm trying to each as an example. Okay, that be can used as a teachin method, but it has to be followed up by the student repeating what you did. And hence, there can be problems with the student just repeating what you did, without necessarily understanding what they're doing.

I guess that's the hardest thing with teaching - patience. You know what to do, but the student isn't quite understanding something. That can be really frustrating. I see that situation as being the teacher's problem and not the students.

That's kinda pretty much all I wanted to say.

sorry all, for having abandoned by own thread but got distracted with another one. well, i'm glad the way this poll is going and how it recognises how hard the work of teachers really can be. the two years i taught communication design at university certainly made me scrap that old axiom everybody knows. i remember going home mentally exhausted (not easy to explain the same thing in so many different ways), much more than in the days i was actually 'doing'. my view is that it is clearly more difficult to teach than to do. some of my views have already been mentioned here:

motivation
a teacher is usually motivated by the subject they are teaching and - hopefully - by their liking of teaching. this certainly has an effect on your quality of teaching. not very often teachers are motivated by the wage they get paid. when i was 'doing', i got paid a lot more. since i did both simultaneously i didn't feel too bad about my miserable wage as a teacher but i can't speak for those that do it full-time. the ability of a student to learn is limited by their motivation to learn. i have never been a school teacher but i obviously went to school and remember how much i loved it (a bit of sarcasm there).

concentration
it's easier to concentrate on your work, when you are on your own, than when you are surrounded by 30 students with their own free will, some with tendency to get distracted and even distract you. sometimes a bit of humour can be positive to break the ice between teachers and students (i'm an adept of this) but too much of it is counter-productive. also, not always these interruptions are humorous at all. plus, the results of your teaching also depend on the student's concentration levels. obviously, these also depend on your quality of teaching (and whether you have a monotone voice or not) but there are always undisciplined students who will break the concentration of others (yes, even at university hehehe).

intellect
being a teacher or even older doesn't make you automatically smarter than a student, of course. i'm sure history is full of young genius like the fictional donnie darko. that fear—X—love scene is just bloody hilarious (if you haven't seen the movie, you don't know what you are missing). however, you will notice that there was only one donnie in the classroom, while that particular teacher was the worst kind you can possibly find. yes, there are plenty of bad teachers around but having an old axiom like the one we all know (plus the bad wages) is not exactly the best way to find good recruits. obviously, the results of teaching also depend on the intellect of the students, since this determines their own ability to learn. when you are working on your own, you are only limited by your own intellect, unless your work is very team-based, of course.

knowledge
it's much easier to apply your knowledge to your own work, when you have already learned that knowledge, than passing it on to other people (and this is also influenced by my previous points). the student needs to understand the knowledge, before he can apply it. you need to know how to pass it on to him but what works with one student may not work with another. this can make things pretty difficult sometimes and force you to find very different ways to say the same thing. my teaching had both practical and theoretical components and both required a lot of mental gymnastics. the practical teachings even more so, since often i had to help students individually finding their own different answers to the same problem, which could mean working on 30 different answers to the same problem. sometimes i got home with a headache...

just a few thoughts, i could probably find a few more...

I think doing is always easier, no matter what the activity. I homeschool, and also teach a few classes on the side and I find it more difficult to teach things, especially when someone just learns differently than I do.

The teacher neednt be able to wire a house. The teacher could be parapalegic for instance. Or even a book.

So you would be comfortable if I declared myself an electrician and rewired your house with no training what-so-ever? Seeing as I have 0 knowledge, and would quite likely be wiring your house in a dangerous manner, would you file suit when (yes, when) your house burns down due to my faulty wiring?

The point being, in case you are still not getting it, someone has to teach that electrician how to wire a house. If the teacher has no knowledge base, there can be no teaching.

On a practical basis, I note - you have some degree of skill in English. Do you honestly believe that you can, with no additional special skills or knowledge, teach ESL? If so, I formally invite you to Japan to do so.

On a practical basis, I note - you have some degree of skill in English. Do you honestly believe that you can, with no additional special skills or knowledge, teach ESL? If so, I formally invite you to Japan to do so.
*Not going to say anything about NOVA or many JETs, not going to say anything about NOVA or many JETs* :p :D

Of course, to be fair, the good JETs and various ekaiwa folks quickly find out that they do need teaching skills and either develop them or go elsewhere to find them. The bad ones hopefully leave.

How hard teaching is depends a lot on the students.
If you have a lively interactive bunch who are eager and interested to learn, then teaching can be the easiest thing in the world to do. You can walk out of class full of energy.

However, if you have a bunch of surly unresponsive teenagers who are there by law, not desire to learn, and who's only interest in class is to see how many times they use 'fuck' in a single sentence and how antagonistic and disruptive they can be before being kicked out, then it's a nightmare of a job that drains every bit of life from you.


One thing that really annoys me about ppl saying teaching's easy is that said ppl have no idea about the stress involved. Teaching's the only occupation where you can get sworn at, spat at, insulted, threatened and have things thrown at you by your 'customers' and not be able to retaliate in any way.
If you worked in a shop and a customer did any of the above to you, you would have every right to respond physically knowing full well that your boss and the police, would back you up 100%.
Not so in teaching.
If, for example, a kid swears at you, spits at you then refuses to get out and you react by pushing him out of your classroom, guess who gets it in the neck? You the teacher of course, for 'assualting' the poor misunderstood dear.

One thing that really annoys me about ppl saying teaching's easy is that said ppl have no idea about the stress involved. Teaching's the only occupation where you can get sworn at, spat at, insulted, threatened and have things thrown at you by your 'customers' and not be able to retaliate in any way.
If you worked in a shop and a customer did any of the above to you, you would have every right to respond physically knowing full well that your boss and the police, would back you up 100%.
Not so in teaching.
If, for example, a kid swears at you, spits at you then refuses to get out and you react by pushing him out of your classroom, guess who gets it in the neck? You the teacher of course, for 'assualting' the poor misunderstood dear.
from what i've been hearing in the news it's been getting worse and worse by the year. a friend of mine had some trouble with a really unrully kid and i know he's a really nice guy and that would take him a lot of shit to do anything physical. i don't think it went farther than pushing him out of the class but the 'poor kid' complained to his parents. my friend was called to the director's office and asked to explain himself to the parents. fortunately, the kid's dad realised the wrongdoing and slapped the kid for lying and threatning my friends job. there was justice! the sad thing about it all is that it could have gone horribly wrong. basically, my friends job depended on the reaction of the parents... sad state of affairs...

on the other hand, about 20 years ago, when i was a kid, i had a woman history teacher that wore ray-ban glasses and a sheep skin waistcoat (every bloody day); she was actually an attractive young woman but she was a wolf underneath that sheep skin. the moment she heard a single hiss coming out of someone's mouth she would throw a piece of white chalk at you. believe me, she knew how to aim as well (probably lots of practice)... i'll never forget this guy sitting next to me in the very last row (i was a back row sitter too sometimes hehe) and leaning on his chair before he had the very bad idea of saying something, while the teacher was writing something on the blackboard. he only managed to say a couple of words before i saw something hitting his head and him falling backwards off his chair...

fortunately he didn't get injured... the woman was a b**** but she got away with murder, being the school's director. it was like living in a dictatorship, compared to today. i heard about how once she ran out of chalk and decided to throw the chalkboard eraser, half foam half wood. apparently she hit a student in the head. she wasn't kicked out.

my mother talks about even harsher penalties. it's gone from one extreme of violence to another extreme of unruliness. add to this that parents simply don't seem to have a lot of time for their children anymore, so a lot of them are not getting disciplined at home while at school they have become nearly untouchable.