Gary Ackerman @garyackerman@qoto.org

I’m always interested to speak with adults who are entering jobs in education who think they will have absolute authority. #delusions

“Success” is a meaningless goal.

It’s officially the season when faculty ask “did you have a good break?” to those of us who work year round.

Sure, money may not be the motivator within a population that we think, but I maintain it does affect the composition of the population. In my years as a STEM teacher, I often heard students making career plans, and for 35 years, potential earnings was a factor.

Being willing and able to be uncertain is a sign of a logical thinker.

Telling people about things is not the same as explaining them.

The argument that we see no evidence for advanced extraterrestrial life is because complex life becomes unstable and destroys itself is starting to seem reasonable.

One thing I learned during 35 years in education: Competent teams and individuals do more with fewer resources than others. When they push back or leave, they are demonized.

It is OK to say, “I don’t know,” when asked what do you think.

The folks who rant so about how vital basic knowledge is are the same folks who used to whine if they couldn’t bring a page of notes to the exam.

“Write 500 words a day and your book will be done in a couple of months,” says the person who doesn’t understand drafts and editing.

So much “data-driven” decision-making starts with the decision and then finds the data.

OK… you said we needed rules that everyone followed, so we made them. Now, you are saying you won’t follow them because you don’t like them. 🤦

I work in #edtech. I have found lots of ways to tell folks “that tool that you adore… it really sucks.”

“You can learn it on an app” is evidence you don’t understand human knowledge… or apps.

“AI is biased and inaccurate…” so it’s not so different from humans.

In science, extraordinary claims by individuals are checked and rejected. In politics, they become talking points indefinitely.

Abstruse calculations does not make your idea true.

If you see certainty in your data, you are analyzing it wrong.

Those patterns you see in your data… they may be the result of randomness. How can you tell the difference?