Have you heard the phrase "Those who can't do, teach."? I'm sure you have. You might even agree with it.
In fact, this is a misinterpretation (or adaptation?) of an Aristotle quote:
Those who know, do. Those who understand, teach.
Of course, in the time of Aristotle, not many were teachers, and being one required deeper understanding, the kind that made many of their names live on through history. Nowadays things degraded to a point where a phrase like the one at the beginning can be true, in enough cases.
However, there are, to this day, teachers and teachers, and courses and courses.
In some cases, it's so boring, or maybe you don't understand anything, or wonder what use is it for you in real life, that you can barely wait until the ring bell sounds the break.
In other cases, time passes so quickly, you were so absorbed by the lesson, you understood everything and loved the way the teacher conducted it, that you could barely lift from your desk to go into the break.
It's likely two different teachers and two different subjects. But sometimes two teachers on the same subject make you see the opposite sides of it.
I believe doing can be and often is a job, but teaching should be a vocation. When teaching becomes a job it does the student/pupil no good, quite the opposite. The teacher is likely complacent and looking forward to the next "paycheck". Maybe some private lessons too.
I've seen many having the opinion that organized schooling is obsolete and has no place in today's society.
I disagree. What is being taught needs to be reviewed constantly, but that's only part of the equation. I'll give you an example here: my youngest niece has had a Personal Development subject since grade 0 (age 6). My older niece, who is in grade 5 now never had this subject, and they went to the same public school (but different teachers).
Where else organized schooling is generally good in my opinion (there are exceptions), is to teach children and later adolescents to make friends, work in teams, and deal with people they don't like and with bullies in a way that is... acceptable. 馃榾 Yes, maybe they learn more bad things than good things in such collectives, but I still think it's better than being raised in a bubble.
The question is how does this prepare them for a life of highly online interconnection? Enough, because they are drawn to these activities in their spare time too.
What I would be worried about if I had young children was the reverse: that they are too involved in the online world and have too few or short real-life interactions. And they grow up kind of socially impaired, especially if parents don't have time and aren't careful to make sure there is a balance.
Anyway, how did I decide to create this post?
I've seen a recent tutorial created by a very good developer ("doer"). A tutorial is more of a teacher's "part". If a doer has teaching skills, they can do both. But otherwise, a good teacher is much better, even if the doer knows what they are talking about in greater detail.
