Job posting - This is why students need to get shocked - It's required for a job

[DougSpindler]

One of my students is applying for a job at a well known American company.  The person in HR who was interviewing my student gave him the following job description which was given to her (for approval) by the head of the department.

As my student read throug the job description he noticed the following to be essential funtions of the job being applied for.

Exposrue to toxix chemaicals - occasionally.
Exposre to electirc shock - frequent.
Exposure to injury from biohazards - constantly.

And no this position is not in prison to test electric chairs and lethal injections.

And some of you in this forum were complainign in a previous post when I said if a students get's an accidentla jolt it would be a good learning experiance for them.  Well now it appears getting electric shocks is now a requirment for some jobs.
   

[paulca]

I believe "Exposure to" means "There is a present risk", not that they WILL get shocked frequently.

[DougSpindler]

I believe "Exposure to" means "There is a present risk", not that they WILL get shocked frequently.

If that's what they meant, why didn't they describe the work environment and use the words "frequently" for electric shock and "constatnly" for exposure to injury from biohazzards?

It's the use of the words occasionally, frequently and constantly.

[rstofer]

Furthermore, all of the conditions listed are subject to Fed OSHA as well as state safety codes.

When working on energized circuits, for example, there are Personal Protective Equipment requirements - gloves, shield, flame retardant clothes, etc.  Basically, energized circuits are avoided and shocks prevented by LOTO (Lock-Out, Tag-Out) procedures.

Noise is similarly regulated and hearing protection is required when the exposure level hits a certain limit.

It may well be that those conditions are present and safe practices already in place to mitigate the risk.  That would be my take.  Yes, these things are here but, no, they're not going to hurt you because we're going to train you.

[rstofer]

I believe "Exposure to" means "There is a present risk", not that they WILL get shocked frequently.

If that's what they meant, why didn't they describe the work environment and use the words "frequently" for electric shock and "constatnly" for exposure to injury from biohazzards?

It's the use of the words occasionally, frequently and constantly.

Because the document was written by a moron and hasn't been reviewed by Legal.  If HR has a collective brain in their head, they would burn every copy of this document and wait for a new job description that had been reviewed.  Shredding would not be sufficient!  Burn it!  Then flush the ashes!

[gregariz]

It's the use of the words occasionally, frequently and constantly.

America is a little different to other places - often these things are not vetted like they would be elsewhere. All I saw when I read the description is a nasty factory of scientific lab environment that was loud and potentially dangerous if you didn't have your wits about you. A bit like a large metals fab place near me - it stinks of burnt metal from across the road and you can hear it clanking away all night. My guess is they will inform the candidate of OSHA requirements and give protective gear but aren't going to lose much sleep if you stick your bare hands into something that will hurt you. When I first came into America I was shown a video by my employer of workers ie mechanics and electricians all mashed up after getting caught in process equipment and often in several pieces because they didn't follow OSHA guidelines. The idea was to scare us into asking about something if we were not sure. My electrical lecturer was missing fingers because he stuck them into a printing machine late at night (probably tired and was sloppy with lock and tag - or he didn't know what to lock and tag exactly) in Melbourne after it had appeared the machine had failed. Might want to give those jobs a miss.

[DougSpindler]

Furthermore, all of the conditions listed are subject to Fed OSHA as well as state safety codes.

When working on energized circuits, for example, there are Personal Protective Equipment requirements - gloves, shield, flame retardant clothes, etc.  Basically, energized circuits are avoided and shocks prevented by LOTO (Lock-Out, Tag-Out) procedures.

Noise is similarly regulated and hearing protection is required when the exposure level hits a certain limit.

It may well be that those conditions are present and safe practices already in place to mitigate the risk.  That would be my take.  Yes, these things are here but, no, they're not going to hurt you because we're going to train you.

Yes and every single compnay follows every Fed OSHA proceedures. 
How many people fall to their death every year working on cell towers?

I worked for a company which worked with equipment which produced ionizing radiation.  (Sort of like an X-ray machines but much, much larger.)  The compnay guy was trying to fix something and shorted out the safetly interlock protection switch so he could work on the machine with the shielding removed.  I don't think Fed OSHA procedures were followed and the sad part is none of the workers in the plant understood they were being exposed to a constant high dose of ionizing/X-ray radiation.

Not sure if you are aware but the Koch Industries and the Koch brothers continually violate Fed OSHA laws.  When workers were injured or killed they found the cost of the OSH fines and paying the death benifits to the familes were less expensise than having employees follow Fed OSHA safety proceedures.   Koch borthers have had to pay the largest civil fine our goveremnt has ever imposed.....  And the fine was tax deductable.

Maybe this company is being honest in sayig employees will be constalty exposed to biohazards and shocked frequently.














 

[DougSpindler]

Maybe this company is being honest in sayig employees will be constalty exposed to biohazards and shocked frequently.

This simply was written by someone who wasn’t thinking properly at the time seeing the overall style, when they simply mean that there will be exposure to equipment running on live mains voltage, probably even medium voltage

And how do you explain the constant exposure to biohazards?

[rx8pilot]

This is not unusual at all. When an accident occurs, the employer wants/needs to to be able to claim that they offered considerable warnings for nearly any possible issue.

Another person's sweat could be considered a biohazard. A building with electricity provides the possibility of electrical shock.

The company has to conform to various safety regulations like ear plugs, gloves, eye protection, respiratory, etc, etc. If you live in California - pretty much everything must be labeled as a carcinogen.

You can thank the massive number of lawsuits for this type of behavior.

[Brumby]

Where's the problem?

Exposure to toxic chemicals - occasionally.  Occasionally your work may put you in a position where there are toxic chemicals around.  We tell you this so that you will know to take care and not carry on like an idiot - and that if you take proper precautions if you are required to work directly with them.  I'd be saying this if working with things like ferric chloride or ammonium persulphate

Exposure to electric shock - frequent.  You are frequently going to be in situations where you could get an electric shock if you don't pay attention.  How long have we been saying "One flash and you're ash"?

Exposure to injury from biohazards - constantly.  At all times you are going to have stuff like lead and beryllium around you.  Please don't eat the solder or the thermal compound.  Bring your own lunch.

Bottom line:  We have serious shit around here, so when we give you safety procedures to follow, you'd better bloody well follow them!!


These things sound really bad - and I would suggest the shock value in how it is presented is there so that candidates actually take notice.  But, put in context, I think they will not be anywhere near as bad as people are making out.

[ejeffrey]

I believe "Exposure to" means "There is a present risk", not that they WILL get shocked frequently.

If that's what they meant, why didn't they describe the work environment and use the words "frequently" for electric shock and "constatnly" for exposure to injury from biohazzards?

It's the use of the words occasionally, frequently and constantly.

Well, you haven't explained what the job is.  If the job is working in a medical testing lab, then maybe working with biohazardous materials is a daily occurrence, but working with dangerous electrical voltages is only weekly.

And yes, maybe you can complain about the exact wording, but it obviously means that you will be working in an environment with those hazards, not that you will be shocked, infected, and poisoned.  Some people might decide they don't want to work around such things, so they would rather tell you before you accept the job.  And of course if you accept they will tell you again -- a prerequisite to working safely is to know what the hazards are.

[DougSpindler]

Where's the problem?

Exposure to toxic chemicals - occasionally.  Occasionally your work may put you in a position where there are toxic chemicals around.  We tell you this so that you will know to take care and not carry on like an idiot - and that if you take proper precautions if you are required to work directly with them.  I'd be saying this if working with things like ferric chloride or ammonium persulphate

Exposure to electric shock - frequent.  You are frequently going to be in situations where you could get an electric shock if you don't pay attention.  How long have we been saying "One flash and you're ash"?

Exposure to injury from biohazards - constantly.  At all times you are going to have stuff like lead and beryllium around you.  Please don't eat the solder or the thermal compound.  Bring your own lunch.

Bottom line:  We have serious shit around here, so when we give you safety procedures to follow, you'd better bloody well follow them!!


These things sound really bad - and I would suggest the shock value in how it is presented is there so that candidates actually take notice.  But, put in context, I think they will not be anywhere near as bad as people are making out.

Why is exposure to electric shock frequent? And not constatnt? 

[gregariz]

Where's the problem?

Exposure to toxic chemicals - occasionally.  Occasionally your work may put you in a position where there are toxic chemicals around.  We tell you this so that you will know to take care and not carry on like an idiot - and that if you take proper precautions if you are required to work directly with them.  I'd be saying this if working with things like ferric chloride or ammonium persulphate

Exposure to electric shock - frequent.  You are frequently going to be in situations where you could get an electric shock if you don't pay attention.  How long have we been saying "One flash and you're ash"?

Exposure to injury from biohazards - constantly.  At all times you are going to have stuff like lead and beryllium around you.  Please don't eat the solder or the thermal compound.  Bring your own lunch.

Bottom line:  We have serious shit around here, so when we give you safety procedures to follow, you'd better bloody well follow them!!


These things sound really bad - and I would suggest the shock value in how it is presented is there so that candidates actually take notice.  But, put in context, I think they will not be anywhere near as bad as people are making out.

Why is exposure to electric shock frequent? And not constatnt?

You would need to tell everyone what the job is, rather than let everyone speculate.

But I will give you one example - in a mineral processing plant, it was sometimes required to clean the high tension (voltage) insulators (corona) because if they dusted up with metal based dust they would arc over, potentially damaging the insulator or cables. You know how they did it? They sprayed it with a water hose. Why are they not dead? Because they made sure they used a sprinkler head on the end of the hose so that it broke the conduction path (water stream) from the high tension to the worker spraying it.

[DougSpindler]

I believe "Exposure to" means "There is a present risk", not that they WILL get shocked frequently.

If that's what they meant, why didn't they describe the work environment and use the words "frequently" for electric shock and "constatnly" for exposure to injury from biohazzards?

It's the use of the words occasionally, frequently and constantly.

Well, you haven't explained what the job is.  If the job is working in a medical testing lab, then maybe working with biohazardous materials is a daily occurrence, but working with dangerous electrical voltages is only weekly.

And yes, maybe you can complain about the exact wording, but it obviously means that you will be working in an environment with those hazards, not that you will be shocked, infected, and poisoned.  Some people might decide they don't want to work around such things, so they would rather tell you before you accept the job.  And of course if you accept they will tell you again -- a prerequisite to working safely is to know what the hazards are.

Job is working is at a major American company maintaining the production line and plant equipment.  They make food products for human consumption.

[ejeffrey]

Then your description makes perfect sense:

Biohazard is constantly because the job is to be on the floor of a food processing plant.  Food can harbor infectious disease.

Electrical is frequently because you are servicing the equipment.  This isn't constant, as a machine plugged in and running probably isn't considered a hazard, but you will frequently have to open the service panels or use lock-out tags.

Toxic Chemicals: possibly cleaning or sterilizing chemicals, or possibly strong acids or bases that are used in food preparation.  Presumably the job is not cleaning the production equipment, but occasionally while servicing some of the equipment you may have to deal with these.

Think of it as "how often to I have to wear PPE or use other safety tools like lockout tags related to this type of hazard"

[CatalinaWOW]

Can't justify the wording, but it may even be more innocuous than currently postulated.

For example - the plant makes peanut butter snack sandwiches.  The peanuts and wheat based crackers are both biohazards to those with severe sensitivities.

And the plant is in California, where virtually everything has been identified as carcinogenic or otherwise hazardous.  Recent examples include things like coffee and pine boards.

[rx8pilot]

I live in California.
It is stupid.

At one point, I had 15 employees. The burden of the rules, regulations, and red tape are over the top. I have a tangled mess of family matters that keeps me from leaving for 8 more years.....but I will not stay in this idiotic state one more second than I have to.

[Nerull]

Maybe this company is being honest in sayig employees will be constalty exposed to biohazards and shocked frequently.

This simply was written by someone who wasn’t thinking properly at the time seeing the overall style, when they simply mean that there will be exposure to equipment running on live mains voltage, probably even medium voltage

And how do you explain the constant exposure to biohazards?

Do you believe that technicians who work with biohazardous materials are routinely shoving them up their noses?

"Exposure" means "You will be near" not "You *will* contract anthrax and die".

I used to work in a place that manufactured high voltage medical equipment that stored thousands of volts in large capacitors. The service techs were all constantly exposed to shock hazards, and were trained to take proper precautions.

One day, one of the techs got shocked.

The next day, he didn't get a pat on the head and told "Welp its just part of the job." He got fired. For not following procedures and putting the company at risk.

[ez24]

I live in California.
It is stupid.

I am also a California prisoner, sad place to live 

[Brumby]

Why is exposure to electric shock frequent? And not constatnt?

Really?

You should be able to answer that question yourself a dozen times over - and it shouldn't take long if you make any sort of an effort.

[Mechatrommer]

The person in HR who was interviewing my student gave him the following job description...
...Well now it appears getting electric shocks is now a requirment for some jobs.

can you differentiate the meaning between job "description" with job "requirement"? if you cant, just PM me i can teach...

[Brumby]

I live in California.
It is stupid.

At one point, I had 15 employees. The burden of the rules, regulations, and red tape are over the top. I have a tangled mess of family matters that keeps me from leaving for 8 more years.....but I will not stay in this idiotic state one more second than I have to.

I live in California.
It is stupid.

I am also a California prisoner, sad place to live 

Not sure about the rules, regs and red tape - but Sydney has the weather.   

[ebastler]

can you differentiate the meaning between job "description" with job "requirement"? if you cant, just PM me i can teach...

Job description = what do you do in the job.
Job requirement = what qualification (skills, training) do you need to bring to the job, to be able to do it properly.

Standard terms, really.

[Mechatrommer]

the questions are meant for the OP. he's confusing between the term hence the existence of this thread. is any requirement in the job saying that "you must be at least experienced an electric shock during childhood of at least X Vac and Y Vdc"?

[BillB]

This seems right to me.  My interview application would read:

1.  How many times before the age of 5 did you get shocked sticking a butter knife into an electrical socket? (A fork is also acceptable)

2.  If less than twice, please explain?



I'd prefer hiring engineers who had the calling at an early age, such as myself.

[DougSpindler]

Maybe this company is being honest in sayig employees will be constalty exposed to biohazards and shocked frequently.

This simply was written by someone who wasn’t thinking properly at the time seeing the overall style, when they simply mean that there will be exposure to equipment running on live mains voltage, probably even medium voltage

And how do you explain the constant exposure to biohazards?

Do you believe that technicians who work with biohazardous materials are routinely shoving them up their noses?

"Exposure" means "You will be near" not "You *will* contract anthrax and die".

I used to work in a place that manufactured high voltage medical equipment that stored thousands of volts in large capacitors. The service techs were all constantly exposed to shock hazards, and were trained to take proper precautions.

One day, one of the techs got shocked.

The next day, he didn't get a pat on the head and told "Welp its just part of the job." He got fired. For not following procedures and putting the company at risk.

You might want to look up the definain of exposure.

1.  the state of being exposed to contact with something

[DougSpindler]

The person in HR who was interviewing my student gave him the following job description...
...Well now it appears getting electric shocks is now a requirment for some jobs.

can you differentiate the meaning between job "description" with job "requirement"? if you cant, just PM me i can teach...

If you can teach why aren't you at school?

[DougSpindler]

Received a bit of clarification from the student on this.  Apparently employees are frequently shocked.  The humidity is quite low and static charges can buildup.

[Mechatrommer]

Apparently employees are frequently shocked.  The humidity is quite low and static charges can buildup.

bah they are all disqualified from any job around here where humidity is near 90% by which electrons can flow easily through body from ground, and its 240Vac, not 110Vac keep that in mind.

can you differentiate the meaning between job "description" with job "requirement"? if you cant, just PM me i can teach...

If you can teach why aren't you at school?

if i'm not at school, then why people at school got confused? (ps: yes in fact i am just not as a language teacher)

[paulca]

bah they are all disqualified from any job around here where humidity is near 90% by which electrons can flow easily through body from ground, and its 240Vac, not 110Vac keep that in mind.

Yea, they only put 240Vac into men's countries.  110/120V is for girls.

 

[coppice]

"Exposure" means "You will be near" not "You *will* contract anthrax and die".

Interesting way to define the word. So, if I am near power cables with thick plastic insulation, these are actually exposed wires because I am near them?

[Maxlor]

Hm the attitude in that job ad reminds me a lot of this company called Aperture Science. You, this is how things usually go there...

"Welcome test candidates to Aperture Science! You're here because we want to best, and you're the best we could get! So who's ready to do some testing, for science?

Testing candidates who volunteered for biohazard tests – please follow the orange line on the floor. Don't be alarmed when you see lab boys in hazmat suits, they're just unnecessarily squeamish about handling our testing substances. If you are too, don't worry, paper towels will be provided at the end of the tests.

Testing candidates who volunteered for electricity tests – please follow the yellow line on the floor. When you arrive at the testing machine, stick your hand into the opening of the machine.

Those of you who volunteered to be injected with praying mantis DNA, I've got some good news and some bad news. Bad news is we're postponing those tests indefinitely. Good news is we've got a much better test for you: fighting an army of mantis men. Pick up a rifle and follow the green line. You'll know when the test starts.

Cave Johnson out."

[paulca]

The cake is a lie!

[BillB]

Perhaps this is what they had in mind?

https://youtu.be/5ohlA__xABw

[paulca]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Followed by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[AlfBaz]

Why is exposure to electric shock frequent? And not constatnt?

Probably because they only use AC

[Brumby]

Received a bit of clarification from the student on this.  Apparently employees are frequently shocked.  The humidity is quite low and static charges can buildup.

Here is where the applicant needed to clarify exactly what the circumstance of the "shock" risk was.

I know I'd ask - and when it was revealed they were talking about static discharge, I would have asked for a bit more detail about exactly what the circumstances were.

Ignorance of the facts leads to hypothesis often based on completely irrelevant details.

[DougSpindler]

Received a bit of clarification from the student on this.  Apparently employees are frequently shocked.  The humidity is quite low and static charges can buildup.

Here is where the applicant needed to clarify exactly what the circumstance of the "shock" risk was.

I know I'd ask - and when it was revealed they were talking about static discharge, I would have asked for a bit more detail about exactly what the circumstances were.

Ignorance of the facts leads to hypothesis often based on completely irrelevant details.

There’s a trade off.  The HR folks who are doing the job screening know nothing about the job or job skills needed for job.  If a candidate asks questions the HR people think the person will be a problem employee and reject the applicant. 

My studnets tell me most of the women doing the HR screening for technical jobs are in the 20’s.  When they interview candidates they feel as if they have the power and think they know all the answers to the technical questions.

Aren’t millennials the greatest?

[Nerull]

"Exposure" means "You will be near" not "You *will* contract anthrax and die".

Interesting way to define the word. So, if I am near power cables with thick plastic insulation, these are actually exposed wires because I am near them?

So you think that if your job was working inside industrial high voltage systems all day, your job would not consist of "Exposure to electric shock hazards" unless you actually took an arcflash to the face every once in a while?

[coppice]

"Exposure" means "You will be near" not "You *will* contract anthrax and die".

Interesting way to define the word. So, if I am near power cables with thick plastic insulation, these are actually exposed wires because I am near them?

So you think that if your job was working inside industrial high voltage systems all day, your job would not consist of "Exposure to electric shock hazards" unless you actually took an arcflash to the face every once in a while?

I do expect to be exposed to the risk of electric shock, but not just because I'm near something. Most times I am near something electrical I expect to be protected from it by insulation, and only exposed to risk under exceptional circumstances. If I'm exposed to anthrax I expect to die.

[DougSpindler]

Not everyone who is exposed to something dies.  Anthrax included.

[Brumby]

There’s a trade off.  The HR folks who are doing the job screening know nothing about the job or job skills needed for job.  If a candidate asks questions the HR people think the person will be a problem employee and reject the applicant.

If the questions are reasonable and asked politely, then I would have a real problem if that were the case.  If I were conducting such an interview, such questions would actually tell me something useful about the applicant.

My studnets tell me most of the women doing the HR screening for technical jobs are in the 20’s.  When they interview candidates they feel as if they have the power and think they know all the answers to the technical questions.

Aren’t millennials the greatest?

No comment.

[Mechatrommer]

If a candidate asks questions the HR people think the person will be a problem employee and reject the applicant.

application rejected find another job, you are not the only one, Good grieve. tell them there are more profitable career out there one of it depending on the location probably is selling burger and ice cream...

[EEVblog]

I believe "Exposure to" means "There is a present risk", not that they WILL get shocked frequently.

If that's what they meant, why didn't they describe the work environment and use the words "frequently" for electric shock and "constatnly" for exposure to injury from biohazzards?
It's the use of the words occasionally, frequently and constantly.

This is like the Californian law that says you have to have labeling on almost every product that is may cause cancer.

[DougSpindler]

My kids don’t have any such label.  I think those labels are attached to things which are known to cause cancer in people.

[Mechatrommer]

so there biohazard only for the handicapped?


or for kids who want to go to Disneyland?

[ebastler]

Geez...  I had seen those "proposition 65" notices on products, and on restaurants referring to the food they serve -- but I was not aware that they can be required to warn you about whole "areas".

What's the dangerous substance there? Asphalt?! 

[paulca]

What's the dangerous substance there? Asphalt?! 

Californian hipster bullshit.  It's deadly stuff.

[DougSpindler]

Geez...  I had seen those "proposition 65" notices on products, and on restaurants referring to the food they serve -- but I was not aware that they can be required to warn you about whole "areas".

What's the dangerous substance there? Asphalt?! 

No silly, lawyers.  The lawyers are in partnership with the sign manufactures.

I was in a local Orchard (Lowes) Supply hardware store.  On the refrigator with all of the Coke’s inside was a the same warning label.

Got one better for you.  Local small nursery which sells plants had been around for 12 years just went out of business.  The reason, the bathroom.  To enter the bathroom one had to climb one step.  If you were in a wheel chair you cold not use the bathroom.  The building was built in the 1950s-1960s.  Cost to make the bathroom wheelchair accessible was well over $100,000.  The nursery is on a slight grade.  So for wheelchair access grading, and ramps would have to be installed which would have grealty reduced his inventory space.  In the dozen years he had been in business not one customer ever shopped there in a wheelchair.  And they couldn’t as the property and parking is on a grade.

Hope you know what happened.  The guy and lawyer who have been suing California businesses for over 20 years for non-handicap compliance paid them visit.  Not to shop, but to sue....  And they did.  He closed and our community lost a nice local business and 6 people are now unemployed.

But wait, it gets better.  At my kid’s elementary school, built in the late 1950s the school had to install an elevator so if a kid was in a wheelchair they cold be on the stage in the auditorium.  As I recall the school/tax payers spent $500,000 to install a custom wheel chair elevator and make it kid proof so a kid would not get squished when the elevator is in operation.

That was 20 years ago.  The thing has never been used.  And last time I. Looked the key to operate it was missing and no one knows where it is.  So even if someone needs to use it they can’t.

Lawyers need to make a living too, right?

[Brumby]

Fire up a Kickstarter to produce those signs in bulk.  If you can get backing for a few hundred thousand, then just saturate the state.

Destroy the credibility by desensitisation.



But somehow I think it's already heading that way on its own.

[DougSpindler]

We have already reached that point and are well beyond.

Have you seen the signs in our school for millennials?
“No kid gets left behind”
“You are great”
“You can do anything”
“If you can think it, you can do it”
“Any answer is a good answer”
“Don’t pay any attention to the laws of physics, they don’t apply to you.”  Okay I made this one up.
“You can do math, just use Professor Harold Hill’s THINK system.”
“You can learn to speak a foreign lauguage and sound like a native i a week.”

[paulca]

You forgot:

Breed, consume, obey, stay asleep.

[ez24]

Destroy the credibility by desensitisation.

Already done

[BillB]

The nanny-state nuttery has moved well beyond the shores of California...

[nrxnrx]

“Any answer is a good answer”

I'll need some photos before I believe you.

[SL4P]

Can I take the job?
In the US’ litigious society, i’d be sure fire to get a very comfortable settlement when I ‘accidentally’ licked a 9V PP3 battery.

Just to top,it off,iI might spill some Drano in the bathroom.

Shock, fumes in the workplace.
Sue for possible future consequences.

[Brumby]

The nanny-state nuttery has moved well beyond the shores of California...

Seems they are not genuine signs:  "The signs relating to joggers wearing helmets are not Council signs and are fake. We believe they were put up on Wednesday evening, and our rangers had taken them down by early Thursday morning," a Council spokesperson said.

You only have to look at the signs to be suspicious.  They don't appear to be made of metal (metal is what you would expect), they don't have rounded corners and they are fixed to the pole by cable ties.

I suspect it could be the reaction of a nanny state warrior in response to the sign above it...

[DougSpindler]

Don’t Aussies drink a lot of beer?  Maybe like with drinking and driving can result in increased auto accidents.  Maybe Aussies die in accidents when drinking and jogging?

[KD4PBS]

You teach?
Interesting.

[ebastler]

You post?
Interesting.

(Who are you talking to? You might try the "quote" function.)

[DougSpindler]

You teach?
Interesting.

I think our ham buddy here is asking me, the OP.

Yes I teach.  Have been an adjunct college professor for close to 20 years.  I've taught thousands of studnets and won many awards.  Not that that means anything.  I think the real proof on my success as an professor is my students are very well trained, (they know there shit), and get jobs.  Or if they are failing/flunking out they thank me for being an excellet teachiner becuase I made them realize this is not what they want to do in life. 

Hope that answers your question.

[Mechatrommer]

...Not that that means anything...

duh... meaning the previous statement is nonsense. esp when one cant differentiate between two very clear meaning words.

...and get jobs.

how, by giving electric shocks?

this thread should reach its end of life... or moved to general chat section...

[KD4PBS]

You teach?
Interesting.

I think our ham buddy here is asking me, the OP.

Yes I teach.  Have been an adjunct college professor for close to 20 years.  I've taught thousands of studnets and won many awards.  Not that that means anything.  I think the real proof on my success as an professor is my students are very well trained, (they know there shit), and get jobs.  Or if they are failing/flunking out they thank me for being an excellet teachiner becuase I made them realize this is not what they want to do in life. 

Hope that answers your question.

Well, I had assumed that US high school industrial arts / electronics elective teachers nowadays would have a little better attention to detail is all; like they did 30-some years ago when I was there.  Considering all the typos and lack of understanding the difference between "may be exposed to" and "will be constantly exposed to" is what made me wonder, but then you write that you are a college adjunct professor.  This makes it very clear.  Thanks!
And congratulations on your stud nets.

[Cerebus]

...Not that that means anything...

duh... meaning the previous statement is nonsense. esp when one cant differentiate between two very clear meaning words.

It is a common English idiom. Essentially the OP means that the "I've taught thousands of studnets and won many awards" is mere circumstantial evidence, not to be taken on its own without other substantive evidence to support it. It's both an indirect form of modesty ("I have lots of awards, but you shouldn't put too much store in that") and an acknowledgement that there are many people who have taught thousands of students but are still bad teachers and that an award doesn't necessarily mean that the person who has it is deserving of it (e.g. Henry Kissinger getting the Nobel Peace Prize).

[DougSpindler]

You teach?
Interesting.

I think our ham buddy here is asking me, the OP.

Yes I teach.  Have been an adjunct college professor for close to 20 years.  I've taught thousands of studnets and won many awards.  Not that that means anything.  I think the real proof on my success as an professor is my students are very well trained, (they know there shit), and get jobs.  Or if they are failing/flunking out they thank me for being an excellet teachiner becuase I made them realize this is not what they want to do in life. 

Hope that answers your question.

Well, I had assumed that US high school industrial arts / electronics elective teachers nowadays would have a little better attention to detail is all; like they did 30-some years ago when I was there.  Considering all the typos and lack of understanding the difference between "may be exposed to" and "will be constantly exposed to" is what made me wonder, but then you write that you are a college adjunct professor.  This makes it very clear.  Thanks!
And congratulations on your stud nets.

Never said I was a high school or industrial arts / electronics elective teachers.   But I udnerstnad the confusion.  I am a college profesor who is teaching a college class to a gifted group of high school students at the high school.  It is not a high school class, it's a college class being taught at the high school.

But in America we can't call anyone in high school anymore gifted or teach classes for gifted studnets.  So to be politiclaay correct the colleges are contracted to teach college classes to the gifted highschool students through a dual enrollment program. 

Make sense now?

Let me tell you these kids are smart.  Very smart.  I have one thriteen year old who is incredibly smart.  Lucky for me I know things he hasn't learned yet.



As for America's education system it is badly broken.  I was just on a professor improvemetn confence call this morning telling us we nned to be more effective in our teaching by using more vidoes, vitural teaching aids and automated online quizes.  Stupidest thing ever.  I get students who have been taught in virual enviroments how to use a screw drive and vituraly solder wires together.

Let me ask you...  Would you hire a guy who doen't know how to use a screw driver and learned how to solder and use a VOM meter virutaly?

Crud cheap VOMs are $10 on eBay.  Instead we pay $250 per student so they can learn virtually.

Sorry for the rant, but these kids are going crazy in our schools.  We are taking all of the fun in learning.  I remember in my high school we had auto, metal, wood, and electronics shops.  Over a decande ago they ripped all of that equipment out and turned the shops into classrooms.

The joy we had in high school metal shop of making something we could be proud of.  All that is gone.  Kids today have to be proud of making things in a virtual environemnt.

My worst nightmare is getting into an auto accident and waking up in a hospital only to find the person treating me was someone I flunked.


 










 



 

[DougSpindler]

...Not that that means anything...

duh... meaning the previous statement is nonsense. esp when one cant differentiate between two very clear meaning words.

It is a common English idiom. Essentially the OP means that the "I've taught thousands of studnets and won many awards" is mere circumstantial evidence, not to be taken on its own without other substantive evidence to support it. It's both an indirect form of modesty ("I have lots of awards, but you shouldn't put too much store in that") and an acknowledgement that there are many people who have taught thousands of students but are still bad teachers and that an award doesn't necessarily mean that the person who has it is deserving of it (e.g. Henry Kissinger getting the Nobel Peace Prize).

Not sure about where you are but here in America a teacher can win an award for having a pulse.  And if we do we receive a bonus.  In American schools we reward mediocrity.  We graduate students from kinedergarten to the first grade.  We make sure no child gets left behind which ensures no kid gets ahead either.

We downplay kids who come in frist, becasue that wouldn't be nice and reward students who come in last as winners.  These kids are Number 1 for being last.

Not sure if you are bashing me or not for my way and style of teaching.  But isn't the test of a good instructor is if you can teach students enough knowledge to get a job that allows them to use their brain and not flip burgers all day?  My students get hired and promoted.

[Cerebus]

...Not that that means anything...

duh... meaning the previous statement is nonsense. esp when one cant differentiate between two very clear meaning words.

It is a common English idiom. Essentially the OP means that the "I've taught thousands of studnets and won many awards" is mere circumstantial evidence, not to be taken on its own without other substantive evidence to support it. It's both an indirect form of modesty ("I have lots of awards, but you shouldn't put too much store in that") and an acknowledgement that there are many people who have taught thousands of students but are still bad teachers and that an award doesn't necessarily mean that the person who has it is deserving of it (e.g. Henry Kissinger getting the Nobel Peace Prize).

Not sure about where you are

The Union Flag kind of gives it away - "Her Britannic Majesty's Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland".

Not sure if you are bashing me or not for my way and style of teaching.  But isn't the test of a good instructor is if you can teach students enough knowledge to get a job that allows them to use their brain and not flip burgers all day?  My students get hired and promoted.

Why would you think that? I don't know a thing about you or your style of teaching (save that I hope that it's better than your spelling or grammar; but I suspect that this isn't the first time that you've heard that).

I was just trying to help Mechatrommer out with a complex English idiom that you used casually and he was obviously having trouble understanding as he thought you had contradicted yourself when, clearly to a native English speaker, you hadn't contradicted yourself.