And people wonder why I only drink Brita Water from our filter . . .

Remove all ads!

I think it would be understood that I didn't mean you saw all your pupils like that but that it is bad enough that you see some of them as it. Our job, our job is to help the pupils who need help the pupils you listed as being a joy to work with don't need any help. They will be fine, it is the kids who infuriates us, who don't give a damn, who are lazy, stupid, ignorant and the list goes on who need our help. I have been sick and tired of pretty much an entire class this semester, they are worthless. It is pretty much a collection of mute bricks incapable of any kind of interaction or individual thought or taking any kind of responsibility of their own lives whatsoever. Does that mean that I should just say screw em, it is their choice? Or does it mean that I will just have to reach these idiots one way or another even if I know that very few of them will ever amount to anything?

Pleasant kids are no problem, you could shave a monkey and send it in to teach them and they will do fine. It is the annoying ones who really need a teacher and god help I do not think it is me. Give me the chimp job anyday but I can still have some empathy and understanding for the "brats". Basically what I am saying is that it is YOUR job to deal with them. Would be nice if we could get some help from society but fat chance of that.

 

It would be understandable if you did...

Not to be too callous, but when you phrase it that way, does it even matter? If they aren't going to amount to anything, what difference does it make if you reach them or not, and how do you know reaching them is going to be a factor in whether they amount to anything or not? I somehow doubt that a student connecting with a single teacher would have a great impact on the final result one way or another.

 

The short answer is that it is self interest that makes me try to reach them. Anything else is damn boring, teaching students who dont care is the most boring thing in the world.

Secondly it is my job, that is what I am hired to do. If I wasn't they might as well just show lectures on tape day in and day out. Though most may not amount to anything but some might and if they ever get their act together it would suck for them if they had to go back to school for a year to sort out a grade they might have managed to get from me if both of us had put in a bit more effort.

 

Joacqin raises a very interesting point. I may have opinions, but I most certainly do not believe that I am always right -- there is always a chance that an ostensibly useless kid may turn out to be a wonderful, contributing member of society. I would very much like to be the one who reaches that kind of kid. To do that, though, you need to care about kids.

Despite what some people may infer, I do care about the kids I teach. I remember growing up, and I remember it's not easy. However, what I have seen tells me that the permissive style of child discipline (wherein we use the fact that growing up is difficult to excuse behaviour and never effectively hold children to account for their bad choices) is most certainly not effective. In addition, it spits on the good kids who are the victims of this nonsense.

As a teacher, I saw myself as the advocate for the weak and downtrodden in the school. The jocks, the "popular" girls, the rich sorts, and the poor who compensated for it by turning to crime -- they had their reward and the attention from the phys ed teachers or the teachers who planned expensive ski trips or the bleeding hearts who were trying to work with the criminal element or that sort of thing. I found myself focussed on the "nobodies" who were either shunned or harassed by the students with social status or other forms of power -- the quiet ones who didn't want to cause any trouble and because of their behaviour slipped under the net of douchebag Admin trying to make a name for themselves by keeping criminals in school at the expense of the good kids. I saw things that would break ones heart, and I made an effort to keep the school safe of bullying and harassment.

All the stuff about reaching out to troubled kids notwithstanding, if you end up enabling a bully to terrorize, humiliate or degrade an innocent student in your sanctimonious efforts to reach out, you are not doing anyone any favours. Therefore, I identify with the vicims in this case. To me, they are the ones whose feelings and future we should be taking into account, not the kids who have that sense of entitlement. In fact, I believe that we would be doing a favour to those arrogant kids by teaching them now that actions in life have severe consequences rather than just enabling them.

Quick story: There was one kid who was just bad news -- he was disruptive, rude, and loved to terrorize those who didn't have his popularity or whatever. He disrupted the learning of countless students and made their lives miserable to boot. When the time came to punish him, my principal (whose head was so far up his rectum as to not even be funny) said "awe, come on, he's a neat kid!" no matter how much student property the kid destroyed (he stole a shy girl's binder once and spit in it -- repeatedly -- because, and I quote "she's <effing> ugly" -- he got a whopping one day suspension for that, and when he came back he threatened her for getting him in trouble) But I digress. One day he got a job in the local supermarket in the meat department. After the first day, the manager got a call, and then several more. It seems that all the labels on the meat purchased that day said "Eff you, loser!" on them. The kid was called on the carpet, and he said "it's just a effing joke, man, chill the eff out!" and he got -- wait for it -- fired! And he was totally surprised. it was the first time in his 17 years of life he'd actually faced a consequence. Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if someone -- anyone -- had actually made him face a consequence before.

But that requires society to pull its head out and stop romanticizing the "terrible plight" of the modern teenager and start actually having logical, reasonable expectations for behaviour balanced by effective punishments. But as joacqin said,

 

That's the problem. Kids get used to being treated leniently and school doesn't prepare them for life. They think they can get away with anything, they are convinced that they are special and that everyone will be as patient as their teachers. They're unprepared and as a consequence they get a harsh wake up call when reality hits them in the face like a ton of brick.

I remember telling that to a kid who was just horrible. He was leaving school at the end of the year to train as a pastry cook. I had a chat with him because I knew that behind all that attitude there was a chance he'd listen to what I meant to tell him. It wasn't really PC but I told him that school had been too lenient with him and that when he'd be working he'd realize that people out there wouldn't be as patient as his teachers were and that he wouldn't get an infinite number of second chances. The kid just grinned but deep down I guess he knew I was right and if he didn't then I knew he'd find out how right I was soon enough.

 

LKD, your last post was excellent. Much more effective than calling them sluts or whores. A bit more wordy, though.

 

True, but if you refer to someone as 'that stupid *****', they may have just botched your foot massage. The term sees very wide usage, and while it certainly can have sexual overtones, it doesn't necessarily, or often in my experience.

The Russians said the same thing about the adopted 7-year-old that an American couple recently sent back. My response in both cases is the same: Antisocial Personality Disorder and/or Narcassistic Personality Disorder. From LKD's description, I suspect the kind of kids he's describing probably suffer from one of these. Between the two of them, they're pretty much the common definition of 'evil', and they are generally established by about 5 years old (all personality disorders are established very young). It's certainly possible (as much as you believe anyone can actually be 'evil'), and it's not that uncommon, either.

 

Funny you should mention that. I was always taught that indiscriminately using terms like b****, s***, and w**** showed a complete lack of respect for a particular gender.

I don't recall characterizing the actions of those cheerleaders as a mistake. I called it a poor choice -- and it was. It was, in fact, a very poor choice -- a reprehensible, disrespectful, stupid, scorn-worthy, childish, mean-spirited, thoughtless, selfish, vicious and demeaning choice -- but the one thing it wasn't was a s****y choice. I'm sorry, LKD, but somehow my bleeding heart is stopping me from wrapping my liberal head around the notion that it is ever OK to call some mother's teenage daughter a "s***". Maybe if I could pull my liberal head out of my sanctimonious ass long enough to recognize the importance of keeping the criminal element out of public school I could see it, but I doubt that'll ever happen.

 

If it's a condition and the person who suffers from it is suffering from it since childhood (you say 5 years old) how can that make this person "evil"? You can't be responsible for an illness, even a mental illness or psychiatric condition.

I'm convinced that teenagers don't need "Antisocial Personality Disorder and/or Narcassistic Personality Disorder" (it should be "Narcissistic" by the way) to do stupid things.

Most teenagers only need peer pressure to act like stupid teenagers.

 

I've seen posts on here by those who have been teachers, and for the most part, what I've seen are people who have been teachers in countries other than the "good 'ol US of A'. I'm going to give you the viewpoint of someone who is not only the daughter of a former teacher (one who taught in an 'urban' high-risk school, or as we term it, "inner-city"), but also someone who was one of the 'nobodies' in a high school that was filled with a good portion of not only the jock/cheerleader/popular kid types, but also quite a few gang members and other such students. I see people saying that you shouldn't call someone by certain names because it talks down to a specific gender... not so. I have seen another who says that you need to "reach out" to those who are disruptive so that they can learn... please don't make me laugh. The US, where those students are from, is unfortunately one of the most lenient in the ways of student discipline. I will explain why in a little bit.

My mother used to teach 5th grade in an inner-city elementary school. A good majority of her students were from under-privileged families. Many were from single parent homes or were being raised by grandparents. One kid, in one of her classes, lived in what was very well known to be a crack house right across the street from the school itself. When I first attended university at the age of 18, on Fridays (when I didn't have school), I'd be an unofficial teacher's assistant to my mother because Lord knows she needed the help. I'm not saying that as meaning she didn't have the strength to do her job, but after being around some of those kids, it was more she didn't have enough eyes in the back of her head to see all the crap the kids were doing behind her back. Yes, many of these kids did not grow up with discipline in their homes, but it is the family's job first to teach that, morals, respect for others, etc., yet in today's society, everyone expects the teachers to fill in and do the jobs of the parents as well as their own. You take that and top it off with a lack of cooperation and respect from not only the students but also the school corporations as well as all the budget cuts (as education feels the pinch first when the government needs to cut corners) and you begin to understand why teachers burn out so easily. But, as I was saying... this neighborhood where the school was located was in a bad part of town. I almost walked into a fire-fight one day when making my way to the school... and that was the last day I ever went back. I remember one of my mother's students purposely sucking on a candy-cane in such a way that it would have a lethally sharp point, and he'd try to find a time when I wasn't watching him to stab his neighbor. Two other kids (and mind you, this is 5th grade so they're around 10 years old) tried to have sex in the back of the classroom one day when a movie was playing on TV. This was relatively mild for what usually went on during the course of a school day. Due to laws and such, there was also relatively little my mother could do to reprimand the behavior other than to send them to the principal's office, and the principal was a lady who was so immersed in her own health care problems that she could have cared less. Not to mention, there were a few students who had parents with atom bomb tempers, that if their "sweetheart" was reprimanded for something, the principal and the child's teacher were very understandably in fear for their own safety, if not their own life.

Now for me being one of those 'nobodies' in high school (and thank you LKD for doing what you can for those students - not many try to help us out because we're easily overlooked since we don't have a tendency to cause commotions), that was a test in true strength. The only reason the students (in the post I made above) got the punishment they did was because a good percentage of the parents complained about their little darlings coming home with ruined clothes (and those that complained, their little darlings were part of the up and coming popular crowd). I was shot in the leg (luckily only by a pellet gun) by another student when I was outside relaxing on the lawn in front of the school during lunch (which many of us did) and all I got was a visit to the nurse's office. If one of the few friends I had hadn't had the cojones to call the police himself, nothing would have been done by the school. I had another student brag to me about a gun he had brought to school and was keeping in his locker (even showed it to me) in case a certain someone decided to finally keep his word in messing him up for some imagined slight - but he also said that if I said a word to anyone, it would also be used on me. Luckily I'm not one to keep my mouth shut but even with my parents' intervention, the school did nothing to this kid and until the day he graduated (he was 2 years ahead of me), I lived every day of my life in fear when going into that building that he'd come after me. I found out later he had bragged to quite a few others about it so he never knew it was me who said anything, but still... I had a girl beat the stuffing out of me because I wasn't interested in a male friend of hers and he cried on her shoulder - and when we ended up having to go through 'mediation' at the school, she later on tried to shove me down a flight of stairs when she ended up suspended for her actions. I saw gang members beat up on smaller kids, sell drugs in the hallways, and the teachers turned their backs on it because the way our school system is set up, their hands were tied and they couldn't do anything about it even if they wanted to. Not that they'd want to because they knew their life would be forfeit if they tried. We had a police presence and security guards throughout the school (which is now common in almost every school in the US now - including metal detectors which my school didn't have in the 90's) and there was one security guard who, even though I had written consent from my parents, wasn't going to let me go home when the vandalism and violence rampaged through the school during an almost month long teacher's strike. Since there was virtually no authority in that school, and the police/security were more friends to those students who had power within the school, those kids had the run of the building. Myself and others who were 'nobodies' in the school, who virtually kept our heads down and did our work without a peep, also found ourselves sometimes in hot water by the administration because we were easy scapegoats for those kids who actually did the dirty work. I got fed up with it my junior year in high school and began lashing out and found myself stuck in in-school suspension quite a bit. My senior year I was suspended from school for a week because the principal decided to ignore my teacher who explained that I was out of class legally, running an errand for him, and stated I was being insubordinate and that, and I quote, I should 'get my sh** and leave his school, I was suspended for 5 days' - which was later amended to say, on my paperwork, that I was being suspended for insubordination and use of profanity against the principal due to the fact that, unknowingly, he had followed me part of the way to my locker and heard me call him a few choice words. Thanks to whatever he told my teachers, outside of the one who tried to explain to him that I was doing what he asked, I was treated so badly when I returned that no matter what, I flunked everything I turned in and every test even when I knew that wasn't possible. I ended up dropping out of high school because it got so bad and got my GED a month later. Sad thing is, I was one of the least picked on of the nobodies. Worst part is, my city isn't even that big of a city and what is going on here is only a fraction of what you'd find in many of the larger cities. And people wonder why the US fails when it comes to educating its young. Pair that up with the "No Child Left Behind" law - which is why those that don't put in the work and get away with harassing others can still go on to the next grade level - and you can surely understand why things are as bad as they are.

I apologize for the novel, but I thought - for those of you who were getting so worked up over the way LKD was describing his students and think that you're doing the world a favor by trying to 'reach out' and coddle those troubled youngsters - that the majority of the time, they don't want it. School, for them, is a way to show the world the power they have without the fear of punishment because they know that they can't be touched, and if they do get punished, they know it'll be a slap on the wrist like those cheerleaders in Texas got. I used to be a 'little cupboard mouse' as my Swedish great-grandma liked to call me - both because I was quite shy and because I loved to hide in her cupboards and play with her pots & pans - but now, I'm tired of having people roll over me so I don't keep my mouth shut like I used to and I'm definitely not the shy type anymore. That was the lesson I learned in school.

 

Great post, CD. But the part that stuck out for me was this:

While I agree with the “coddling” part, the problem as I see it is that the punishment needs to fit the crime (such as it is). You don’t give the death sentence for stealing a loaf of bread, you don’t give a 10 year prison sentence for shoplifting, and you don’t permanently expel someone for peeing in drinking water (not that I’m saying that anyone here is suggesting any of this). I would agree that young offenders are treated way too leniently (at least in Canada), but insofar as what this topic is about (or at least started out as), IMO the punishment was appropriate.

And Tal – thank you. Even if you are a mother-******* sonofa*****.

 

Splunge, what I read was that they basically were told they couldn't participate in cheerleading for the rest of the year and had to suffer through a few days of in-school suspension. How is that a justifiable punishment for what they did? I made a post earlier with a couple of other suggestions, such as banning them from any school activity (that had nothing to do with academics) which included prom (and believe me the girls around here would have a massive fit if they were banned from prom), being tested for diseases in case there was something one of them had that could have been passed to the person imbibing in the 'spiked' drink, and paying some sort of restitution to those who had been wronged by those girls. Who knows what kind of mental anguish this could cause - especially if someone ends up having a massive phobia of germs after the thoughtless prank these girls decided to pull.

I do understand your point though, so I am in no way trying to say you're wrong. I've just missed being on the receiving end of a prank, while not similar, that did use the urine part of that nasty combination and those who pulled that squirted their own urine based concoction at fellow students and I know that I wouldn't have been happy with hearing that all they got was some in school jail time and a ban from cheerleading. That said, we all have opinions and while I might not agree with all of them, I will try to respect them

 

I guess to me I think the punishment fits what they likely felt was a harmless prank. Now if it were a situation where they took part in forcing someone to drink what the person knew was urine, that would be different - I could draw comparisons to waterboarding (although not as exteme). But in this case, if for example I were to find out after the fact that I drank water tainted with urine, while I would be grossed out, the (likely) fact that I had no apparent ill effects significantly reduces the severity of the event. Of course, if I were to have a physical reaction to the actual urine consumption, that would be a different matter, but although the urine situation would be less severe, it wouldn't be much different than, say, punching someone and bloodying their nose, vs. having them accidentally die as a result of the hit (assualt vs. manslaughter).

 

Surely we can discuss appropriate punishment for such.. bad choices all the way to eternity, but the sad fact is that such punishments are decided based upon the effect they'd have on a somewhat normal, law-abiding citizen.

For example, I'm not willing to spraypaint buildings, not because I know there's a chance I might get caught but for the fact that it's just plain stupid. For someone without such compunctions, the fear of punishment might be enough of a deterrent. But for the <cool kid in the gang trying to prove his worth>*, that's not going to stop him.

* = Or whatever it takes to make someone convinced that they just MUST do such things.

So how to stop this kid? Giving him a fine isn't going to remove the underlying cause. For all we know, his buddies might even collectively pay his fine and give him a honorary badge of martyrdom for getting caught by the <stupid cops/overly sensitive neighbors/unlucky vigilante passer-by>.

As long as the kid in question still feels he's still somehow entitled/forced to carry on with his tagging routines, the punishment/deterrent needs to increase. Naturally you don't start with lifetime imprisonment, but if his skull is thick enough to call the threats of the authorities that long, I guess the society as a whole shouldn't be ashamed of themselves for doing so. EVEN IF IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF SUCH PETTY CRIME.

 

The situation CD describes is pretty harsh and it's well beyond any individual teacher's limited range.

I think that LKD is right when he says:

Expectations keep getting lowered and as a result the bullies and the brats know that they can get away with pretty much anything. The problem is that you can't keep giving second chances to kids who are aggressive and do really stupid and dangerous things.

I had a 14 years old pupil who was selling drugs and was known by the police. He had to report to some education expert who would try to get him back on the right path. He wasn't aggressive towards his classmates but everyone knew he had a knife and was hanging around some really bad crowds. That kid had real problems but he was a really smart kid. I tried to reach out but I knew there was only so much I could do. I told him he had to leave his problems outside the classroom and that if he played along I'd do my utmost to help him in my subject. It worked for a little while and I even managed to get him somewhat interested by using different teaching materials. The kid finally got expelled for insulting a teacher, he had a bad record and that was the last straw. Over here when a pupil gets expelled you get another pupil who has been expelled from another highschool. The new pupil was a girl and she was really obnoxious. Anyway she agreed to shut up if she was left alone. That wasn't ideal but there is only so much you can do when you have thirty other pupils that require your attention.

Teaching can be really hard. You're dealing with teenagers who may have big issues and who are living through a difficult period in their lives. Sometimes they act out and as a teacher you're on the frontlines.

It can also be an amazing experience so I don't want to sound utterly glum about my teaching experience. At the end of the day though, it's really sad to see that expectations are constantly lowered and that as a consequence values like work and effort are derided and mocked by most.

My best friend teaches kids in the suburbs outside Paris (think inner city in the US, here the posh places are in the city centres). She has to cope with kids who barely even speak French and who don't have any prospects in life. It's a tough job and she told me a few stories that made me sad about kids growing up in unsafe environments and being subjected to violence (and I mean real violence). She is really dedicated to her work and I really admire her for not giving up and being there for her pupils no matter what.

 

Sorry to go back a few posts, but I wanted to reply (besides while the comment was made on the previous page, the comment is less than 24 hours old).

While your sentiments are commendable, I just don't think either of you are capable of doing what you say you'd love to accomplish.

I suppose I should preface the comments to come that I do respect the job that teachers do, and that I certainly am not anti-teacher. My wife is an elementary school teacher, so short of actually being a teacher myself, I think I have a better grasp of what the job entails than the average person. If anything, I think we expect too much from our teachers.

Now, just like in any profession, there are good teachers and there are bad teachers. Being a teacher that gives a crap about one's students is probably a good first step towards moving you towards the "good teacher" end of the scale. But there have been studies done on this. The ability of the teacher is not the most important factor in determining the outcomes of students. Nor is the quality of the school. Nor is the amount of money the school has to spend on resources and supplies. Nor is the location of the school (inner city versus rural versus suburbia).

The most important factor in determining outcomes for students is whether or not their parents give a crap. Parental involvement in their children's education is a more important factor in whether or not their kids amount to anything than all those other factors combined. Parental involvement is even a bigger contributor than socio-economic status in what you become (incidentally, socio-ecomonic status is also bigger than all the factors listed in the previous paragraph as well). You can be the best teacher in the world, but if the kid's parents aren't making sure he's doing his homework and studying, and putting the work in to maintain his grades, and instilling a sense of discipline that while there about a million other things you'd rather be doing than school work that education is so important in what you become, then there's a not a damn thing that you're going to be able to do to reach that kid.

You see that kid for what? An hour or two per day, five days per week for one school year? You think that's going to have a bigger impact that what they see and do every day at home from the time they were born? I don't think it's a question of your ability as a teacher. I think it's simply a question of the extremely limited amount of time and involvement you are going to have in that kid's life. In thinking you can actually have an impact on these kids helps you get out of bed in the morning and makes you're day at work more personally fulfilling, sure, go for it. It just seems to be such a quixotic effort. I know I could never be a teacher, because I could never be happy if something like that were one of the metrics by which I determined if I was good at my profession. Knowing that I would fail so many more times than I would succeed would not be a source of motivation for me - in fact, I suspect it would have the exact opposite effect, and make me disinterested.

EDIT: One more thing joacquin - you continue to hold the title of Most Enigmatic Personality I Have Ever Encounterd in My Life. In many of your posts, you come off as a cold-hearted bastard that cares about no one beyond himself, and yet, based on your choice of prefessions as a school teacher and work in a psych ward, it shows that you are also capable of great compassion. I have never witnessed more of a dichotomy in anyone I've come across in my nearly 36 years of life.

 

Not pointing this at joacquin specifically, but I think "come off" is the key part there. I suspect that most people who come off that way really aren't that way and are trying to manufacture a 'hard guy' persona because they've been injured in some way and feel vulnerable. So when I see hard guys/gals (on the internet in particular) who go to great lengths to ensure that everyone knows they're hard cases, I usually end up thinking just the opposite.

 

I know that in many cases I simply can't do what I would like to do -- you simply cannot help a person if they don't want to be helped, no matter what horse-turdies Hollywood throws at us. But there's the one in 1000 kid who you DO end up helping.

I had a kid who was a royal pain in my hind end in a ninth grade Social class. The kid was obnoxious and failing the course. Then I saw his report card -- running at 85% in Science and Math. So I pulled him out into the hallway and said "looks like the problem is me -- what am I doing that is so bad that you aren't putting any effort into my class? A kid with marks like yours in the other classes is capable of doing much better in my class -- what do I need to do to help you?" Now, I'd done similar things with other students and gotten no-where, but that's no reason to give up. He actually smiled and said "I just hate Social, dude! It's nothing to do with you. But you're the first social teacher who has actually talked to me like this. I'll do better." By the next report card his mark was up to around 83% in my class. He was also much better behaved in class. It IS possible, but it ISN'T contingent only on the teacher's effort -- the choices the kid makes are vital.

So, back to the pee drinks. I know that there was likely no lasting physical damage, but there's more than one form of abuse -- in this case, psychological. These girls were of age to know better, there's no question in my mind. In that sense, teen or not, they should be held just as accountable as anyone else who does something despicable. If a prison warden were to be punishing rapists by forcing them to drink the urine of the guards, I guarantee he would be fired. And everyone on this board would agree. I think that a similarily severe punishment should be meted out upon these girls. They may not have the maturity yet to deal with nuanced moral and ethical decisions, but at that age they have the moral capacity to know it's wrong -- and be punished for their deliberate violation of such a common code of conduct.

 

When it comes to helping, I get students from 16 and upwards. Think my oldest is a 55 year old mentally unstable woman who for some reason wants a grade in English and is doing fine despite the quite massive handicap her disorder gives her.

As you say Aldeth there are some hard limits on what you can accomplish as a teacher especially with older students. All we can do is, well not our best cause if I did my best I would last about a month before burning up like a moth caught in a flame, but good enough that I can feel satisfied with my effort. Often some of the teenagers I teach have met very little understanding or patience from educators in the past. I am constantly appalled by how many buttholes that work in the schoolsystem. People stuck in a world that is long gone who at best ignore troubled children and at worst abuse them. If the school really wants to make a difference they need put in resources straight away, the worst cases you can notice already in kindergarten and they need to be checked then and there. I am sure these obnoxious kids (and I must say that some of the behaviour labelled as obnoxious here doesn't seem all that bad to me, I mean, being rude to a teacher? Whopedido, that should be a personal issue between the teacher and the student and what is rude? Really?) have always existed but in the past they were either whipped into a sullen silence or excluded from schooling altogether but now these bleeding heart liberals have gotten this crazy idea that everyone is supposed to get an education. I rarely or never really have any what could be labelled as "disciplinary" problems, that could be because I work in what I think would be best described as a community college combined with a small unit trying to push forward kids who have failed in the regular system so we generally have rather small classes. The problem is attendance, activity and the fact that so many of them are just plain stupid.

As for myself, I guess I come off as a cold hearted bastards cause that is how I view myself but most of all I see myself as a pragmatist and what I have learned is that when you deal with people you tend to get much better results with patience and understanding than with harshness and being judgemental. I see no reason or gain in pitching myself into unnescessary conflicts when they are so easy to avoid. As for my line of work as I think I have mentioned before I am a huge egomaniac and as a teacher you are to some extent god for the duration of the lesson. A good workday as a teacher is awesome and a bad is no worse than a normal day in the other lines of work I have tried.