Read on Twitter
One of the things which seriously hampers discussion about improving a profession or the goods or services it provides is this needless merry-go-round in which detractors argue most (all?) members of a profession suck and defenders swear most (all?) are awesome.
When it comes to teachers, the right will support the former and the left the latter. On cops, it'll be the reverse. And many other such fields will be the same.
My own view is that every profession operates on some form of a Bell Curve (statistically speaking). Some will be awesome, some will suck. You can adjust the margins of this but ultimately you will always have a majority that's in the middle.
And that majority will "merely" be competent. Run of the mill. Good or passable at their job. And yes, that includes whatever profession you're thinking of.
There is nothing inherently "wrong" with this. A merely competent restaurant worker feeds hundreds of people a day. A merely competent teacher provides instruction and aid to thousands of children over their lifetime. A merely competent cop maintains basic law and order.
The debate is thus not about or should not be about whether the individual members of the profession are Hollywood-level awesome or awful (usually not). The debate is and should be about systems, incentives, ways of improving margins.
Worse, too - when you make it personal, you make it personal. If your campaign against public schools or local police is not about bad laws or incentives but about the monsters or leeches running the show, everyone targeted will...well, take it personally.
So unless you have entirely written off said professional demographic when fighting for reform, meaning that they'll never be on your side, anyway, try not to make it personal. Hell, even if so, don't make it personal so they don't fight back so hard.
And perhaps most importantly: Gauge your reform efforts by how the middle of the pack, the majority in every and all cases, will do. True for students, teachers, cops, or any profession. End
