Sorry, feeling tired, so here's one I made earlier.

Tired, so have a "classic".

Seriously, when a teacher can put an entire class into a project for a topic that fills around 3 pages, where they learn about one part of the topic as a whole, they need to be sent back. 3 hours spent finding out about... wait for it... keyboards and mice is about as welcome as gangrene and less useful. Then you are told you're meant to tell the class in a presentation. Oh Joy. Now, public speaking is not my forte, but even if it was, what are the odds on me or anyone else in the room apart from the one who went through the teaching course having knowledge to get the information across. None, more or less. On top of this, what are the odds of people even listening? Thanks, Steve, you've put my chances of passing this exam in the hands of 12 people who aren't you or me, and you've done the same to every one else.

Just out of curiosity, why do they get paid for this? His net accomplishment for this session has been to sit and break every one's concentration, before yelling at people who are talking. Talking? In a boring lesson? MADNESS! Teachers like this clearly have no idea how to convey ideas and even less about how people work. How can you respect someone who can't even pretend to respect you? Simple answer: you can't.

This is why teachers should have to know a decent amount of Psychology first. If you understand how your students think, then you can help them learn more efficiently, and get things done faster. They say to teach is to learn twice, but that adage says nothing about the recipient of the 'wisdom'. I don’t generally make bets, but if I did, I’d say that about a quarter of the people in the room will ‘accidentally’ forget their work. So that’s a quarter of a topic down the metaphorical shitpipe, lost to the ether of lazy gits who don’t care about the lesson. Naturally, anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together would go over the missing topics. Oh wait. Once again, Steve sets the bar higher, and ploughs on to the next topic leaving us to make up how these things work. My version includes, but is not limited to, pixies and other such magics.

I wouldn’t like the idea of being psychoanalysed at all times, but if it meant that I managed to learn better, and became better as a result, I’d adjust. Most teachers that people like seem to have the same properties:

1. Must have a sense of humour.
Weirdly enough, this doesn’t have to be the same sense of humour as the class, so long at the guy or gal at the front doesn’t have a stick up their arse.

2. Must be capable of voicing own opinion, even if he has to teach something contrary.
If you ask someone a question, and you get a quote from the book in front of you, you’re not satisfied, and if you are, you didn’t care about the question anyway. I can’t respect a teacher who refuses to level with their students.

3. Must occasionally go on tangents to the topic.
I know it doesn’t seem to make much sense from reading it that a good teacher should sometimes teach things not on the lesson plan, but if it gets students interested in a subject, then it’s a necessary ‘evil’.

I’m fully aware that not all teachers are like my target of ranting, but when you find one of these specimens of the shallower end of the gene pool, and the law indicates that incompetence is still not a crime, you notice them all the more compared to the greater teachers in your day.