Well.

a) you're making a lot of assumptions about my friends. Most of them are going into teaching (Teach for America, in fact) out of, for want of a better word, ignorance. Teach for America's issues have been done to death, and I won't go into them. But I find that for most of them it's what grad school is to many liberal arts majors -- buying time.

b) I want to shake my friends (though, I don't; it's not my business) because I care about their futures, not about education in America's. So I think you missed my meaning there. I think they should use their various talents on something that will reward them commensurately, end of story. Else I'd be a teacher, I guess.

But never for a second believe the the policy makers are more important than the people they make policy for. Just because someone can tell you how to do something doesn't mean that they're more important than you are.

I think you worked yourself up into an argument against yourself, or something. Not sure where you're going with this, or where you got it. Educational policy is an alternative because it looks at the root problems of our education system, satisfies whatever latent needs my friends have to help children, and will make them considerably more well off. Period. I'm certainly not listing ed pol as an otherwise viable career choice. You don't need to major in political science to go into politics; in fact it's probably better not to.

I could turn your argument around and make it seem just as bad -- "keep throwing your time and energy into a broken system instead of fixing it" doesn't seem that smart when phrased my way, does it? But like I said, that's not my argument, or the point of my statement. The point of my statement is I don't want my friends to end up poor and disillusioned, and they're exponentially more likely to do so as teachers.