Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a huge difference between being a teacher and being a trained professional such as a engineer or accountant. I am all for people finding a new profession and becoming a teacher, but don't under estimate the usefullness of the education training that teachers go through. How does an engineer relate the the psychology of a teenager or the different methods of reaching the ability levels of the students. It is a rewarding carreer but just because you have gone to a high school does not make one an expert on what they need to be successful.
There is a combination of problems. 1. Funding - How can classes be effective at any level with 30 - 40 kids in a class. There is scientific studies that back this up. Less kids = better learning.
2. Parents - Involement is important, work ethic... it has all be covered. There is a study out there that states a child that was read to by parents or other adults in ages 1-4 have a 20,000 word vocabulary and a child that is no read to has a vocabulary of only 5,000 words. That is a lot to make up during age 5.
3. Teachers - Good ones are continuing to be educated and are working hard to get more "real life" education into their classrooms. There are bad teachers just like every profession.
By the way, if an engineer wants to start teaching for 35,000 a year instead of making 100k a year then more power to them. And if we are all truely babysitters I would be happy getting paid like my childcare provider. At $3.00 an hour per child per hour... I would make $114,660. For the math impaired: 30 kids... 7 hours a day...182 days a year. That beats the 40,400 I make with a masters and coaching 3 seasons.
There is a huge difference between being a teacher and being a trained professional such as a engineer or accountant. I am all for people finding a new profession and becoming a teacher, but don't under estimate the usefullness of the education training that teachers go through. How does an engineer relate the the psychology of a teenager or the different methods of reaching the ability levels of the students. It is a rewarding carreer but just because you have gone to a high school does not make one an expert on what they need to be successful.
There is a combination of problems. 1. Funding - How can classes be effective at any level with 30 - 40 kids in a class. There is scientific studies that back this up. Less kids = better learning.
2. Parents - Involement is important, work ethic... it has all be covered. There is a study out there that states a child that was read to by parents or other adults in ages 1-4 have a 20,000 word vocabulary and a child that is no read to has a vocabulary of only 5,000 words. That is a lot to make up during age 5.
3. Teachers - Good ones are continuing to be educated and are working hard to get more "real life" education into their classrooms. There are bad teachers just like every profession.
By the way, if an engineer wants to start teaching for 35,000 a year instead of making 100k a year then more power to them. And if we are all truely babysitters I would be happy getting paid like my childcare provider. At $3.00 an hour per child per hour... I would make $114,660. For the math impaired: 30 kids... 7 hours a day...182 days a year. That beats the 40,400 I make with a masters and coaching 3 seasons.
Stereotype much? What makes you think engineers can't relate the the psychology of teenagers? Whether or not you relate to people/teens or any other group isn't because you took classes in college. I actually took more psychology and social science courses in my engineering studies than I did in my ed studies. I had to take one class in adolescent development to become a teacher. While interesting, this did not prepare me to teach teens. I figure the only thing that really does is going out there and teaching teens, which, many of the engineers I worked with did. I volunteered at a summer program for inner city kids and my department sponsored a Lego Robotics team. You'd be surprised to find that engineers actually can and do work with people, including teens. Every one of my customers was a person.
I'd say about half of the classes they make me take to become a teacher were useful and half just getting a ticket punched as they weren't teaching me anything I didn't already know. This is probably due to the fact I'm a career changer. I went from engineering to teaching. If they had identified just the courses I needed to make the transition, I could have made the transition in half the time. Unfortunately, going in, I had no idea what I needed and what I didn't.
BTW, I have met many engineers turned teacher since starting down this road. I am told that we track faster than traditional ed majors. If that's true, your assumption we can't teach teens is false. If there were something about engineering that made it difficult for us to work with teens, we wouldn't track faster than the average teacher.
Here is what I said, how does an engineer relate to a teenager. You are a teacher, you went through the training. There for you did the student teaching, I assume, you had the experience in your core area no doubt and most engineers would be able to do the math / science of a high school student. I am sure we can all agree on that, but can you see the value in gaining the training and experience that your education degree brought you. I am a physics and chemistry major, does that automatically make me a good physics and chemistry teacher, nope I don't think it does.
Point being. If you want to be a teacher just get the training. I am all for people switching professions as stated before, but don't think you can just jump into a classroom and be successful.
Would your previous engineering company hire a physics teacher without the proper training?
Here is what I said, how does an engineer relate to a teenager. You are a teacher, you went through the training. There for you did the student teaching, I assume, you had the experience in your core area no doubt and most engineers would be able to do the math / science of a high school student. I am sure we can all agree on that, but can you see the value in gaining the training and experience that your education degree brought you. I am a physics and chemistry major, does that automatically make me a good physics and chemistry teacher, nope I don't think it does.
Point being. If you want to be a teacher just get the training. I am all for people switching professions as stated before, but don't think you can just jump into a classroom and be successful.
Would your previous engineering company hire a physics teacher without the proper training?
I'm telling you that I didn't need "the training" to relate to teenagers. College classes have little to nothing to do with whether or not you relate to anyone. I related to teenagers BEFORE I became a teacher. That's why I worked with the summer engineering program with inner city kids. My coworkers, who didn't become teachers, also relate to teenagers. That's why several of them worked with a Lego Robotics group.
They didn't teach me to relate to teenagers in college. That you learn by being around teenagers. You either get along with them or you don't. They can't teach you to relate in college.
If the physics teacher had the ability to do the job, they'd hire him. I've always thought it rather odd that I was qualified to teach college level courses before I took ed class number 1 yet had to get a masters in education to teach high school. IMO, teaching should be more on the job training and less classwork. You need to go to school to learn the subject you'll teach but I've found very little in my ed classes that I actually use in my classes.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 10-26-2010 at 12:29 PM..
I'm telling you that I didn't need "the training" to relate to teenagers.
During my teacher training, I took a number of classes on childhood psychology and childhood development. Adults often forget that teenagers are still children and expect them to act like adults.
You say you relate well to teenagers, but do they relate well to you? Do you only relate well to your good students, or do you relate well to the majority of students?
Honestly, I am doubting the validity of your statement.
During my teacher training, I took a number of classes on childhood psychology and childhood development. Adults often forget that teenagers are still children and expect them to act like adults.
You say you relate well to teenagers, but do they relate well to you? Do you only relate well to your good students, or do you relate well to the majority of students?
Honestly, I am doubting the validity of your statement.
School can't teach you to relate to anyone. What is to doubt about the validity of my statements?
My program had one adolescent development class, which, while interesting was a waste of time. It was entertaining as we did observations of teen group behaviors but it's not a lot of help in the classroom. I learned more watching the Discovery channel's special on teenagers than I did in my college classes and I watched that before I took my first ed class.
I have no measure of how teens relate to me but in my last school, mine was one of the rooms kids hung out in before/after school. Sometimes, I think they relate to me too well. The needier students seem to latch on.
Seriously, I do not think taking psychology courses would result in relating better to anyone. The classes that helped were the ones where we had to peer teach. I also think observations help as well. That was one thing missing from my program. Because the program was designed for people coming out of industry, we didn't have to observe. I wish they would have had us, at least, view videotaped classes.
Fortunately, for me, the dymamics of my current position are close to my expectations when I decided to leave engineering. My last position was way off.
I'm telling you that I didn't need "the training" to relate to teenagers. College classes have little to nothing to do with whether or not you relate to anyone. I related to teenagers BEFORE I became a teacher. That's why I worked with the summer engineering program with inner city kids. My coworkers, who didn't become teachers, also relate to teenagers. That's why several of them worked with a Lego Robotics group.
They didn't teach me to relate to teenagers in college. That you learn by being around teenagers. You either get along with them or you don't. They can't teach you to relate in college.
If the physics teacher had the ability to do the job, they'd hire him. I've always thought it rather odd that I was qualified to teach college level courses before I took ed class number 1 yet had to get a masters in education to teach high school. IMO, teaching should be more on the job training and less classwork. You need to go to school to learn the subject you'll teach but I've found very little in my ed classes that I actually use in my classes.
I was in a graduate-level teacher certification program, and the classes were simply worthless. I'm quite convinced that a reasonably-intelligent 16 year-old student could get an MA in Education; they only part of the program that was useful was the student-teaching component; the rest was absolute garbage, and a complete waste of time, regardless of what the educational "professionals" tell you..
I was in a graduate-level teacher certification program, and the classes were simply worthless. I'm quite convinced that a reasonably-intelligent 16 year-old student could get an MA in Education; they only part of the program that was useful was the student-teaching component; the rest was absolute garbage, and a complete waste of time, regardless of what the educational "professionals" tell you..
ITA. The thing that shocked me the most about getting my Ed degree is how easy it was.
Student teaching was good. I do wish they'd figured out how to have us observe before student teaching though. They wrote the program for professionals leaving industry so they didn't require observations. I think we lost something there. I would have learned more if they'd videotaped top teachers and watched the tapes than I did in most of my ed classes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
I'm telling you that I didn't need "the training" to relate to teenagers. College classes have little to nothing to do with whether or not you relate to anyone. I related to teenagers BEFORE I became a teacher. That's why I worked with the summer engineering program with inner city kids. My coworkers, who didn't become teachers, also relate to teenagers. That's why several of them worked with a Lego Robotics group. 
ITA. The thing that shocked me the most about getting my Ed degree is how easy it was. 
