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.
Does this vary per state? Many of my colleagues in Texas and Nebraska have degrees in Secondary Education and I have friends in a few other states who have degrees in it as well. These are education degrees with one or more areas of specialization, such as math or English, but the major itself is Education. Just wondering if it is different everywhere else?
Does this vary per state? Many of my colleagues in Texas and Nebraska have degrees in Secondary Education and I have friends in a few other states who have degrees in it as well. These are education degrees with one or more areas of specialization, such as math or English, but the major itself is Education. Just wondering if it is different everywhere else?
That's how it is in Michigan. My "official" major is education. On top of that, I had to have minimum numbers of credits in chemistry, math and physics to qualify for my "majors and minor". It doesn't actually say on my transcript that I majored in chemistry and math and minored in physics. My type of certification, however, goes to someone with either a major or a minor in their subject area (I have single subject certs in chemistry and physics).
You can also get general certs. For my "major" in chemistry, I needed over 40 credits in chemistry and I needed over 20 credits in physics for my "minor" in physics, however someone who took 36 credits total science (12 earth science, 12 physical science and 12 life science) is considered highly qualified teach chemistry or physics as well. Unfortunately, they're hard to compete against for jobs as they can also teach any science in grades 6-12 wheras, I can only teache chemistry, physics and physical science so their certificate is the sought after one even though I'm considered a subject matter expert and they are not.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 05-08-2010 at 04:33 AM..
LOL! Bad, Charles! Bad, bad Charles! Look ashamed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I'll have to get back to you on proof but I believe that the average IQ for a doctor is higher than the average IQ for a teacher, just to name two.
Charles's waggish comment aside, personal experience would lead me to agree with this part of the equation. But it appeared that you were dragging out the tired chestnut "all the smart kids go into medicine and law", which is about as accurate as any other tired mid-twentieth-century stereotype.
LOL! Bad, Charles! Bad, bad Charles! Look ashamed.
Charles's waggish comment aside, personal experience would lead me to agree with this part of the equation. But it appeared that you were dragging out the tired chestnut "all the smart kids go into medicine and law", which is about as accurate as any other tired mid-twentieth-century stereotype.
Not what I was saying at all. I was, simply, pointing out that the higher one goes in education, the more likely they will encounter smart people. This was in response to my statement that my friend had issues when she started meeting more people like her. She thrived on her specialness. The higher she went in education, the less special she was until she, finally, just quit. She didn't deal with competition well. She found lots of it in pre-law. Some from students who were simply bright like her, but much to her chagrin, some from students who were just very ambitious. She settled for a career as a paralegal rather than compete. IMO (I knew her) she couldn't handle even the remote chance she might lose.
With all due respect, they definitely do. Among my departmental colleagues at my school, for example, I am one of two people (out of seven) who has at least an undergraduate degree in my subject area. Most of the rest have degrees in education. This is typical of the other schools at which I have worked.
Believe me, there is a profound difference between those teachers who have degrees in education and those who have degrees in a core subject area.
With all due respect, they definitely do. Among my departmental colleagues at my school, for example, I am one of two people (out of seven) who has at least an undergraduate degree in my subject area. Most of the rest have degrees in education. This is typical of the other schools at which I have worked.
Believe me, there is a profound difference between those teachers who have degrees in education and those who have degrees in a core subject area.
Agreed.
It also depends on the school attended and the subject they chose to teach.
My second daughter wanted to teach math. She went to the University of Texas. They have a program specifically set up for math and science majors called UTeach (which is being set up and used by many other schools now due to the great success it has shown).
I don't know the exact wording on her diploma, but her degree is in Teaching High School Math from the college of Natural Sciences.
Those who majored in Education for subjects other than math and science have Education degrees from the College of Education, or from the College of Liberal Arts.
There can be a high school math teacher who has the education degree as well as the teaching degree in math and the difference in course selection is tremendous.
With all due respect, they definitely do. Among my departmental colleagues at my school, for example, I am one of two people (out of seven) who has at least an undergraduate degree in my subject area. Most of the rest have degrees in education. This is typical of the other schools at which I have worked.
Believe me, there is a profound difference between those teachers who have degrees in education and those who have degrees in a core subject area.
What difference do you see? Are teachers with degrees in education better teachers or are teachers with undergrad degrees in what they teach better teachers?
Don't worry about hurting my feelings. I have both so I'm covered either way . I'm just curious as to what you see as the advantages of each.
To be honest, I really don't see where my ed degree helps much. There were about 4 classes that I think made a difference (My science methods course, a course on authentic evaluation, a course on racisim and sexism (very enlightening) and a course on psychology of teens) and the rest were just easy A's. They cut the one thing that probably would have helped the most -- classroom observations -- because my program was written for working professionals. Seriously, they should have, at least, made us watch an equivalent number of hours of videos of real classrooms just for the exposure to different teaching styles and ways of dealing with discipline issues. I can't believe that cut that one out.
On the other hand, my engineering degrees didn't prepare me for the classroom. I think I have an advantage in that I don't have to think twice about content so I can concentrate on learning things like classroom management and teaching strategies. I can also go much deeper into the subject matter. I don't need to study what I'm going to teach before I teach it and can work off of a rough outline instead of writing detailed lesson plans, which would be a waste for me anyway since half the time the lesson doesn't go the way I planned. Fortunately, I can switch on the fly easily because I know my subject matter well. I just haven't caught on to knowing what the students need before I start the lesson. I'm either too fast, too slow, come in too low or too high (I'm covering all bases, lol) but I adjust quickly once I see their reactions BUT I do tend to get too caught up in the content. I have to remind myself that relationships have to come first.
What difference do you see? Are teachers with degrees in education better teachers or are teachers with undergrad degrees in what they teach better teachers?
Unless I get more or different data -- something I am always willing to do -- I will continue to stand by an assertion I have made many times based on my experience: education degrees are damn near worthless.
Here's what I mean. I'm summarizing from many years' worth of experience, so please forgive the broad brush w/which I am necessarily painting. All of the below applies to English, my discipline, and to teachers who have gotten their degrees in education, "English education" (better, because it requires at least some courses in English, but not as good as an actual English degree), or in some other subject besides English but who are teaching English regardless:
Here are some of my most memorable encounters with teachers of that description. They have...
* Literally cried when told to teach grammar.
* Cried and admitted, "Teaching grammar makes me uncomfortable."
* Said, "I don't really believe in teaching essays."
* Primarily assessed students' mastery of English through using "nonlinguistic assessment" -- that is, assessment which involved no words. When mathematics teachers start using nonmathematical assessment to assess math skills -- and it works, and works better than assessing math skills by, say, doing math -- then maybe I will consider a similar approach for English. Until then, I will stubbornly continue to insist that a class in language is assessed best by using words.
* Grouped students in clusters of six to write "group essays" so that he or she only had to grade five essays per class instead of thirty.
* Gave no comments at all on an essay other than a grade. When students complained that they did not know why they had received this grade, they were told, "Look at the rubric" and refused to explain why their specific essay fit those criteria in the rubric.
* Substituted sentimental tripe for real literature study. Two actual, real-life examples: The teacher who taught all three Twilight books to her freshmen, and the teacher who taught The Lovely Bones.
* Demonstrated substandard command of English spelling, syntax, and vocabulary. My favorite example: a handout entitled, "The American Dream: Reality, or Allusion?" This was NOT a clever pun.
* Stated, "Oh, I could never take a class in Shakespeare. It would be too hard."
I could go on. In essence, these teachers have several features in common: a disdain and even an active dislike for the fundamental elements of their discipline: the elements of grammar, the rules of clear writing, and the classic literature which forms the central canon of Western culture. Overall, I have found ed. majors, on the whole, to be relentlessly anti-intellectual and ultimately a serious problem, especially for gifted students.
They cannot give in-depth answers to questions because they don't have them: without the answers in the back of the book, they're sunk. They can't explain why and they can't go off-book because they can't. Their choices in assessment almost always involve the least amount of work possible...for them. They often involve some form of visual representation rather than words, although words are their business. They do not care very much about words or language. That's all well and good -- but don't teach English.
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 just curious as to what you see as the advantages of each. 