- This topic has 4 voices and 13 replies.
-
Posts
-
I was talking to a friend of mine theother who is a secondary school teacher. We were just talking about jobs and what kind of degrees are needed for certain levels. Anyway, he said if one wants to be a professor (college level) he/she needs an education background, ie. major or minor in education. Is this true for college-level? I can understand needing a degree in education if you're teaching secondary school, but I didn't think it was necessary if one has aspirations to be a professor.Speaking of professors, what are the levels? Assistant or associate Professor, tenured professor. How does this work in universities? What is the"entry level" position of a university educator called?
Perhaps today a univ. teachers would need educ. background but in the days I was in college (dinosaurs ruled the earth and lumber wagons had iron wheels) just in area of specialization; this was why many weren't the best teachers. Levels were (are?), Teaching Assistant (up and coming grad student on the payroll) Lecturer (often a part-timer or really hot grad student), Assistant (could be tenure track or not), Associate (tenure track most usually), Professor (fully tenured or almost).Public school emphasis seems to be on educ. background (the idea that if you're a good teachers you can teach anything) rather than subject matter which is why many aren't the best teachers.If you catch my drift....
It is my understanding as well that an education background is not needed to teach at the college level, perhaps for three reasons: 1) people with Phds will only take so many classes before they want to get paid, so it's unlikely that a colleges would require a specialization in a field PLUS additional coursework in education, 2) people with Phds have already taken enough classes that by this time they ought to know how to teach a class (if not, student evals will expose this), 3) professors sometimes get hired on from professional fields outside the academic community and so there would probably not be an expectation that such people would have backgrounds in education.I thought that educational backgrounds are more beneficial at the lower levels of education (I mean really low) such as elementary school or perhaps up to high school. The likely reason for this is that these teachers have a less "captive" audience in their students and will therefore have to know how to teach to differing age groups. Further, there is going to be more competition for these positions (e.g. higher supply of elementary school teachers) so schools can "up the ante" and require potential teachers to have education backgrounds.BTW the "lowest" at the professor level might be the "adjunct professor" (which might be equivalent to Wally's "Lecturer") who is someone who may have a regular job in the real world and teaches a class in his/her spare time for extra cash.
Hi Phid,Would agree with the first paragraph... the second is interesting though, since at least in my state having your kid in school is required by law and in many cases (mine for instance) the kid is stuck with a certain teacher and that's that. Short of pulling the kids out to go to another school or district they are stuck.When it comes to hiring you are correct the newbies have all the latest edumacational learnin' but then they have to face reality... it ain't like in the books. 😮 While competition for the best is the ideal it is more usually who will work for the least money. Most districts are straped for funds (and getting worse) so would like to get rid of older teachers and get some rookies on board.Again I agree on adjunct professors (though we didn't have many where I went to school... a few faculty wives teaching a lab or an extra section of something).Cheers,Wally
Sorry Wally – I see I didn't explain myself all that well in the second paragraph. What I meant was that in elementary school, jr. high or whatever, students are less likely to pay attention than in college (hence “less captive”). It seems to me that teachers of these lower levels have a greater need to know how to teach to keep things interesting, convey the subject matter to a particular age group, etc. In other words, these teachers need to know the art of teaching. College professors don't necessarily need to know how to teach well, particularly if their reputation or curriculum vitae precedes them.
Good feedback, thanks! ADJUNCT professor..that's what I was looking for.The thing (I think) is different between higher education and secondary education is interest level. Secondary education has to be more structured, plus there are state requirements of what can and can't be taught and how. You have to know how to handle disobedient kids, where in college if someone isn't listening or not getting good grades, too bad for him. College I would think is just looking for experts in the field. Once someone says "Our guest lecturer has a PhD in Medieval history with a specialty in the migration period" than those who are interested in the migration will listen to what he has to say. Also I'd find it hard to believe that someone with a PhD or Masters wouldn't be able to convey the message coherently in a learning environment. However, I do think, just like with any job training, some can and some can't do it.I wonder if the qualifications for professor are the same in other countries
For Phid: I would agree, with one caveat… all to often the art of teaching becomes the goal rather than getting any material to stick in the little brains. Far too many liberal arts majors teaching history, etc. They really need to know what to teach (beyond the mandated standards IMHO). 'course I shouldn't talk, majored in geography and am currently teaching US history….Ski: At my school many of the Profs. were forced to teach lower div. classes and they weren't able to get down to the introductory level. This was about the time that the State Colleges in my state became State Universities... they all got new stationery and a raise otherwise same stuff different day. As alsways in some cases this was positive (I had many excellent profs but in others... "stuff" ) ::)Kind regards to you both!
So what do you think those professors needed to do in order to be effective at the introductory level?
In the case of my chemistry prof, just realize we weren't grad students and bring us along a bit more slowly. We didn't know what he was talking about in many instances but were willing to learn… it was a 1AB class meant for genereal ed and not necess for Majors.
Perhaps k-8 teachers should be focused on having a “Teaching” degree. College level teachers should have a greater ephasis on their area but should be required to attend continual coursework on instruction. I also believe that teachers should have regular evaluation and there should be no tenure. Schools should be able to rid themselves of poor teachers. Now just because students have a low pass rate only partially reflects on the teacher. Teachers will have some focus on how and what they teach if their job is on the line.
... I also believe that teachers should have regular evaluation and there should be no tenure. Schools should be able to rid themselves of poor teachers.
Teachers (at least in my district are evaluated every second year; in reality the term tenure is bogus, means nothing since if a teacher is deemed to be incompetent they can, through due process, be dismissed. The cases of incompetents remaining on staff seem to be a result of mishandling of the situation by the administration (school or district)... at least in the cases I've seen.
Now just because students have a low pass rate only partially reflects on the teacher. Teachers will have some focus on how and what they teach if their job is on the line.
Indeed it may, on the other hand children coming to school today are much less ready to learn than kids decades ago. Society is failing at a greater rate than public education... my job is less about teaching the kids US history it seems and more about acculturating them to civilized life. The Feds (and our district) mandate that we teach an anti-drug, anti-violence program Too Good For.... Seems to me that should happen at home; there, however, seems to be where the major problems with drugs and violence are though. 😮 Truthfully, I'd like to be able to think about just what and how I'll teach US history....
my job is less about teaching the kids US history it seems and more about acculturating them to civilized life. The Feds (and our district) mandate that we teach an anti-drug, anti-violence program Too Good For.... Seems to me that should happen at home; there, however, seems to be where the major problems with drugs and violence are though. 😮 Truthfully, I'd like to be able to think about just what and how I'll teach US history....
Seems to me that students from a century ago or more had so much more "nuts and bolts" of education than students do nowadays. Could it be that the special programs found in schools these days take up time that could otherwise be used for the teaching of more traditional learning subjects? I'm guessing that when things are taught in schools when they should really be taught at home it doesn't speak too highly for the state of families these days.
Yep. There is no solid foundation for kids any more. My kid is learning estimating. Rather than actually doing the MATH, by estimating and making a guess you get close to the answer. I think I'll try that on my taxes next year.
Well, I found out where I want to teach.HERE
