3 ms·

and if you look at the pool of college-students who are able to get a masters degree in any subject If you keep on bringing up the Master's degree as some kind

and if you look at the pool of college-students who are able to get a masters degree in any subject If you keep on bringing up the Master's degree as some kind of proof of the other jobs they could get, I'll have to keep on posting things like[1] It's almost like the Master's of Education has been watered down to a credential to people who are willing to put in a bunch of busy work. I'm not surprised that science teachers are pretty smart. Almost all my science teachers were pretty on it (I can name two exceptions). We probably need to do something to attract more quality science teachers. But, of course, saying that is an insult to current teachers.[2] [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-the-nations-easiest-college-major/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-the-nations-easiest-colleg... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7739759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7739759

acdha 12y ago
You obviously feel that it's useless, which is debatable but not the issue under discussion, namely that it's a professional barrier to entry which requires extra time or money to get. My point was simply that it's misleading to compare the median incomes for an city to a subset almost entirely comprised of people who've completed both an undergraduate degree and masters program. You can argue about the merits of the requirement, whether schools of education should change their practices, etc. but until that changes, honesty compels you to compare the median incomes of people with roughly equivalent time invested in their professional skills. > We probably need to do something to attract more quality science teachers. But, of course, saying that is an insult to current teachers.[2] You appear determined to misunderstand that comment: it's a question of balance. The next time you hear a politician talk about education, see how many times they say anything positive about teachers versus the negatives – and note the dubious aspect to, say, “hard working” when you know that means “nights and weekends at no extra pay”. How would you feel if your CEO kept talking about your company is releasing buggy code and we need to hire better programmers and make shipping bug-free code a key part of your pay? And, of course, no department is getting more staff, pay isn't going up in absolute terms, and none of the major obstacles people have been trying to get fixed for years are getting addressed first. Now consider if it was paired with, say, major investment in a world-class QA operation, internal support resources and developers gaining some influence over deadlines and features. The core program might be the same but how it would be perceived is completely different if it's backed by signs of commitment and doesn't feel like you're being scapegoated.
- danielweber 12y ago
  You obviously feel that it's useless, which is debatable If you want to bring it up again, this time I'll throw Teach For America onto the list of organizations that say it has no impact.[1] that it's a professional barrier to entry which requires extra time or money to get This is exactly credentialism. EXACTLY. "I don't know if it provides any benefit, but it takes time and money to get" is the perfect description for a useless credentialism structure. when you know that means “nights and weekends at no extra pay” I really don't know this. NPR seems to be part of the conspiracy keeping me ignorant [2]. Teachers work about 30 or so minutes less per day than other professionals, and that includes weekend work. How would you feel if your CEO kept talking about your company is releasing buggy code and we need to hire better programmers and make shipping bug-free code a key part of your pay? Like any professional, I would leave and get a different job. Fortunately my profession has not worked hard to arrange that there is only one employer in town. Since my wages are roughly what I would get on the market, as opposed to being set by some third party despite my market value, it means I haven't priced myself out of other jobs. My current employer pays me (roughly) enough to keep me around which is (roughly) what I would get elsewhere. If I was being paid way above market for some reason, though, I'd raise a stink to high heaven and keep a hold of that prior job no matter what. Modulo the need to keep things staffed for a whole semester, switching jobs into or out of teaching should not be as insanely difficult as it is. The beneficiaries of this system are the high-seniority people currently in the field who have no plans to leave. If someone wants to switch into teaching from another career, they need to go through the silly Masters-In-Ed hoops via night school. If someone wants to switch out after a few years, they are walking away with nothing from their pension-vesting system, and they have a "Masters In Education" degree which no one values besides school boards that have negotiated contracts. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/01/what-makes-a-great-teacher/307841/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/01/what-mak... [2] http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/10/05/teachers-work-fewer-hours-than-other-professionals-and-were-not-counting-summer-vacations/ http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/10/05/teachers-work-few...

acdha 12y ago

You obviously feel that it's useless, which is debatable but not the issue under discussion, namely that it's a professional barrier to entry which requires extra time or money to get. My point was simply that it's misleading to compare the median incomes for an city to a subset almost entirely comprised of people who've completed both an undergraduate degree and masters program. You can argue about the merits of the requirement, whether schools of education should change their practices, etc. but until that changes, honesty compels you to compare the median incomes of people with roughly equivalent time invested in their professional skills. > We probably need to do something to attract more quality science teachers. But, of course, saying that is an insult to current teachers.[2] You appear determined to misunderstand that comment: it's a question of balance. The next time you hear a politician talk about education, see how many times they say anything positive about teachers versus the negatives – and note the dubious aspect to, say, “hard working” when you know that means “nights and weekends at no extra pay”. How would you feel if your CEO kept talking about your company is releasing buggy code and we need to hire better programmers and make shipping bug-free code a key part of your pay? And, of course, no department is getting more staff, pay isn't going up in absolute terms, and none of the major obstacles people have been trying to get fixed for years are getting addressed first. Now consider if it was paired with, say, major investment in a world-class QA operation, internal support resources and developers gaining some influence over deadlines and features. The core program might be the same but how it would be perceived is completely different if it's backed by signs of commitment and doesn't feel like you're being scapegoated.

danielweber 12y ago
You obviously feel that it's useless, which is debatable If you want to bring it up again, this time I'll throw Teach For America onto the list of organizations that say it has no impact.[1] that it's a professional barrier to entry which requires extra time or money to get This is exactly credentialism. EXACTLY. "I don't know if it provides any benefit, but it takes time and money to get" is the perfect description for a useless credentialism structure. when you know that means “nights and weekends at no extra pay” I really don't know this. NPR seems to be part of the conspiracy keeping me ignorant [2]. Teachers work about 30 or so minutes less per day than other professionals, and that includes weekend work. How would you feel if your CEO kept talking about your company is releasing buggy code and we need to hire better programmers and make shipping bug-free code a key part of your pay? Like any professional, I would leave and get a different job. Fortunately my profession has not worked hard to arrange that there is only one employer in town. Since my wages are roughly what I would get on the market, as opposed to being set by some third party despite my market value, it means I haven't priced myself out of other jobs. My current employer pays me (roughly) enough to keep me around which is (roughly) what I would get elsewhere. If I was being paid way above market for some reason, though, I'd raise a stink to high heaven and keep a hold of that prior job no matter what. Modulo the need to keep things staffed for a whole semester, switching jobs into or out of teaching should not be as insanely difficult as it is. The beneficiaries of this system are the high-seniority people currently in the field who have no plans to leave. If someone wants to switch into teaching from another career, they need to go through the silly Masters-In-Ed hoops via night school. If someone wants to switch out after a few years, they are walking away with nothing from their pension-vesting system, and they have a "Masters In Education" degree which no one values besides school boards that have negotiated contracts. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/01/what-makes-a-great-teacher/307841/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/01/what-mak... [2] http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/10/05/teachers-work-fewer-hours-than-other-professionals-and-were-not-counting-summer-vacations/ http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/10/05/teachers-work-few...