3 ms·

> someone with a CS education needs to rely much less on their credential/alumni network than someone with, say, a liberal arts degree To the extent this is tr

by nmrm2 12y ago

> someone with a CS education needs to rely much less on their credential/alumni network than someone with, say, a liberal arts degree To the extent this is true, I think it's only as a result of an employee's market in CS, something which won't always be the case (and hasn't always been). Also, wrt credentialing, CS is uncommon even among STEM fields; most engineering jobs strictly require credentials. Education and mathematics are both liberal arts by most definitions, but in my experience, graduates in those subjects get jobs by merit rather than network or credential at least as often as in CS. (edit: in fact, based on what I've seen, education is far more meritocratic in the hiring process than CS.) Finally, "liberal arts" can refer to the field, but it can also refer to the type of institution. So there's such a thing as a "CS liberal arts degree".

johan_larson 12y ago
"Education and mathematics ... graduates in those subjects get jobs by merit rather than network or credential at least as often as in CS" How could that be, when virtually all education jobs require either a teachers' certificate or a doctorate (depending on the job), both of which are credentials?
- barry-cotter 12y ago
  Yeah, I can't imagine a sensible interpretation of the claim on education. You basically need to get an M.Ed. and all the research on teacher effectiveness suggests that they have an effect that is close to zero and is probably actually zero. Subject matter Master's degrees have positive effects on teacher effectiveness but that's probably a reflection of the kind of people who get Master's degrees being interested in their field, not having a Master's making one a better teacher.
  - nmrm2 12y ago
    The networking thing is absolutely true. Networking and "buddy hires" are way more common in CS than in (secondary) Education IME. edit: in fact, in education, network-hires are basically impossible even if your buddy is all the way at the top. > You basically need to get an M.Ed. Definitely not true. At the very least, in STEM most high schools would prefer a subject matter Masters. Most teachers opt to get an Masters for the pay raise, but it's quite common to be hired without an MEd, and my comment referred to the hiring process specifically. The fact that Education MEds have no/negative effect but subject-matter masters have a positive effect probably has to do with the salary incentive and the fact MEds tend to be easier to get than subject-matter masters. An intrinsically motivated MEd student could probably get as much out of it as a subject matter masters (esp. in primary education, where increased subject matter expertise probably isn't so helpful). Which is to say, MEds aren't intrinsically bad, but because of external incentives might attract the wrong type of person. > I can't imagine a sensible interpretation of the claim on education. The literal interpretation will suffice; it's entirely well-defined even if you disagree with its truth value :-) See also my response to the parent. edit: higher-education is a different beast, but going way back up to the comment I first responded to, we're talking about education majors, who go on to secondary and primary education -- NOT higher education.
- nmrm2 12y ago
  I was primarily referring to network. But: 1. private schools often don't require certificates. 2. At least the testing requirement for obtaining a certificate IS meritocratic and isn't prohibitively expensive. We could standardize the test, or each school could develop a test as part of its interview process. In either case, giving a test and judging potential applicants in terms of that test isn't unmeritocratic. It's actually exactly the opposite. 3. I would be very surprised if someone knew everything necessary to teach in a school -- administrative details such as laws and regulations, pedagogic literacy, and subject matter expertise -- without any formal education. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think that picking up some minimal programming/design skills is sometimes less difficult and always far more interesting than a lot of what educators need to know. When's the last time you heard about someone who self-taught themselves guidelines for mandatory reporting or how to handle IEPs? The appropriateness of teachers needing to know all of these things is an entirely separate discussion -- they exist, and teachers today need to know them. It's part of the job, so it's meritocratic to exclude applicants who don't know these things.

by nmrm2 12y ago

johan_larson 12y ago

"Education and mathematics ... graduates in those subjects get jobs by merit rather than network or credential at least as often as in CS" How could that be, when virtually all education jobs require either a teachers' certificate or a doctorate (depending on the job), both of which are credentials?

barry-cotter 12y ago
Yeah, I can't imagine a sensible interpretation of the claim on education. You basically need to get an M.Ed. and all the research on teacher effectiveness suggests that they have an effect that is close to zero and is probably actually zero. Subject matter Master's degrees have positive effects on teacher effectiveness but that's probably a reflection of the kind of people who get Master's degrees being interested in their field, not having a Master's making one a better teacher.
- nmrm2 12y ago
  The networking thing is absolutely true. Networking and "buddy hires" are way more common in CS than in (secondary) Education IME. edit: in fact, in education, network-hires are basically impossible even if your buddy is all the way at the top. > You basically need to get an M.Ed. Definitely not true. At the very least, in STEM most high schools would prefer a subject matter Masters. Most teachers opt to get an Masters for the pay raise, but it's quite common to be hired without an MEd, and my comment referred to the hiring process specifically. The fact that Education MEds have no/negative effect but subject-matter masters have a positive effect probably has to do with the salary incentive and the fact MEds tend to be easier to get than subject-matter masters. An intrinsically motivated MEd student could probably get as much out of it as a subject matter masters (esp. in primary education, where increased subject matter expertise probably isn't so helpful). Which is to say, MEds aren't intrinsically bad, but because of external incentives might attract the wrong type of person. > I can't imagine a sensible interpretation of the claim on education. The literal interpretation will suffice; it's entirely well-defined even if you disagree with its truth value :-) See also my response to the parent. edit: higher-education is a different beast, but going way back up to the comment I first responded to, we're talking about education majors, who go on to secondary and primary education -- NOT higher education.
nmrm2 12y ago
I was primarily referring to network. But: 1. private schools often don't require certificates. 2. At least the testing requirement for obtaining a certificate IS meritocratic and isn't prohibitively expensive. We could standardize the test, or each school could develop a test as part of its interview process. In either case, giving a test and judging potential applicants in terms of that test isn't unmeritocratic. It's actually exactly the opposite. 3. I would be very surprised if someone knew everything necessary to teach in a school -- administrative details such as laws and regulations, pedagogic literacy, and subject matter expertise -- without any formal education. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think that picking up some minimal programming/design skills is sometimes less difficult and always far more interesting than a lot of what educators need to know. When's the last time you heard about someone who self-taught themselves guidelines for mandatory reporting or how to handle IEPs? The appropriateness of teachers needing to know all of these things is an entirely separate discussion -- they exist, and teachers today need to know them. It's part of the job, so it's meritocratic to exclude applicants who don't know these things.