do higher degree qualifications make you a better teacher ?
Comments
-
Personally - I blame the unions.
-Spider-0 -
cee wrote:how about an access course to determine qualities of a teacher before being allowed into the PGCE proper for those who have less than a 2nd class degree?
This would then allow those in who have a natural talent for teaching, but do not have the academic grades to automatically qualify for entry to a PGCE, whether they have a degree or not.
I believe that teaching is a vocation. It stems from a natural talent for teaching.
It would be a very unfortunate state of affairs if naturally talented teachers were excluded from their vocation becasue they got a 3rd.
but thinking about it...why not just remove the degree prereq from the pgce and make the access course a prereq for everyone no matter what their degree is.
Aside from the fact that a third is increasingly representing a fail (as explained before), I think it is this kind of well-to-do thinking which creates expensive and slow bureaucracies.
Teaching's a job like any other. Your CV and an interview should be enough to work out whether you're good or not.
For those who are involved in the PGCE it should be easy enough to work out whether have a 2:1 or a first will affect the likelihood that someone is suited to teaching, or whether it's fine but 3rd class candidates do worse or whatever.
We can guess, from this forum's annecedotal evidence that there is probably little
difference in the likelihood of the candidate being suitable between a first class and a second class candidate. Personally, I would have reservations about 3rd class candidates. Naturally, your CV contains more than just your degree. I don't know anyone who got onto the PGCE without some serious teaching/school/education experienced, and that's probably where the decsion on who to come to interview should be made.
Why make more expensive bureaucracies than is otherwise necesary? A CV and interview should be plenty. The political parties should leave the decision on admission to those who undersand the situation i.e. those involved.. This is, a practicle problem, not a political one. By politicising it, you end up with crazy slow, lumberous systems that never end up doing what they intend to.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
teagar wrote:
Teaching's a job like any other. Your CV and an interview should be enough to work out whether you're good or not.
I disagree.
some careers are vocations. my opinion is that teaching and nursing are two examples of this.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
cee wrote:teagar wrote:
Teaching's a job like any other. Your CV and an interview should be enough to work out whether you're good or not.
I disagree.
some careers are vocations. my opinion is that teaching and nursing are two examples of this.
I meant to get onto the PGCE.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
I wouldn't touch anyone with a modern day 3rd (i.e. post 2000) as quite frankly it means they are thick and are hardly better qualified, than the year 12/13 (6th form) pupils which they'd be expected to teach.
However, we should also keep good folk away from teaching as well, no use in wasting top class talent on teaching, better get them do something that makes a difference and money like the new Google or whatever.0 -
teagar wrote:Personally, I would have reservations about 3rd class candidates...
Fair enough comment. Also, it's interesting to note that some companies have reservations about taking on 1st class candidates.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
Ben6899 wrote:teagar wrote:Personally, I would have reservations about 3rd class candidates...
Fair enough comment. Also, it's interesting to note that some companies have reservations about taking on 1st class candidates.
Who and why?Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
teagar wrote:
I can't offer names, just something I read a while back - maybe on the train or plane. But these companies believe that 1st class degrees in certain disciplines either require the candidate to have spent three/four years in his/her room with very little social interaction or the candidate is a [borderline] genius.
Neither candidate would be considered suitable for a position with that particular company. Similar to the "over-qualified" argument and I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the theory!Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
I think we can safely say that with that logic they probably don't have firsts then....Ben6899 wrote:teagar wrote:
I can't offer names, just something I read a while back - maybe on the train or plane. But these companies believe that 1st class degrees in certain disciplines either require the candidate to have spent three/four years in his/her room with very little social interaction or the candidate is a [borderline] genius.
Neither candidate would be considered suitable for a position with that particular company. Similar to the "over-qualified" argument and I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the theory!Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
teagar wrote:
I think we can safely say that with that logic they probably don't have firsts then....Ben6899 wrote:teagar wrote:
I can't offer names, just something I read a while back - maybe on the train or plane. But these companies believe that 1st class degrees in certain disciplines either require the candidate to have spent three/four years in his/her room with very little social interaction or the candidate is a [borderline] genius.
Neither candidate would be considered suitable for a position with that particular company. Similar to the "over-qualified" argument and I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the theory!
I thought you'd be smart enough to resist such assumptions. There could be many reasons behind the company having that belief, I don't think we can safely say.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
An intelligent person does not always make a good teacher, you need to have a bit of charisma to get people to listen to what you are attempting to teach. That is the real skill.0
-
It's worth considering that most people graduate with a 2:2 or maybe a 2:1. Think of Bell curve with 1sts and 3rds at either end. Personally I don't think it will do any harm but it won't make too much difference either as most teachers will have a 2:2 or 2:1 anyway. Now if they had said at least a 2:1, then that would actually have a real impact (good or bad I don't know). As it is it's a good soundbite for D.C. and a reasonably sensible policy but nothing more.
Most schools in this country are good but there is a real social divide. The idea of putting top teachers in 'rough' schools and at a higher salary seems like a good move to me. Also if you want to change teaching then start by changing teacher training, which is OK at best at the moment.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
passout wrote:It's worth considering that most people graduate with a 2:2 or maybe a 2:1. Think of Bell curve with 1sts and 3rds at either end.
As said earlier in the thread, a good majority get either 2:1 or a first class degree.As it is it's a good soundbite for D.C. and a reasonably sensible policy but nothing more.
Surely he's wrong for politicising an issue which requires pragmatic, rather than idealistic (or in the tory case, moralistic) solutions?
It's not an issue which needs politicising.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
It's not an issue which needs politicising.
If you hadn't noticed tax payers pay for schools and on the whole PGCEs as well, and hence, there will always be politicising around these issues. If you don't like it go to a country with a fully private education system, then you may have a point.0 -
here's my penny's worth
Qualifications do not make a good teacher.
One of the worst I came across had a doctorate and was lecturing at university. He was teaching me when Maths stopped making sense and as a tutor apparently he could not grasp that some one elses knowledge was not as good as his.
A sound knowledge of the subject is not always essential. A passion for the subject and an ability to work at your students' level can be more critical.
At university before my finals many years ago I had a session with my tutor as I was having difficulty getting my head around a particular topic. He admitted it was an area he had problems with as well so we sat down together and by the time we finished I had grasped it and he was still scratching his head. I have also seen my daughter's interest in a subject change depending on who and how it was taught.0 -
eh wrote:It's not an issue which needs politicising.
If you hadn't noticed tax payers pay for schools and on the whole PGCEs as well, and hence, there will always be politicising around these issues. If you don't like it go to a country with a fully private education system, then you may have a point.
You have to pay to take the PGCE.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
Most people I know got sponsored.Cannondale Synapse 105, Giant Defy 3, Giant Omnium, Giant Trance X2, EMC R1.0, Ridgeback Platinum, On One Il Pompino...0
-
eh wrote:It's not an issue which needs politicising.
If you hadn't noticed tax payers pay for schools and on the whole PGCEs as well, and hence, there will always be politicising around these issues. If you don't like it go to a country with a fully private education system, then you may have a point.
I don't hear similar discussions about the recruitment policy of civil servants?
This is a practical issue, not an ideological one!Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
teagar wrote:It's worth considering that most people graduate with a 2:2 or maybe a 2:1. Think of Bell curve with 1sts and 3rds at either end.
As said earlier in the thread, a good majority get either 2:1 or a first class degree.
Putting 2.1's and 1sts in the same bracket is really misleading.
The percentage of people who get firsts may have doubled, but thats only from around 7% to 14%. Leaving university with a 1st distinguishes you from the majority of the population, and shows you are clever, hard working, and have excellent analytical skills.
The only reason I can think that a company wouldn't emply someone with a first, would be if they were looking for long term commitment from a candidate. People with 1sts have a lot more options, and in general people only stay at their first graduate job for about a year."I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
bollocks, firsts don't show squat, the university itself is much more important, because that shows which chunk of the population you're up against.
As for teaching, the best teachers i had were oxford post-docs without and formal teaching qualifications, excellent teachers to a man.0 -
nolf wrote:teagar wrote:It's worth considering that most people graduate with a 2:2 or maybe a 2:1. Think of Bell curve with 1sts and 3rds at either end.
As said earlier in the thread, a good majority get either 2:1 or a first class degree.
Putting 2.1's and 1sts in the same bracket is really misleading.
The percentage of people who get firsts may have doubled, but thats only from around 7% to 14%. Leaving university with a 1st distinguishes you from the majority of the population, and shows you are clever, hard working, and have excellent analytical skills.
The only reason I can think that a company wouldn't emply someone with a first, would be if they were looking for long term commitment from a candidate. People with 1sts have a lot more options, and in general people only stay at their first graduate job for about a year.
I thought it was more like 3 years or so in your first job - lots of jobs in a short space of time screams out on your CV. As for 1sts - the handful of guys I know who got firsts have gone into very high level research - they're not employable in any other field due to their lower standards of communication, teamworking etc.
Us mere mortals have found ourself in rather gainful employment... (though Biochemical Engineering is right near the top end of the geekiest of geeky degrees, I'll grant you)
As for "The only reason to not employ someone with a first..." - no - not true - many people who get firsts do have to work very very hard for them (the odd genius or two just "get" a subject, and kudos to them) - those that put every waking hour into getting that first often do so at the expense of developing the soft skills essential to modern business, and that can be a very big hindrance in the real world.
In terms of intellegence - how many jobs really need somebody with a first? Not many - so taking someone with a 2i/2ii and those lovely soft skills is probably better for 99% of industries... hence some deliberately steering away from those with firsts.
The one girl I worked with who got a first left after 8 months because she was bored... She would have been much more stimulated had she gone on to further research...!Cannondale Synapse 105, Giant Defy 3, Giant Omnium, Giant Trance X2, EMC R1.0, Ridgeback Platinum, On One Il Pompino...0 -
ride_whenever wrote:bollocks, firsts don't show squat, the university itself is much more important, because that shows which chunk of the population you're up against.
As for teaching, the best teachers i had were oxford post-docs without and formal teaching qualifications, excellent teachers to a man.
When 1 in 5 of all A levels achieved are A grade, where you go to university can become a difficult measuring stick.
For example, there are plenty of students who would do very well at oxbridge but do not get offers, usually on grounds of suitability for the course, rather than talent. That doesn't mean they're not as able as those who got into oxbridge!Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
[As said earlier in the thread, a good majority get either 2:1 or a first class degree.]
This is not true, the vast majority of HE students in the UK get a 2:2 or 2:1. More get firsts than thirds but 2:2s and 2:1 dominate by some margin.
The usual cross-Uni average module grades is in the high 50s (56-59%). To put this in context a 2:2 is 50-59% and a 2:1 is 60-69%.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
I don't think that's the case. At least, at the universities I know of.teagar wrote:oldwelshman wrote:
My understanding of the allocation of grades was that unlike gcse's which I believe are allocated on marks achieved, degree grades were allocated based on percentages in that only a certain percentage of students were allocated each grade.?teagar wrote:The problem is slightly more complicated.
Over the years, mainly through degree inflation - 2:1s are increasingly the norm, with the majority of students leaving universities (at leat, the top 20 universities, which is what Cameron is refering to) leaving with a 2:1 degree. As a result, a 2:2 degree is considered a fair bit worse than it used to, say, 20-30 years ago, when 2:2 was the majority grade.
Most people in charge of this kind of thing probably graduated when a 2:2 was the majority grade.
I may be wrong but that was what I was told during my degree.
No, that is not the case. It's all averages.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
TommyEss wrote:As for 1sts - the handful of guys I know who got firsts have gone into very high level research - they're not employable in any other field due to their lower standards of communication, teamworking etc.
Us mere mortals have found ourself in rather gainful employment... (though Biochemical Engineering is right near the top end of the geekiest of geeky degrees, I'll grant you)
As for "The only reason to not employ someone with a first..." - no - not true - many people who get firsts do have to work very very hard for them (the odd genius or two just "get" a subject, and kudos to them) - those that put every waking hour into getting that first often do so at the expense of developing the soft skills essential to modern business, and that can be a very big hindrance in the real world.
In terms of intellegence - how many jobs really need somebody with a first? Not many - so taking someone with a 2i/2ii and those lovely soft skills is probably better for 99% of industries... hence some deliberately steering away from those with firsts.
Plausible assertions, but some of us have enough emotional intelligence to feel a bit narked at the suggestion that we're a bunch of personality-free swotting geeks with no time (or ability) to relate to real people or the real world.
FWIW I am, objectively as measured by IQ tests, more intelligent than the average student, but I gained a first as a mature student chiefly by taking a pretty workmanlike attitude to studying - I just worked from 9-5, didn't cut lectures unless I knew I wouldn't lose out, and wasn't scared of looking like either a geek by asking clever questions, or a fool by asking stupid ones - I just did what I thought would gain me the most.
I would guess I spent well under 50 hours in total studying outside office hours (that's an average of less than half an hour a week for those with a third in subjects other than maths) so I had plenty of time for drinking, clubbing and other such activities that must presumably be what most students do to develop those vaunted soft skills.
You could of course argue that I am an exception that reinforces your point, as I am essentially attributing my success to soft skills I had gained before going to uni, but actually that's not really what I'm quibbling - it's simply this: graduate folklore has talked about firsts this way for years, but can anyone offer any evidence?0 -
bompington wrote:TommyEss wrote:As for 1sts - the handful of guys I know who got firsts have gone into very high level research - they're not employable in any other field due to their lower standards of communication, teamworking etc.
Us mere mortals have found ourself in rather gainful employment... (though Biochemical Engineering is right near the top end of the geekiest of geeky degrees, I'll grant you)
As for "The only reason to not employ someone with a first..." - no - not true - many people who get firsts do have to work very very hard for them (the odd genius or two just "get" a subject, and kudos to them) - those that put every waking hour into getting that first often do so at the expense of developing the soft skills essential to modern business, and that can be a very big hindrance in the real world.
In terms of intellegence - how many jobs really need somebody with a first? Not many - so taking someone with a 2i/2ii and those lovely soft skills is probably better for 99% of industries... hence some deliberately steering away from those with firsts.
Plausible assertions, but some of us have enough emotional intelligence to feel a bit narked at the suggestion that we're a bunch of personality-free swotting geeks with no time (or ability) to relate to real people or the real world.
FWIW I am, objectively as measured by IQ tests, more intelligent than the average student, but I gained a first as a mature student chiefly by taking a pretty workmanlike attitude to studying - I just worked from 9-5, didn't cut lectures unless I knew I wouldn't lose out, and wasn't scared of looking like either a geek by asking clever questions, or a fool by asking stupid ones - I just did what I thought would gain me the most.
I would guess I spent well under 50 hours in total studying outside office hours (that's an average of less than half an hour a week for those with a third in subjects other than maths) so I had plenty of time for drinking, clubbing and other such activities that must presumably be what most students do to develop those vaunted soft skills.
You could of course argue that I am an exception that reinforces your point, as I am essentially attributing my success to soft skills I had gained before going to uni, but actually that's not really what I'm quibbling - it's simply this: graduate folklore has talked about firsts this way for years, but can anyone offer any evidence?
I agree with your comments. Getting a first means that you have studied hard and have ability in your subject. This does not mean that such a student is lacking in other areas. It all links back to the stereotypes of 'brainy' people as nervous 'weeds' with glasses. The same cultural stereotype labels muscular blokes (especially body builder types) as been thick. Obviously this is playground stuff that some people are foolish enough to believe.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
Agreed.
There is a danger in discussions like this, where people say "i had a genius first class oxbridge graduate who couldn't teach for sh!t" stories, that therefore ALL first class graduates are inherrently worse at teaching than 2nd class, which is clearly wrong.
It would be silly to suggest people are somehow in a better with a 2:1 than with a first.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
Oddly enough I can't think of a single Oxbridge person I know who can't communicate and I know an awful lot of them. In fact tradtionally Oxbridge grads have been excellent communicators, even if you don't like what they communicate e.g. Tony Blair through to Tim Berners-Lee.0
-
Well you would expect this when places are so highly competitive, and selection can embrace so many attributes beyond academic potential.eh wrote:Oddly enough I can't think of a single Oxbridge person I know who can't communicate and I know an awful lot of them. In fact tradtionally Oxbridge grads have been excellent communicators, even if you don't like what they communicate e.g. Tony Blair through to Tim Berners-Lee.0 -
eh wrote:Oddly enough I can't think of a single Oxbridge person I know who can't communicate and I know an awful lot of them. In fact tradtionally Oxbridge grads have been excellent communicators, even if you don't like what they communicate e.g. Tony Blair through to Tim Berners-Lee.
I can think of a few...Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0
