Page 3 of 5

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:15 pm
by neo-dragon
So, to perhaps continue the discussion started in a different thread, why did those of us who have attended or are currently attending university/college choose the majors that we did?

I enrolled at my school in the life science program, and selected the biochem specialist as my major. So the question is, what made me go with science at all? In high school I enjoyed English and writing classes at least as much as science, and I did just as well in them. It was a bit of a toss up, so I went with what was more likely to get me a job. I figured I could probably minor in English, but of course, I didn't even do that. (side note: I chose biochem over physics again due to the idea of more job prospects)

I've always been interested in science but I didn't always enjoy studying it in university. Often the classes I enjoyed the most and did the best in were the humanities and social science courses that I would take during summer sessions. Still, I stuck with biochem even as a began to realize that I didn't see myself working in a lab and/or pursuing post-graduate studies. It was at the end of my second year that I learned of my school's brand new "early teacher's program", for undergrads in science and math programs. All I had to do was fulfill a few requirements such as maintaining a certain gpa, completing placement hours in a school (my first taste of teaching!), taking a 3rd year course in science education (in which I earned the highest grade in the class), and of course finishing my B.Sci, and I would be offered admission into my university's teachers college. To emphasize what a sweet deal this was to anyone even considering teaching I should mention that said teachers college accepted only 1200 of over 6000 qualified applicants that year.

So I completed my last 2 years knowing exactly what I was going to do with my degree, and the subsequent B.Ed.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:41 am
by Platypi007
I studied music, one of the most useless degrees out there. I had been considering doing computer science or music an landed in music. It was a terrible, terrible decision and I mostly have myself to blame for it. Though, to be fair, had the economy stayed nice and lovely like it was in the late 90s I probably wouldn't have as much trouble as I do now.

I chose music because it was my passion, not to say that I have never been passionate about computers, but music was even more so. And it seemed like something I could do and love doing. Doing something with computer science seemed like a good way for me to have a huge ulcer by the time I was 30. Maybe it would have been, too, I don't know. (Dealing with computers does tend to stress me out a bit much at times...)

Initially I didn't have any clue what I wanted to do with a music degree, I didn't even really declare a major beyond just "music" for my first trimester (like semesters but there are three of them in a year, they were... 10 weeks?). I then "felt the call of God" to go into the ministry. This was something I had already "promised" when I was very young (I think I was 11 or 12) so I felt like I was just returning to what I was supposed to be doing. I became a church music major, which, for the most part, was a performance degree with a tiny bit of the education degree, a couple of specific classes to the degree, and less of a performance requirement. Performance majors had to do a half hour junior recital and an hour senior recital. We only had to do a half hour senior recital.

So that was my plan, get my degree, go to seminary and get a masters degree in church music and get a church job. That plan changed drastically be the end of my undergrad. I was seriously doubting my faith and thus my career. I toyed with the idea of getting a degree in musicology and/or library science and teaching/managing a music library. This might have been a viable career path, and the extra degree would have given me a bit of diversity. I don't think I would have finished it.

Instead, I worked in part-time and low-wage jobs for four years before I got around to getting my masters degree. I had, by that point, decided to study choral music. I would get a college teaching job and do what I love! I later discovered that you are all but unhirable in that field without high school teaching experience, and of course I would have had to get a DMA, too. I decided, again, that maybe I would do church music.

Graduated in December 2009. In... March or April of 2010 the losing of my faith nearly ten years prior caught up to me. I could no longer pretend I believed, I realized I was an atheist. That successfully made my degree useless to me. Not that I had been having any success finding a job with it yet. The last job I applied for, a moderately large church in my hometown, had over 200 others apply for it. I am sure half or more of them had the doctorate, and I am sure that half or more of those had experience in larger churches already. The guy who got the job is also now a professor at a local college.

The prospects for a choral music person in academia aren't any better, and that would require me to get another degree and get a few years of high school experience (which would require me to become certified, which would probably result in my becoming certifiable). It doesn't make sense, financially or time, to pursue that. And a doctorate would probably make me far less hirable at the high school level since that would put me in a higher salary bracket. Not that I have, or have ever had, any desire to pursue high school teaching. That is one thing that I know is not for me.

So, I can blame my poor choices on my religious upbringing, the half-truths I was fed by people at my college and grad school, but mostly just to my making poor choices at all the wrong times. If I was 10 years older and had gotten through grad school by the mid 90s this might all have worked out, I might be teaching in a college by now. I almost wish I could go back in time 14 years I would tell myself to go into IT. I can't, however, and I'm not sure that I would have listened. Looking back, I had no real career path, I mostly did what was expected of me, and I have real musical talent so that meant getting a music degree. I'm not sure I would want to go back and change that, anyway. I greatly value the experiences I have had and the things I have learned.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:20 am
by Bean_wannabe
My choice was relatively simple - I want to work in the games industry, so a degree in Maths and Computer Science seems like the way to go. It remains to be seen how well it turns out...

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:32 am
by Dr. Mobius
Nonsense, everyone knows that if you want to make video games you should study medicine.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:11 am
by Bean_wannabe
Nonsense, everyone knows that if you want to make video games you should study medicine.
Well, drat. Reckon it's too late to switch?

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:24 am
by Rei
I started out wanting to do English, possibly with some TESL. Then I took a class on the basics of phonetics and discovered that I really like language and when I switched unis, took up a Linguistics degree. The ling dept was a bit too much into the hard, sciencey parts and less into philology (which is more what I enjoy) and so I switched from a specialist in ling to a double major between ling and Medieval Studies because, the medievals are highly amusing. I'd taken a few classes in it already and in Latin as they were interests. It also helped that most of my social circle consisted of medievalists and I found I had more in common in terms of interests with them than I did with linguists. From here, because I'm not much for teaching, I'm looking at doing a degree in Archives and Records Management, which will mean I get to use my degree for something and I think it will be fun.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 8:40 am
by Eaquae Legit
I started my degree in Religious Studies because I was a younger, more devout* self. I already knew I enjoyed studying religion and that it interested me. I asked the priest at our church, who was married, if he had any suggestions, and he recommended a uni and course that his daughter had enjoyed. Said course had a language requirement, so I decided to take up Latin, because, hey, religion, right? Turns out not only was I pretty good at Latin, I really enjoyed it. So I opted to do a full minor in it, which meant a complicated dance of trying to shoehorn in the required courses with my already complicated schedule. Complicated.** I managed to beg a prof into making a "directed readings" Latin course for me to do via distance ed so I could actually accomplish my minor, and somewhere in there I fell in love with the medieval period. The joy of language courses is the exposure to the history and literature of that language. And I'd spent a decent portion of my childhood into Xena, Hercules, fantasy literature, etc., so it wasn't exactly a big leap. After a breakup, I decided to persue an MA in medieval studies, which was a heck of a wild ride, and ended up in a social history course which made me realise that almost nobody had connected medieval studies and disability issues, and I was perfectly primed for it. So I applied for a PhD, and now I'm doing that.

Long story.




* Not really more devout, but younger and less maturely devout. I guess?
** I was balancing my major (16 courses), minor (10 courses), breadth requirements (8 courses), and my co-op courses (16 courses), and a desire to take a couple of classes for the heck of it. In a 42-course degree. And because of co-op, I could never take two-term courses together, and half the time the course I needed wasn't available in the term I needed. Dang co-op.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:58 pm
by zeroguy
Nonsense, everyone knows that if you want to make video games you should study medicine.
No no, that's for acting.

I think I went into CS because (among other instigations) I liked programming on a TI-83 when I had nothing to do in band in middle school, and the interest developed from there. The things I could do seemed to either entertain people or help them do things, and it was easy so I just kept doing it. I never really thought about jobs, except insofar as to assure me that I didn't need go looking into other fields. My search for jobs I imagine is kinda like what Ian McConville's was like.

Sometimes I wonder if going into music would have been better, but things turned out pretty good for me, so I guess I can't complain. I also considered EE/CE, since I tend to like EE/CE people and professors more than CS. But I tended to find the work harder, and I have a bit of colorblindness which makes wiring more difficult.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:20 pm
by neo-dragon
School Bans Balls

And

Toronto Approves Second Africentric School

I'm not sure which of these I disagree with more.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:42 pm
by Dr. Mobius
They really dropped the ball on that one.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:16 pm
by neo-dragon
So how does one deal with cheating students? The continuing trend of protecting students from the consequences of their actions leads to things like this.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:29 pm
by LilBee91
I'm pretty sure all of the classes I've ever taken had a pretty strict cheating policy. Admittedly, a lot of times students weren't caught and teachers may have been forgiving. But, by policy, teacher's had the right to give a failing grade on the assignment/quiz/test, or even the entire class in some cases, if a student was caught cheating. Plagiarism was handled a bit more leniently in younger grades, but that was before we were taught exactly what it meant and how to avoid it. I can understand that failing a test or assignment or class can be a little harsh, but I don't think you can ever enforce academic honesty too much. It's fine if teachers want to offer their students a second chance to really assess what they know, but I don't think that should be a required policy. As long as they make it perfectly clear from the beginning of the course that cheating will not be tolerated, they can be as unforgiving about it as they please.

I don't remember kids having issues with cheating in elementary school, but perhaps looser policies could be enforced there to help the kids who weren't taught what constituted dishonesty in their homes. Not that I'm for schools replacing parents in the slightest, but it does seem unfair to punish children who sincerely don't know any better.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:42 am
by neo-dragon
There's this constant philosophical battle that teachers face; what are marks (grades) supposed to represent? What should they be based on?

In theory, they are supposed to indicate what the student knows. Thus, in my school board some years back it was decided that marks shouldn't be deducted on late assignments, and zeros should not be given for assignments that aren't submitted at all. After all, failing to submit an assessment does not necessarily mean that the student had literally no knowledge of the material. So there's that. Even so, giving zeros for cheating has never been taken off the table.

The bottom line is that there has to be some consequence. In the article above they try to make the argument that redoing the assessment honestly is a consequence. No it's not! That's exactly what was expected in the first place. So why not cheat if there's a chance you can get away with it, and even if you're caught you're no worse off than you were anyway?

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:06 am
by Caspian
In my 1st year university class (which is in Newfoundland, btw), this is how I do it:

If students hand in a plagerized essay, I give them a 0. If they come to me and ask me for a second chance, I will let them rewrite it, and hand it in again, and will give them the grade minus 5% per day it has been since the due date, for lateness. Then I let them know that another professor wouldn't have been so kind, and I send them on their way.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:17 am
by neo-dragon
Fair enough. Does your school or department have an official policy or is it up to each prof to decide?

It seems like we waste a fair amount of professional development time each year on revising official policies based on what the ministry says we can or can't do.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:42 pm
by Caspian
In theory any plagiarism gets an automatic zero, but in practice professors are allowed to decide for themselves, within reason.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:54 pm
by Rei
I had a professor who told me what he likes to do is hand plagiarised papers back to the student with the citation of where they took their stuff written across the top. Then he usually gives them a very short but possible time to hand in their own work.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:12 pm
by neo-dragon
Obama Administration's Challenge To Schools: Embrace Digital Textbooks Within 5 Years

For teachers, questions like how many text books we have? What condition are they in? Do we need more? How much do they cost? Etc. Come up at the start and end of every semester. Consequently, the topic of digital text books has been coming up a lot lately. Are they are logical next step or a big mistake?

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:29 pm
by neo-dragon
Senator says keeping teacher pay low 'a biblical principle'

Apparently the bottom line here is that if your job is important you shouldn't be payed well for it, so that only those who really want to do the work for its own sake will pursue it.

Shouldn't that apply to doctors, police officers, and a number of other jobs as well?

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:56 pm
by Bean_wannabe
[url=http://digitaljournal.com/article/318922]Shouldn't that apply to doctors, police officers, and a number of other jobs as well?
Like senators, for example.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:32 pm
by neo-dragon
Ads in Schools?

Good idea? Bad idea? I'm inclined to dislike this on principle alone, but on the other hand, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) is in debt. They're about to lay off hundreds of teachers, office staff, administrators, and teaching assistants. If commercializing schools to some extent can save jobs and keep the standard of education from taking a hit, maybe it's worth it. :?

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:41 am
by elfprince13
keep the standard of education from taking a hit,
Down here we don't have an standard worth protecting. The public schools are awful (everywhere).

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:28 am
by Syphon the Sun
One of the nearby schools sold the mascot naming rights for quite a bit of money years and years ago. (They're now the Pretzels.)

I've seen some others sell naming rights to sports fields.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:49 pm
by Dr. Mobius
None of the schools around here have sold any naming rights that I know of, but one tiny school did close completely and merge with another nearby district. That was a long time coming though, they should've consolidated with everyone else 50 years ago but their fierce independence held them apart (and behind) and the recent changes in how the state funds schools was the final nail in the coffin.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:02 pm
by neo-dragon
Teacher Fired Over Porn

This isn't the first case like this that I've heard of. There have even been incidents of teachers being fired for having racy pics on their (private) facebook pages. So my question is, is this reasonable? Because teachers are responsible for children while at work, is it fair to hold them to a higher standard of behaviour in their personal lives?

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:35 pm
by LilBee91
I don't think it is necessarily fair to hold teachers to higher standard just because they are teachers, but I can see why some people get concerned about these issue. If the students get access to porn a teacher was in previously or sees racy pictures and whatnot, it could lead to problems in the classroom. Middle/high school students are disrespectful enough just when a teacher is attractive. I don't want to know how bad it could get if they saw their teacher in a porno. That's not the teacher's fault, though, so it shouldn't warrant them losing their job. But it could be a tricky situation to resolve.

Plus there is the fact that teachers are in a position of influence over children, and I can understand why parents would like them to be held to a higher standard than the average worker. While teachers probably shouldn't be spouting off every detail of their personal life, word gets around. It's one thing if your peers are into shady stuff. A teacher, who is a role model, can be a different story. Firing teachers is not a solution, and parents shouldn't be relying on the education system to teach their kids morals or whatever, but I can understand why people care. Even if their personal lives have no bearing on their jobs, we like people in positions of influence and authority to behave themselves well.

Also, if you ask me, I say there is a big difference between being in a porn film long before your teaching career and having racy photos on a current facebook page, however private it may be. I wouldn't say it is reasonable to fire someone over it, but trying to enforce professionalism online is not a bad thing.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:43 pm
by Dr. Mobius
Also, if you ask me, I say there is a big difference between being in a porn film long before your teaching career and having racy photos on a current facebook page, however private it may be. I wouldn't say it is reasonable to fire someone over it, but trying to enforce professionalism online is not a bad thing.
According to my, um, research, while most of her porn career predates her teaching one, she apparently continued to moonlight in porn after she started teaching. She even stated at the beginning of one of the videos that she probably shouldn't be doing porn because she's a teacher and she could get fired if discovered. This isn't a case of someone's history coming back to haunt them, she knowingly jeopardized her teaching career to make some extra cash on the side.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:23 pm
by neo-dragon
I did not know that, Doc. I was also under the impression that her two careers never overlapped.

In any case, I think I agree with everything that Shannon said. There's this fine balance between understanding that teachers are regular people with private lives that do not have anything to do with their professional lives, and understanding that teachers are role models who are expected to model certain types of behaviour both in and outside of the classroom. But funny enough, we can't "fire" parents for modelling questionable behaviour unless it's outright dangerous or negligent.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:54 pm
by neo-dragon

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:39 pm
by Jayelle
:lecture: Education is an end in itself! It's not all about getting a job! :grumble:

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:06 pm
by neo-dragon
I think there should be a balance between the two. Of course you should study something that you enjoy and that interests you, but unless you're inheriting a fortune and don't have to worry about living off of what you do, it's a good idea to consider practical applications for your degree. Especially if we're talking about a first degree. If there's something that you want to study solely for the love of studying it, that can be done later in life and pursued as a hobby or a subsequent career once you're more established.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:17 pm
by neo-dragon

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:39 pm
by Mich
I was figuring that people were taking it out of context, that the purpose of the question was to be absurd, and, having read the story and questions, it seems that way. It doesn't seem to me that the confusion comes from the bizarre, surreality of the story and questions, but rather that the questions are ambiguous. It's like asking if a character in a story who never voiced their opinion felt happy or sad about the events.

Otherwise it was just a silly story that was also short enough to read and have questions on. People seem stuck on the wrong point.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:39 pm
by Luet
The only controversy I heard about it in NY papers, were that there were two awful, ambiguous questions. They decided to throw them out.

Re: We don't need no Education (thread)

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:24 pm
by thoughtreader
I lived in NY for most of my pre college education. And having taken many NY standardized test I can say they are ridiculous! Teachers have to teach for the test. All finals from late middle school on are given by the state. So to get good funding/have passing students the teachers have to teach to the test, and then the last weeks of class are spent studying green regents review books.
Now I would like to point out that I feel I got a very good education, and my school was well funded so I had many extra classes, advanced courses, and non-traditional education opportunities. My brother for example spent half the day learning to fly airplanes during his junior and senior years!
But the Regents Exams were always a bit of a soar point in my education. In english for example they would give educators a huge list of books and stories that might be on the test. but the list was so long they would never be able to teach all of them. My sister just happened to read a short story on her own time last year that every kid in her grade didn't. There were 10 1pt questions on the Regents about it but the story wasn't given as a reference! Most if not all if her class mates didn't get any of the questions right. Thats a full letter grade off!!! If the teacher had been aloud to write there own finals they would have never asked !) questions on a short story they class never read.
Material on a final that has never been tough this seems to happen most often in english and history, and less likely in subjects like math and science were topics covered are able to be covered in a school year. this isn;t the only problem I have with the tests, they also make it hard for teachers to veer off the path and teach new and exciting things to students. I science classes for example, you have to have 30(ish) labs completed to take the regents. These would be great times to enrich the state dictated curriculum. But they are state dictated as well.

Arg!

/rant