<p>I wouldn't mention an interest in HS teaching in an app to a top graduate school, but I think it would be viewed positively at highly selective undergrad schools. I recently heard a discussion about full-need financial aid policies at LACs and one of the presenters was very clear about his school wanting to keep student debt to a minimum so students' financial situations would allow them to seek highly rewarding but lower-paid work, like teaching and social service jobs.</p>
<p>Wow. Thanks to so many for so much insight. CC can be such a valuable resource, especially for areas outside of your personal sphere of expertise. Thanks for putting out minds to rest on this "concern."</p>
<p>
[quote]
So the Question: Do you believe ANY top college would have a bias towards the application of someone expressing an interest in a HS teaching career?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Any" is a pretty big question. I'm sure there probably are some that would have a bias against and some a predilection for....</p>
<p>I don't believe it would hurt at Swarthmore. They have an Education department and pre-defined Special Majors in Education/Math, Education/Literature, Education/Physics, etc. They also offer Pennsylvania state teachers certification with the required Education courses including practice teaching in local schools. </p>
<p>Quite a few Swarthmore grads get involved with Charter Schools these days. I think my daughter is going to go visit one in Boston where a recent Swat alum is teaching.</p>
<p>The college's largest benefactor is heavily involved in public school education through his "I Have a Dream Foundation" that sponsors an entire class of kids at low-income schools, starting in the 3rd grade all the way through graduation.</p>
<p>I am sure that many other colleges have solid connections to teaching/education careers. At least for colleges and universities in urban areas, many of the community service programs involve some kind of work with public school kids. Harvard has a huge educational summer enrichment camp program that operates a half dozen sites serving various public housing and immigrant neighborhoods around Boston. Swarthmore has ties to the Chester schools, a low-income, "inner-city" type district a few miles south of the campus.</p>
<p>What a sad commentary on society that this question even has to be posed.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>So would there be a bias? I'd say probably yes, even if an unconscious one. With so many good colleges and universities out there with strong departments in early childhood development, developmental child psychology, and actual teacher prep courses, I can easily imagine it sticking in an adcoms mind that this is unusual, and might be a representation of lack of clear thinking on the part of the applicant. The applicant could, of course, turn that into a strength by being exceptionally clear and forthright and passionate, but I think the burden would fall on the applicant to do so.>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Re-reading Mini's post, I have to disagree with this comment.</p>
<p>A very likely reason why there are not more students at selective and expensive schools planning to go into teaching is economic. Unlike future law, medicine or investment banking, teaching is not sufficiently well paid for a family to feel comfortable shelling out $160k; if a student knows in advance that s/he wants to go into teaching, the family will probably steer him or her toward cheaper alternatives, usually state schools and teachers' colleges. However, many undergraduates do develop a passion for teaching while in college. As I mentioned earlier, my S has has student teachers from HGSE, one a graduate of Princeton, one of Georgetowwn. They've been great.</p>
<p>Colleges, including the most selective and expensive ones, do not think that students who want to go into teaching are misguided in wanting to attend their programs instead of undergraduate programs in early childhood education, classroom management, etc... There are many who lament that the focus on pedagogical issues (the "how" of teaching) has come at the detriment of content ("what" is being taught).
In contrast to education schools, top colleges that have programs for teachers emphasize content. Courses such as "math for teachers" show how to teach math, not how to combine students into collaborative groups or manage a class or devise a grading system, build a portfolio. These are all worthwhile things for teachers to learn, but they do not replace a solid knowledge of what it is that will be taught. It was interesting that when MA imposed teacher certification exams some years ago, the only school that had a 100% pass rate was the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Some education schools around the state, including some well-regarded ones, had shockingly high failure rates on the exams that tested teacher knowledge.</p>
<p><<what a="" sad="" commentary="" on="" society="" that="" this="" question="" even="" has="" to="" be="" posed.="">></what></p>
<p>Sad indeed. But I trust you fully understand the context in which it was asked. I couldn't have more respect for the teachers of our youth. I've got at least six close relatives in the teaching profession and I'd likely choose teaching myself if I had it to do all over again.</p>
<p>My question was asked strictly in the arena of college admissions -- as a tactic. My D is going to go into a field that is right for her. It's likely to be teaching (at some level, most likely HS). I'm sure it will be wonderful for her and I'm so confident in her that I think her involvement will be good for society too. Nevertheless, her college apps are judged by adcoms ... their game, their rules, their kingdoms. It seemed prudent to at least ask how this matter was generally perceived in order to at least consider how to focus her college apps. That's all.</p>
<p>And, if a given ultra-selective institution is so elitist that they don't want to fill one of the precious slots with a student with such "ordinary" aspirations ... well ... thankfully ... they've given you a heads-up ... you've just identified an institution that you probably want no part of.</p>
<p>DudeofDiligence,
I have seen absolutely no evidence that ultra selective institutions avoid admitting applicants who aspire to be secondary, elementary or preschool teachers. In fact, I have seen quite the opposite. IMO any applicant who aspires to such a vocation yet decides to hide that on their application is decreasing their chances of admission.</p>
<p>All universities benefit from excellence in secondary, elementary and preschool teaching. They have every reason to want to train such teachers.</p>
<p>To think otherwise is very narrow minded, and I think is reflective of your biases against such vocations, not the universities' perspective on such vocations.</p>
<p>I don't know about bias in admittance but I have observed parents who think there is something wrong with their kids teacher who is an ivy grad and ends up teaching high school math and science.</p>
<p>"And, if a given ultra-selective institution is so elitist that they don't want to fill one of the precious slots with a student with such "ordinary" aspirations ... well ... thankfully ... they've given you a heads-up ... you've just identified an institution that you probably want no part of.."</p>
<p>I think you've asked a very fair question. I think all of these institutions want passionate students, with passionate interests, and who are passionate about their futures, so that's definitely a plus. And if an applicant can show that, it is definitely an advantage.</p>
<p>However, having said that, admissions staff from schools where 60% of the student body comes from the top 5% of the population economically, and more than half the admits are from private schools (and perhaps have never even TALKED TO a public school teacher), have pretty much made a statement (independent of what the school "says"), haven't they? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is not the pool of future public school teachers. </p>
<p>There are top colleges (LACs and u.s) that have serious course offerings in childhood development and psychology, early childhood ed., and in American education, and certain ones that don't. I think this makes a statement of sorts as well. If they thought they were in the business of producing a significant number of future teachers, they would provide the course offerings to support it. They offer pre-med courses for future doctors, don't they?</p>
<p>Mom60,
A lot of people value money and prestige more than they value making a contribution to society. People who value money and prestige above other things are of course going to think that something is wrong with an Ivy grad who decides to become a school teacher. That, however, doesn't mean that Ivy adcoms and faculty think in similar ways. </p>
<p>What Ivy adcoms and faculty value are students who value learning for learning's sake -- not for prestige, not for money, etc. A student who plans to be a school teacher and wants to go to an Ivy probably has values far more in line with Ivy adcoms and faculty than do students who want to go to Ivies simply to get a passport to well paying, prestigious jobs.</p>
<p>I know that when it comes to my own class from an Ivy, the people whom my alum classmates seem to most value are those who have made a difference in society -- whether or not such people had well paying or prestigious jobs. I am decades past graduation, and when I go to reunions, I don't hear people talking about their expensive cars, large houses, etc., though I am sure many have such things. I also don't see people showing off wearing flashy jewelry or designer clothes. In fact, no matter what their jobs are, most dress very low key (and that includes some who are doing well in the entertainment field).</p>
<p>It's rare to hear anyone bragging about what they have accomplished in terms of their careers. People talk about their families, their concerns about society, their hobbies, etc. The school teachers, ministers and housewives are treated the same as are the political leaders, surgeons and corporate lawyers.</p>
<p>NorthstarMom:</p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p><<all universities="" benefit="" from="" excellence="" in="" secondary,="" elementary="" and="" preschool="" teaching.="" they="" have="" every="" reason="" to="" want="" train="" such="" teachers.="" think="" otherwise="" is="" very="" narrow="" minded,="" i="" reflective="" of="" your="" biases="" against="" vocations,="" not="" the="" universities'="" perspective="" on="" vocations.="">></all></p>
<p>Did you mean "reflective of one's biases" or my biases? Because I have no such negative bias. In fact, I couldn't respect top, talented people who dedicate their life to teaching more. As I've tried to make clear in my posts, some other real life experts (people who have MAJOR connections, personally and professionally, with some elite schools) suggested to me that this negative bias might exist. This thread was my attempt to poll the collective wisdom of the CC Parents' Board for their informed thoughts on the matter. Thank you for adding your voice and opinions.</p>
<p>DudeDiligence,
Something worth thinking about is that the people who are reading applications are by choice (for the most part I guess) working in education. They undoubtedly appreciate the value that you and your daughter place on those in the education profession. Most importantly, I think anything that a child is truly passionate about and which is meaningful and which they can convey in their applications has to be a good thing</p>
<p>Personally, I listed "Professor" as my intended occupation - however I know that Bowdoin, for example, stressed that most Bowdoin graduates become teachers...which I thought was very interesting....a little strange...but interesting. I really admire teachers who go to private institutions and spend alot of money on their education and then are forced into much lower paying occupations - it takes dedication and integrity. My AP English teacher went to Kenyon and then Yale...something you don't find every day at my boring public HS. Princeton also emphasized that many students become teachers.</p>
<p>Just my addition.</p>
<p>"After you've taught junior high, she says, everything else in life looks easy! Managing several dozen young teens makes chairing a faculty meeting with "difficult" professors look like a piece of cake, by contrast."</p>
<p>Ha, ha. As a junior high teacher, I have to say, amen! I've been a journalist, p.r. manager, full-time mom and for the last five years a teacher of middle school kids... this is by far the hardest job I've ever had. Very rewarding, but hard! At least my own two kids are out of that age range and into high school now. It was so difficult the first four years when I'd leave school and come home to.... more middle school kids! Talk about developing patience. </p>
<p>As for a bias from top colleges... I would hope not. We need well-educated teachers so desperately. </p>
<p>Momof2 in CA</p>
<p>i've never heard of that.</p>
<p>at alumni conference last year that i was invited to there were about a dozen high school teachers, all of whom went to yale or brown (those were pretty popular early 90's).</p>
<p>in fact i've heard that it's good because most kids aiming at such institutions want to make the money and make it fast. they need that diversity of interest. </p>
<p>colleges can get heavy heavy mileage out of a young man/woman who teaches or does anything out of the ordinary. in fact, when they have those prestigious alumni events they often focus on those kinds of individuals.</p>
<p>Once upon a time, it was well known that Princeton preferred architecture students with a teaching bent. Indeed, most Princeton architecture grads in my circle turned to teaching at different stages.</p>
<p>btw, Marite, some teachers are terribly flawed, but do they deserve a bashing? :) Goodness! </p>
<p>On the investment vs payback issue: a friend of mine reminded me that private schooling in the early years is simply an exercise for shelling out gigantic college dollars. If the shelling out isn't a burden (ie loan), then hopefully there wouldn't be a financial constraint put on the 'investment'; especially where passion is at stake.</p>
<p>Besides, teachers have decent pensions, don't they?</p>
<p>Cheers:</p>
<p>The phrase "teacher bashing" has become such an entrenched part of certain kinds of discourses that I used it rather unthinkingly, in responding to mattmom's post. We've been fortunate that none of our kids' teachers deserved bashing, though some were not up to the task, and several burned out--as do most teachers by the time they've been teaching more than three years. Some of my kids' teachers have been superb. Only one was truly not right for the job. But I've heard parents who are up in arms about a teacher at another school who apparently undermines kids. It goes beyond being incompetent. Unfortunately, that teacher cannot be fired. You can imagine what kind of conversations the parents and students at that school are having.</p>
<p>Haha, I can imagine it, actually, because my S was bashed by a teacher who then had the good sense to resign 48 hours later. (Really. Teacher took a wind-up and knocked him on the back of the head. In honors pre-calculus, no less!)</p>
<p>But...still not a big fan of bashing. Extraordinary teachers are a gift but flawed teachers are to be expected. It's the nature of life.</p>