<p>Sure, but it still seems to be far more desirable than the shockingly paltry jobs that sschoe2 has been discussing. At least you have benefits such as health insurance and a pension. At least you have summers off. At least some school districts offer you the opportunity for tenure which effectively makes you unfireable. The jobs that sschoe2 has been discussing offer none of the above- indeed seeming to be little better than the mundane low-end part-time retail jobs at the mall with no benefits that many of us held while we were still in high school. And yes, I agree that teachers have to spend significant time managing student discipline, but hey, thatâs still better than no job at all, or the types of jobs that sschoe2 is discussing. </p>
<p>I agree that teachers unions indeed erect barriers to entry such as expensive education degrees. But one would expect the top universities (such as Berkeley) to be helping their own students to surmount those barriers. I continue to ask the question: why exactly are most high schools in the country staffed by teachers who were themselves almost exclusively educated at lower-tier schools? If they can manage to surmount whatever credentialing barriers the teachers unions erect, why canât the graduates from top-ranked schools do likewise? </p>
<p>Besides, I doubt that anybody can reasonably argue with a straight face that strong science teaching is a great strength of American high schools. A blizzard of studies has demonstrated that American high school students have a mediocre grasp of science relative to other developed nations. And surely if we want to meet the coming technology challenge from undeveloped nations such as China and India who are pouring extensive resources into sci/tech education, we need to upgrade our science base. But, like I said, many high school science teachers never majored in science themselves. {In stark contrast, we seem to have an endless glut of English majors who want to be high school English teachers.} And even those high school teachers who did major in science didnât really come from the best schools and therefore donât really represent our strongest science talent. {A sad display of the principle: Those who canât do, teach.} </p>
<p>But I think what you said is quite apt: âGiven any other reasonable choice, many would rather not teach low-level material to childrenâ. Therein lies the crux, for according to sschoe2, many science graduates donât have any reasonable choice but are instead relegated to low-end wage work with no benefits and no career ladder. Surely teaching is better?</p>
<p>Why arenât more kids committing suicide? Itâs ridiculous that we canât find jobs for our scientists.</p>
<p>The students are better off not going to college and working fast food jobs. At least then they can at least party and have fun, while working a stable job.</p>
<p>Indeed, teaching would probably be better than a horrible low-end job. But itâs also pretty much a dead-end job and barriers to entry are pretty severe, so I can see why many would rather keep looking. The only way a lot of those teachers got over the barriers was by either getting there before the barriers were put up or circumventing the requirement of actually having a good knowledge of the material.
Of course, universities could also do a better job. The best thing they could do in the short term would probably be to make medical school a 6-7 year program that has no undergrad requirement. That would at least stem the flow of bio PhDâs.</p>
<p>If anyone with a degree in science wants to teach high school science, there are ways to get certified through alternative routes. This is what I did 15 years ago. In my high school science department alone, there is a teacher with a PhD in plant genetics, a former forensic scientist, a teacher with a degree in animal husbandry who worked on a pig farm, and a former teacher who had an MS in Biology and worked in a research lab at a nearby medical school, all who worked in other science related jobs before teaching, and all went through an alternative teacher certification program. I know for me personally, I am a much better science teacher because of my degrees, work experience, and age than I would have been going from college to high school classroom.</p>
<p>The link below gives information on the types of alternative teacher certifications available in the US. According to this site, 48 states and the District of Columbia have some type of alternative teacher certification. </p>
<p>Yes there are drawbacks to teaching, like in any job. I took a paycut (I work in a non-union state, so the things like pretty high salary, inability to be fired, etc. donât apply here).
You HAVE to be able to manage a classroom; knowing the content isnât enough. I once observed a really smart woman, with a degree in Physics, attempt to teach 9th graders. She was doing her thing on the board, they were doing their thing around the room, and there was absolutely no connection between the two, therefore no learning. And you have to enjoy spending time every day with teenagers. I really do, and the job is the most interesting and creative job Iâve ever had. As sakky posted, the benefits are good, and even though I have to take courses to keep my certification and prep for classes in the summer, I essentially get the summer off, along with weekends and holidays. Just something to consider for those looking for possibilities.</p>
<p>Iâm afraid that I have to disagree: teachers seem to have reasonable opportunities for upward mobility through academic administration (e.g. assistant principal-> principal-> superintendent, etc.). They can eventually look to transfer to more desirable schools - surely plenty of high school science teachers would aspire to teach at Bronx Science or the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology. Many school districts will not only subsidize teachersâ continuing education for part-time masterâs degrees and even PhDâs, but are also then mandated to boost your salary once youâve completed those degrees. </p>
<p>And besides, one can view teaching as a temporary waypoint that allows you to consolidate and earn a steady paycheck with strong benefits while you figure out where you really want to take your career. I can think of people who worked as teachers while applying to med-school or top law school or top PhD program. {Heck, I know one teacher who was admitted to a top MBA program and then went to Wall Street.} If they arenât admitted anywhere, oh well, they just continue teaching. </p>
<p>The more that I think about it, the more that it seems that this is a highly viable option - certainly far better than the wretched outcomes that sschoe2 is describing. I therefore must continue to ask: why donât more people do this?</p>
The SD bonus proposal is part of a bill that would also eliminate tenure.</p>
<p>It isnât clear to me that the responsibility and stress of teaching is worth the increased total compensation and job security compared to the kind of temp positions outlined in post #22.
Why? Are the factors that make Berkeley a âtop universityâ related to helping science graduates find teaching jobs?</p>
<p>Then youâll either have increased pay with no tenure, or less pay with the job security of tenure. Either way, thatâs still better than the jobs than the previously mentioned jobs that have both low pay and no job security. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From what sschoe2 has been saying, those temp jobs seem rather miserable to me or, even worse, no job at all. Whatâs the worst that can happen in a teaching job? You might be so terrible that youâll be fired - but hey, at least you were paid and had benefits while you were there. That doesnât seem like a close call in the least. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Theyâre not - but thatâs the point. They ought to be. If nothing else, Berkeley graduates, on average, are supposed to be more talented than the graduates from lower-tier schools. Hence, if the latter can figure out ways to become teachers, surely the former can do the same. </p>
<p>This is particularly true that Berkeley * has its own Ed School* - and a highly ranked one at that - whereas most lower-tier schools do not. It would therefore seem to be relatively easy for Berkeley to develop an (optional) combined bachelorâs degree/teaching-credential program for all students who want one. </p>
<p>I also view the situation from the standpoint of overall societal gain. As numerous educational sociological papers have discussed, one of the main drawbacks of the US high school system is that most teachers tend not to be drawn from the top-tier talent graduating from the nationâs colleges. Not only does that imply rather baleful considerations for the provided quality of classroom teaching if the teachers themselves may not have the strongest grasp on the material, but perhaps more importantly, muddles the inspirational symbolic message that teachers as an authority figure send to the students. Why should high school students be inspired to study hard by a teacher to attend a top college when that teacher evidently never did so himself? Improving the talent pool of our teaching ranks would likely incite greater respect amongst the students.</p>
<p>But fair enough, noimagination, since you seem to object so vociferously, might I ask you to use your imagination (your moniker notwithstanding) and ask you: exactly what would you have these underemployed and underpaid science grads do?</p>
<p>Iâve heard Finland (ranked #1 in the world in education) had some success with having high-paid teachers without tenure who are pretty much professors in their field. That model certainly would do some good here.</p>
<p>If we want talented people to become teachers, they need to be given the means and incentive to do so. We donât give either, so teachers usually come from fields of people with few to no better career options. I donât really see how it would make sense for an institution as good as Berkeley to create teachers when teaching pretty much end up being a last resort for a field with no options.</p>
<p>The one thing that universities could do that would do bioscience PhDs the most good in the long term, however, would be to get rid of an undergraduate requirement for medical school.</p>
sschoe2 hated those jobs and regrets studying science. Iâm not saying that any of his information is factually incorrect, but it is certainly colored by his attitude. If sschoe2 had instead pursued a teaching career, we might well be hearing about the low pay and high stress of managing 30 disruptive teenagers.
Talented in what way? Does the SAT measure teaching aptitude?
It doesnât take a top mathematician to teach high school algebra. I had one high school teacher who attended an elite university. He was a brilliant scientist and a terrible teacher.</p>
<p>I have a better question: why should students strive to emulate their teacher and study science at a top university when that same teacher ended up in her current position not out of a desire to teach but rather from an inability to find other employment?
Well, I see a few options:
a) take a science job - however lacking - and try to make the best of it
b) pursue graduate studies in a more employable field
c) develop another skillset - such as IT certifications - with better prospects
d) try to work up through the ranks at a job not requiring college education</p>
<p>Getting into teaching is not a cake-walk. In my area, the same union contracts that led to sweet benefits for many years now put new, young teachers first on the chopping block. A large number of school districts have implemented hiring freezes. I think it would be a terrible shame for graduates to waste time, effort, and resources pursuing teaching certifications only to end up unemployed.</p>
<p>Even if they get a job, most opportunities will be in struggling urban or rural schools, not upper-class suburbia. And, or course, I think of the students who can only suffer from having a teacher whose attitude was shaped by the humiliation of pursuing a fall-back career.</p>
<p>As far as society is concerned, perhaps we ought to pay teachers more. Or invest more in R&D. But that isnât relevant here.</p>
<p>Itâs not my intention to discourage students with a real interest in teaching. But I donât think youâve done nearly enough to show that teaching is the best alternative for unemployed science grads.</p>
<p>noimagination, while I agree there is no guarantee of a job once you get that certification, when weâre talking about this particular set of graduates, the prospects are far better. And these will not necessarily be struggling urban or rural schools. The urban schools have mechanisms to find their new teachers - and may even have more money to lure teachers from the suburban positions. Meanwhile the suburban schools, just like the urban schools, need STEM teachers. Our school district had layoffs at the end of the last 2 years, yet my daughterâs chemistry teacher was hired 2 years ago - ahead of rehires of those within the school system, precisely because he was a chemistry teacher. He came from an industry background, and use an alternative route to certification. (The same applies to her Latin teacher who was new last year). And to be honest, I would rather teach urban kids in upper level classes than suburban kids kids in any level, because the suburban kids have many of the same issues, but also can be snotty and feel entitled.</p>
<p>My impression was that non-engineering, non-math science majors are pre-med. Most canât hack it and seem bitter.</p>
<p>Iâm not sure why anyone would major in bio though. You canât get a job without a PhD and itâs 4 years of rote memorization. If youâre pre-med, just take the premed courses and major in something else.</p>
<p>And thatâs where the core of the problem comes in: medical school. This glut of scientists is simply an overabundance of failed med school applicants, to a large extent. Thatâs why the med school system needs to be reworked.</p>
<p>Med school should be an undergrad degree lasting 6 years with competitive admissions at the forefront, just like it is in other countries. People should start learning about the practice of medicine earlier instead of wasting time getting a useless biology degree. That system would also help resolve the problem with the dearth of doctors, address the problem of reduced salaries under Obamacare by aligning the workload with salaries, and those who do not gain admissions to the program can major in something more practical than biology.</p>
<p>@Brian1: Thatâs exactly how it is in the âmother country.â A few of my cousins that went off to be doctors, the ones that arenât living in America, signed up to study medicine during high school. By doing so, they only take classes dealing with medicine. After high school, they attend college for six years to actually become a doctor. I honestly wish that this is how the schools in America operated, because it would be a lot less stressful and time consuming.</p>
<p>Still seems to be far better the jobs that pay $15 an hour with no benefits and no job security that sschoe2 has lamented. </p>
<p>I said it before and Iâll say it again: teaching is not a bad career. Steady paycheck, decent benefits, long vacations, and the opportunity for tenure (at least in some districts). The positions that sschoe2 has described offer none of the above. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, talented in all academic abilities: higher SAT scores, higher high school grades, better essays, and the like. </p>
<p>Now, if you want to argue that teaching aptitude is not actually correlated with academic ability, then we do have to ask the question of why do we require teachers to even have bachelors degrees at all (which is the law in practically every public school district)? Why not allow college dropouts to teach high school? Seems to me that we as society have decided that academic aptitude - at least as measured by having a bachelorâs degree (which most Americans lack) - is necessary for teaching. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have an even better question: why would students want to study science if many of the graduates of end up as described by sschoe2? </p>
<p>Besides, consider the empirical evidence. Letâs be perfectly honest: many (probably most) high school English teachers are teaching only because they couldnât get significantly better jobs. But that clearly hasnât stopped people from majoring in English whilst in college, as English is generally one of the most popular majors at any college. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, take the jobs that sschoe2 has decried. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or, in other words, abandon science (or never major in it in the first place). </p>
<p>I assumed that the person in question still wanted to pursue a career related to science. Obviously if the person is leaving science, he can pursue a multitude of alternatives. But thatâs not significantly different from the advice of simply never majoring in science in the first place. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Iâm not saying that itâs a cakewalk. But again, itâs hard to see how itâs worse than the chaos that sschoe2 has described. </p>
<p>And besides, as CTScoutMom pointed out, weâre not talking about the typical people obtaining teaching certifications. We are talking about science majors. Most high schools have an abundance of humanities and social science applicants who would like to teach while suffering from a paucity of natural science applicants. Plenty of high school science classes are currently staffed by teachers who never majored in a science at all because that school simply lack enough former science majors. Indeed, many school districts are outright recruiting science graduates. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I continue to ask: why doesnât that ever seem to matter with regards to the other majors? Why donât students ever seem to suffer from history teachers whose attitudes are shaped by the humiliation of pursuing a fallback career? Or foreign language teachers? Or English teachers? The example of the English teacher seems to be especially instructive, as I believe most high schools requires that every student take a minimum of 3 years of English to graduate (whereas, by comparison, I believe that students do not need 3 years of science to graduate). High school English teaching therefore represents a large fraction of the employment of English graduates in the nation, for high schools need sufficient staff to provide students with those 3 years of English instruction. And, letâs face it, an English degree isnât exactly a highly marketable degree. Yet whatever humiliation that English teachers might feel because they have only an unmarketable English degree evidently doesnât seem to transfer to the students. Why not? Why would science be singled out? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, I donât think I need to show that teaching is the best alternative for unemployed science grads. That was never my intent anyway. All I need to so is simply show that it is better than the jobs that sschoe2 has described, and I think Iâve done that. Letâs face it, the standard that sschoe2 has set is a very low bar. </p>
<p>Frankly, I also find your comments highly ironic. You say that I havenât demonstrated that teaching is the best alternative for unemployed science grads. But have you met that standard of proof regarding the alternative careers that I asked you to provide instead? In other words, are you willing to apply your level of scrutiny to yourself? </p>
<p>Like I said, if you donât like my ideas, fair enough, then provide some alternatives. You canât beat something with nothing. But you must then be prepared to apply the same standards of rigor to yourself that you demand of others.</p>
<p>There is no âpaucity of natural science applicantsâ to teaching positionsâŚ
âŚbut there are serious retention issues.</p>
<h2>
</h2>
<p>Pushing science graduates with no interest in education to teach will:</p>
<p>a) harm the graduates if they canât find employment after devoting time and resources to getting certified,</p>
<p>b) harm the students, who will be taught by instructors with no inclination towards teaching, and</p>
<p>c) fail to correct the âshortageâ of STEM teachers, to the extent that this phenomenon exists (see above).</p>
<p>Iâve already given you my suggestions for science students. Iâm sorry that I donât have an easy fix. That doesnât make any of the consequences of your proposal less damaging.
A bachelorâs degree is an easy filter. Someone who has majored in chemistry - even at a âlesserâ program - almost certainly has the background knowledge necessary to teach basic high school chem classes. A dropout might have that knowledge, too, but identifying the capable dropouts would require additional resources.</p>
<p>Actually, what I thought I had implied is that there is a clear paucity of natural science teaching applicants to teaching positions relative to, say, English teaching applicants relative to teaching positions. After all, you donât see too many school districts paying cash bounties to entice more English teachers. Indeed, the links you cited openly declared that "these fields do not have the same large âcushionâ of new teacher supply enjoyed by fields such as English.'</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, again, this is a relative argument. I fail to see how having uninterested science teachers is any worse than having uninterested English teachers, and yet nobody seems to be complaining about that. Indeed, Iâm quite certain that many high school science classes are currently being taught by teachers who are not only not interested, but also never even majored in science. At least we can solve the second problem, if perhaps not the first. </p>
<p>I donât know what high school you attended, but I can tell you that there were teachers there who were clearly not inspired and unmotivated. Yet there was never any groundswell to remove those teachers (perhaps because they had tenure). Nevertheless my high school was apparently one of the better high schools in the nation. Whatever harm may be inflicted by having uninspired high school teaching is, frankly, happening now anyway. </p>
<p>I also donât see how becoming certified and yet still not being able to find a job as a science teacher is any worse than becoming a certified unemployed English teacher. It is also far from clear how itâs any worse than the types of science jobs that sschoe2 has mentioned. I therefore must ask: what harm are you talking about that isnât happening already? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Howâs that? See above. We already have plenty of uninspired and unmotivated teachers in high schools today. I fail to see what damage my proposals would entail that doesnât already happen now. </p>
<p>Having said that, I never said that all such unemployed science grads should become teachers. Obviously I agree that those people who hate teaching should not consider this to be a viable option. But, hey, thatâs still better than the deadend jobs that sschoe2 has denounced. It is furthermore up to school administrators to screen out unmotivated teachers (and yet thatâs apparently not a task that is performed well today). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And by that same logic, somebody who graduated from a top school is even more likely to have the basic knowledge necessary to have the basic knowledge necessary to teach basic chem (or anything else). I donât know about you, but I would harbor doubts whether somebody with a 2.0 GPA from a 4th tier school would really know the material sufficiently to teach a high school class, or be sufficiently mature to even show up on time every day. I would have far fewer doubts about somebody with decent grades from a top school.</p>
<p>And thatâs why Iâve proposed a system where universities with existing Ed schools - such as Berkeley - build a streamlined program where students can voluntarily choose to obtain their degree along with a teaching credential by cross-registering with the Ed School.</p>
<p>Granted, that probably would require additional time and resources. But come on, compared to the vast resources that are frankly, âwastedâ upon unmarketable degrees and programs right now, I hardly see why this new proposal would be any worse, and indeed, almost certainly better. After all, I can think of plenty of students who spend extra semesters in school to pair (marketable) engineering majors with (unmarketable) humanities or social science majors as part of a double major, and I donât see anybody objecting to the harm incurred by that time and resources . Heck, thousands of people are currently pursuing unmarketable masterâs and PhDâs in the humanities despite a near-certain negative return on their time and resources. </p>
<p>But a teaching credential actually improves your marketability. So why does that elicit such a strong objection regarding its possible âharmâ when nobody seems to care about the harm incurred by students currently pursuing degrees in unmarketable disciplines? </p>
<p>I would furthermore juxtapose your objection to your previous proposal that unemployed science majors should pursue IT certifications. I can think of numerous people who spent significant time and resources pursuing IT certifications and nevertheless canât find an IT job. And many who do obtain IT jobs find out that they dislike them and leave quickly, or perform their jobs poorly, even to the point of incompetently managing entire server and network farms. What about that harm? Why are you so concerned about the harm of attracting bad teachers but not at all concerned about the harm of attracting bad IT workers? Like I said, you have to be willing to apply the same level of scrutiny to yourself that you apply to others.</p>
I do care about that, but I care more about decisions that may harm others in addition to the decision-maker.
Yes, I am more concerned for the kids who are subjected to poor teaching in the public education system.</p>
<p>Posting on CC is unlikely to directly change the existing system. Therefore, I assume that your motivation in posting is to inform interested parties or discuss your ideas and perhaps improve upon them. My comments are relevant in either case. Your criticism of the ideas I advance is also relevantâŚthere is no competition hereâŚ</p>
<p>Then you should be vitally concerned with the public education system as it exists today. Again, letâs face it, plenty of uninspired teachers are working at public schools right nowâŚand many of them are teaching science without even having majored in science at all. Given the choice between an uninspired science teacher who never majored in science vs. an uninspired science teacher who at least did major in science, I think we can all agree that we would prefer the latter. Given that many students today must suffer through uninspired teaching regardless, at least if nothing else you can ensure that the teacher majored in the topic. </p>
<p>Besides, why must we presume that all new science teachers would automatically be uninspired? I suspect that I as a science grad would certainly be inspired for, if no other reason, at least itâs better than the types of deadend positions that sschoe2 has described. Furthermore, at least the teaching of science is somewhat related to my chosen major, which would presumably be far more inspiring than pursuing a career in an entirely different field, which corresponds to options (b), (c), and (d) that you proposed in post #70. {After all, if I was really so inspired by an IT career, why didnât I simply choose to major in EE/CS or perhaps business in the first place? Presumably, I majored in a natural science because I actually enjoy natural science.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And Iâm not advocating to change the current system. Iâm simply continuing to advance the notion that more of the underemployed natural science majors ought to seriously consider careers as high school science teachers. If nothing else, that certainly seems preferable to avoiding the nightmare described by sschoe2. </p>
<p>Your comments, on the other hand, are ironic for they are indeed systemic in nature. You discuss the potential harm that uninspired teachers might foist upon the students. But thatâs a systemic issue that is entirely unhelpful to answering the question of what careers underemployed science grads ought to pursue. I nonetheless am happy to discuss these issues, but we should realize their systemic nature.</p>