Idiot science teachers

[OmegaGuy]

Wait a minute, how would you land on Uranus in the first place? It's not solid.

[Zixinus]

I would think that it would be fundamental since it was discovered decades ago, at least when you're learning about sub-atomic particles, since each and every particle has an anti-particle, or least more recently. My physics demystified book explains it at least and it's not graduate level material, it's a basic physics book.

True, but a high school science teacher can still know thermodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, optics (is that part of physics?) and whatever else needs to be taught, at a very good level. And that's all you need to know at elementary school.

Also, you don't need a teacher that is very good at science, you need a teacher that can TEACH science well.

Wait a minute, how would you land on Uranus in the first place? It's not solid.

The deepest parts, near the core, are most likely solid to some degree. Although I'm not sure.

[The_Saint]

Just wondering ... but what is a 6th grader doing learning high level physics??? I don't think I heard the term anti-matter in a 'science class' in anything more than direct science fiction manner until doing a Physics course right before university...

So just a quick check but a 6th grade student is roughly 12 years old where I come from. At that age I had just mastered the basic concepts of aerodynamics & lift (buoyed from reading 'Biggles' novels non stop) and thermodynamics (from being a pyromaniac in Scouts).

[Lusankya]

Wait a minute, how would you land on Uranus in the first place? It's not solid.

I'm not sure. I'm certain that one day scientists will develop a theory that allows us to make solid objects "float" on top of liquids. Now, if you don't mind, I'm off for a swim.



As for the OP: My teacher in Year 6 didn't know what the boiling point of water was. I bet him a pencil that it was 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, but he insisted it was 114 or something like that. He never did give me the pencil after I showed him that I was right, the bastard.

[Kihmbar]

I've read here that most high school science teachers in most countries don't require a science degree, not sure about middle school. I don't know about the US though, or perhaps Massachusetts in general (maybe we have a reputation to uphold with all the good colleges here, Harvard, Brandeis, MIT, Radcliffe) I can photocopy the teachers credentials out the yearbook if you want, they all have science degrees.

Based on my friends who majored in education, you do not need a science degree to teach (on any level). I would like to clarify that there is a difference between a BS (Bachelor of Science) degree and a science degree (such as BS in Physics, BS in Chemistry, BS in Biological Sciences). Several of my friends earned BS degrees in education majors (such as Science Teaching or Industrial Technology Education) - which required several science classes, but were not educated in science to the same level as science majors.

As far as qualifications to teach a particular subject, the education program has their own set of criteria which must be fulfilled. One of my friends earned a BS in Mechanical Engineering but didn't like the engineering work. She decided to teach and is still trying to get qualified to teach high-school level physics and math (one would think engineers would know physics and math well enough to teach it). I've always loved bureaucracies.

[Darth Wong]

Anybody who says that knowledge of antimatter is "fundamental" for an elementary-school general science teacher is a moron. The fundamentals of science are NOT memorization of facts from every discipline; they are an understanding of the method, and the basic concepts that you need to know in order to progress to the next level. What the fuck do people think "fundamentals" of science are? They are the knowledge you need to build on for continued progress in the field. No one has ever fallen behind in high-school physics because he didn't know what antimatter was.

[metavac]

(one would think engineers would know physics and math well enough to teach it). I've always loved bureaucracies.

By this reasoning, engineers, physicists and mathematicians should know their areas well enough to practice IP law pertaining to these subjects or conduct the day to day administration of businesses in their fields.

[Darth Wong]

(one would think engineers would know physics and math well enough to teach it). I've always loved bureaucracies.

By this reasoning, engineers, physicists and mathematicians should know their areas well enough to practice IP law pertaining to these subjects or conduct the day to day administration of businesses in their fields.

How the fuck is that the same reasoning? Engineers and physicists know far more math than anything used at the high-school level, whereas they are not taught anywhere near enough law to qualify for a law degree and practice law.

[metavac]

How the fuck is that the same reasoning? Engineers and physicists know far more math than anything used at the high-school level, whereas they are not taught anywhere near enough law to qualify for a law degree and practice law.

Or primary and secondary school education. The point is that education science has its own aims and practices.

[Darth Wong]

How the fuck is that the same reasoning? Engineers and physicists know far more math than anything used at the high-school level, whereas they are not taught anywhere near enough law to qualify for a law degree and practice law.

Or primary and secondary school education. The point is that education science has its own aims and practices.

Do you know people who went to teachers' college? Contrary to popular belief, they don't teach any esoteric secrets of education in those colleges; almost everything they do is on the level of "no shit Sherlock" revelations. Hell, half of my high-school math teachers literally just read out of the textbook for each lesson. The only reason you needed them at all was to help students when they had questions.

[metavac]

Do you know people who went to teachers' college?

Several, mostly at Steinhardt and BU SED.

Contrary to popular belief, they don't teach any esoteric secrets of education in those colleges; almost everything they do is on the level of "no shit Sherlock" revelations.

Is this your view of the social sciences broadly, or education science in particular? I doubt there's a popular belief that pedagogy is in anyway "esoteric," I certainly never argued such a thing. Then again, what's so "esoteric" about law, management, science or engineering?

Hell, half of my high-school math teachers literally just read out of the textbook for each lesson. The only reason you needed them at all was to help students when they had questions.

Your (and my) individual experiences alone offer don't offer enough variation to be helpful, and its variation in comprehension, curiosity, and receptiveness to presentation that's a key problem in education science. This is even more true in general primary and secondary education than in postsecondary environments like university, vo-tech and apprenticeships.

[Darth Wong]

Is this your view of the social sciences broadly, or education science in particular?

It's my view of the extra credits you need in order to become a qualified teacher. They're a joke and even the students taking them will freely admit it.

I doubt there's a popular belief that pedagogy is in anyway "esoteric," I certainly never argued such a thing. Then again, what's so "esoteric" about law, management, science or engineering?

The fact that most people can't successfully do them? I never knew anyone to flunk out of teacher's college.

Hell, half of my high-school math teachers literally just read out of the textbook for each lesson. The only reason you needed them at all was to help students when they had questions.

Your (and my) individual experiences alone offer don't offer enough variation to be helpful, and its variation in comprehension, curiosity, and receptiveness to presentation that's a key problem in education science. This is even more true in general primary and secondary education than in postsecondary environments like university, vo-tech and apprenticeships.

I'm talking about my secondary-school math teachers. As for elementary-school teachers, they don't need any real math background at all. Most of them have English lit or History backgrounds.

[Kihmbar]

I believe I did not properly qualify my statement, allow me to clarify:
The education program in the US has its own set of qualifications which must be met in order for one to teach. This varies somewhat from state to state. These qualifications are designed around persons who studied education in college (because this is what a majority of teachers do). Because of this, a friend of mine was unable to teach subjects in which she was knowledgeable (and, IMHO, would make a wonderful teacher).

That being said, I do understand that being knowledgeable in a subject is not necessarily a sign of being a good teacher of a subject. I had several professors in college who were very knowledgeable in their field, but were poor teachers because they did not present the material well.

(one would think engineers would know physics and math well enough to teach it). I've always loved bureaucracies.

By this reasoning, engineers, physicists and mathematicians should know their areas well enough to practice IP law pertaining to these subjects or conduct the day to day administration of businesses in their fields.

You mentioned scientists and engineers practicing law - some do. The technical background aquired when studying engineering and science equips them to better understand the technology and terminology of patent law. In brief: This does not require any further educational background if you wish to write patents (you still have to take the BAR). However, if you wish to sue for patent infringement, an attorney is necessary (which does require additional education).

Scientist and engineers can also "conduct the day to day administration of business in their fields." Several engineers I know decided to work as sales personnel, using their technical background to better inform their clients of the technical capabilities of thier product. In an engineering firm, engineers are typically in management positions handling administrative work.

[metavac]

You mentioned scientists and engineers practicing law - some do.

Definitely. Of course you'll need to go to law school first and, if you really want to go far, get licensed as a PE in desirable state(s).

The technical background aquired when studying engineering and science equips them to better understand the technology and terminology of patent law. In brief: This does not require any further educational background if you wish to write patents (you still have to take the BAR).

However, if you wish to sue for patent infringement, an attorney is necessary (which does require additional education).

The distinction between patent attorneys and agents is akin to that of attorneys and LDAs in general practice, that is agents can prepare documents and are considered experts for the purpose of testimony. Advisory and litigating privileges, however, are reserved for attorneys in all US jurisdictions. While there is no distinct educational route to becoming an LDA or patent agent, you obviously need to read enough law and know enough of the techniques in interpreting it to pass the bar exam.

Scientist and engineers can also "conduct the day to day administration of business in their fields." Several engineers I know decided to work as sales personnel, using their technical background to better inform their clients of the technical capabilities of thier product.

In an engineering firm, engineers are typically in management positions handling administrative work.

My experience with start ups tracks well with this, although almost always there is at least one person with a solid financial and/or managerial science background brought in to advise and assist the leadership. As companies grow, MBAs, lawyers and accountants tend to assume most of the leadership roles. In much the same way anyone can represent themselves in litigation, it's just generally not a good idea to do so.

[metavac]

It's my view of the extra credits you need in order to become a qualified teacher. They're a joke and even the students taking them will freely admit it.

Could you be more specific?

The fact that most people can't successfully do them? I never knew anyone to flunk out of teacher's college.

I don't think anyone's arguing here that education majors undergo as rigorous training as S&E majors--the data indicates otherwise. The question is whether pedagogy requires such rigor as to justify an education certification or degree program.

[Metatwaddle]

Just wondering ... but what is a 6th grader doing learning high level physics??? I don't think I heard the term anti-matter in a 'science class' in anything more than direct science fiction manner until doing a Physics course right before university...

So just a quick check but a 6th grade student is roughly 12 years old where I come from. At that age I had just mastered the basic concepts of aerodynamics & lift (buoyed from reading 'Biggles' novels non stop) and thermodynamics (from being a pyromaniac in Scouts).

Anecdotal story, but I was once out to dinner with some distant family members, and one of them was a precocious ten-year-old girl who asked her father, "What's antimatter?". He didn't have any idea, so I tried to explain a little bit about it. I think I lost her when I tried to explain about some of the conservation laws in particle physics, though.

[Junghalli]

When I was in sixth grade I got into an argument with my science teacher about whether there was a dark side of the moon or not. She thoroughly lectured me on my error, explaining that the far side of the moon was always dark because the Earth was between the moon and the sun when the far side was turned to the sun.

I'm not kidding. I still wish I'd had a little more confidence and knowledge and an astronomy textbook with me so I could have shown that up for the utter idiocy it was.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

From my experience, Metavac, pedagogy is important, but I find that a lot of the courses they fill me up with are unnecessary or duplications of material. It's useful to know pedagogy or teaching strategies and methods in addition to content, but I have so many classes where you don't really do all that much different from the other classes. I get a lot of filler busy work.

There were about three classes out of the 6 I have taken that were genuinely useful: educational psychology, applied behavior analysis, and social studies methods. There are other courses I have taken that WOULD have been useful (such as literacy), but I have no clue why they made me take that, since I am not going to be an English teacher.

The rest was mostly a rehash.

[metavac]

From my experience, Metavac, pedagogy is important, but I find that a lot of the courses they fill me up with are unnecessary or duplications of material.

To an extant, my personal experience suggest this isn't unique to education degree programs. I've had about ten weeks of overlap in math courses on Laplace and Fourier transforms alone between freshman and sophomore year, and on top of that I took two classes that almost one for one replicated each other's random variable course material. EEs and Physics students went over essential electrostatics three or more times in several classes ranging from Physics II to electrodynamics to Circuit Analysis and Analogue Electronics. Now when I compare this to my HS education, where there was an orderly progression from one subject to another, my gut tells me this sort of overlap results largely from a lack of pedagogy in postsecondary education. That makes sense to me; college is to an extent four year apprenticeship. It's like learning on the job; the undergrad is expected to assume more of the burden for his own education than primary and secondary school students.

It's useful to know pedagogy or teaching strategies and methods in addition to content, but I have so many classes where you don't really do all that much different from the other classes. I get a lot of filler busy work.

"Filler work" is a dispositional term and doesn't tell me much of anything, largely because what is and isn't administrative work in any field isn't exactly clear. Safely installing kernel modules, swapping blades, replicating source trees and writing init scripts could be called filler work by sysadmins and release engineers. Programmers might feel the same way about unit and functional testing, fishing for libraries, etc. (I was attached to a research group that pretty much proved they and other engineers feel precisely that way about documentation). Document preparation, legal research, due diligence and depositions, that's par for course in litigation. Let's not even get into coding for physicians.

There were about three classes out of the 6 I have taken that were genuinely useful: educational psychology, applied behavior analysis, and social studies methods.

No argument here. I find those areas absolutely fascinating, and so does everyone I've ever met who's graduated with an education degree. I guess that's precisely why you'd go into that kind of business.

There are other courses I have taken that WOULD have been useful (such as literacy), but I have no clue why they made me take that, since I am not going to be an English teacher.

Aren't all K-12 teachers expected to identify problems in literacy where it impacts student success? After all, isn't some level of literacy necessary to comprehend most any subject taught?

The rest was mostly a rehash.

What topics would you say were rehashed the most?

[Doctor Why]

In my tenth grade Biology class, my teacher and most of the students believed wholeheartedly in creationism. My friend and I were the only ones who admitted to saying that we believed that evolution was right, and the Bible was wrong. Needless to say we were told that Evolution was just a theory, and were basically laughed at by the rest of the class. Though in the end we both did well above average on our Biology state tests, while a good bit of the other students barely passed at all.

[Duckie]

Some rambling thoughts on teachers and their competance:

For all the stressing of education, it doesn't seem to me that it bears a lot in the quality of the teacher you produce.

Sometimes teachers, competant or otherwise, are unnescessary. For instance, my AP US History teacher was an old battleaxe who claimed nearly a decade of time-honed teaching skill. If you followed her instructions absolutely and without question, did everything she told you to, she claimed, you would absolutely pass the exam if you weren't in the bottom 20 percentile of AP students.

Naturally, children being children we didn't do shit in her class and ultimately gave her a nervous breakdown by staging a silent revolution ("Homework? Oh shit, oops" x30 each day). Turns out her 80% pass rate is an artifact of the students, not her methods, as we sodomized the test (I myself got a 5, the best rating).

My 11th Grade Physics teacher, despite a PhD, loved children a bit too much to teach them and ended up not giving us any knowledge during an entire year. (What the fuck is a Doctor doing in High School, love of children or not, doing as a teacher for us stupid highschoolers?).

That's two bad teachers, one with a degree (Ph fucking D!) one without, yet other teachers, however, are really, really useful. The teacher of higher mathematics (everything from Algebra to Calculus, as the local high school is undermanned) has a Bachelor's in mathematics and it really shows, because he personally has taught me more about math in 1 year than I've ever learned in my other 14.

Granted, he still couldn't drill enough Calculus into my head to do better than merely average on the AP Calc AB exam, but my brain just can't handle Integration (but, oddly, can Derivate...).

(He also flew B-52s, programmed software for the government during the cold war, and looks like the spitting image of Doc Brown from Back To The Future, but that's all awesomeness that doesn't apply to his competance.)

[Duckie]

Ghetto Edit- "Higher Mathematics" in the "This is the Deep South" sense. There's two paths, one of which splits away from Algebra to veer off into Liberal Arts Math and Consumer Math (aka Arithmatic) and the other veers off into DAMN YOU EULER territory (aka Basic College Algebra/Geometry and then Calculus I)

[metavac]

...while a good bit of the other students barely passed at all.

Just out of curiosity, how'd you get your hands on their SATP scores?

[Doctor Why]

They all basically told on themselves. While the way I put it might have been a nit exaggerated, but from what they have told me their scores were quite low, and the Biology teacher that I had was let go.

[metavac]

They all basically told on themselves.

That's a remarkable story. So these kids who basically laughed at you and your friends came to you as a group or one on one after getting their scores back (pretty close to the end of the year, too) and confessed their performance to you guys. That about sum it up?

While the way I put it might have been a nit exaggerated, but from what they have told me their scores were quite low, and the Biology teacher that I had was let go.

One more question. How did you get wind of the circumstances behind your biology teacher leaving?