posted
I don't think I can take this much longer. She writes deux ex machina.
She made a little diagram of Oedipus meeting-and-killing Laius, and she wrote L for Laius and E for Oedipus. (In fairness, she did correct it when we pointed it out. An isolated occurrence.)
She says if an author lays false clues in order to make a surprise ending, that's BAD. Always bad.
She says Scrooge is a FLAT character, whereas Huck Finn is a ROUND character, because Huck Finn changes in the course of the book.
She says, and God knows I quote, "Students often try to impress me by using big words in their papers, and the only effect is to make the papers really silly and distented." We asked the meaning of distented, and she said it was "not normal", and elaborated by explaining that she KNEW these students didn't talk like that in real life.
She says that there are three kinds of fantasy: fables, sci-fi, and ghost stories. Harry Potter, for example, is "sort of a mixture. It has ghosts in it!"
She says that stories should not have indeterminate endings (i.e., no loose ends) unless a sequel is forthcoming. If it does leave the reader with questions about the outcome, "then it can't be a very good story, can it?"
She says that when authors use symbols, the good ones leave hints to let the reader know that this is symbolism. I asked what kind of hints, and she cheerily evaded the question by explaining that in The Great Gatsby , Gatsby shows Daisy his clothes, his books, his house, etc., as SYMBOLS of his wealth.
quote:She says, and God knows I quote, "Students often try to impress me by using big words in their papers, and the only effect is to make the papers really silly and distented." We asked the meaning of distented, and she said it was "not normal", and elaborated by explaining that she KNEW these students didn't talk like that in real life.
She sounds like fun!
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"She says Scrooge is a FLAT character, whereas Huck Finn is a ROUND character, because Huck Finn changes in the course of the book."
*blink* Whereas Ebenezer Scrooge does NOT change? In a book that is ENTIRELY about the changing of his personality?
*clutches his stomach in laughter* I'm sorry; she really IS a twit. She clearly went to college, half-understood some of what some more learned people told her, and is trying to pass as much as she can remember on to you without really understanding why. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Jen, she really is a dummy - and that is a vast understatement. That class is quickly becoming my least-favorite.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
For instance in star wars episode 1 when the fleet comes down and saves the day when they are beyond hope. Happens again in Episode 2 when the jedi knights gang up for some global scale whoop ass. But yes I agree she is as Dr. Spooner would put it: A shining wit!
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
littlemissattitude-yes, they are indeed short of teachers. and if you think she's bad-you should hear some quotes from the old PRINCIPAL of this high school.
And the saddest part? This is the third best high school in the state where this woman is teaching.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:She says Scrooge is a FLAT character, whereas Huck Finn is a ROUND character, because Huck Finn changes in the course of the book.
I will preface my comment by first saying that the fact one is flat and one is round is fairly unimportant; just a term to memorize for a teacher.
Scrooge is essentially a flat character, but he is a dynamic one. Dynamic means he changes while flat means he reveals only a limited side to his total character. Static characters are ones who do not change. Flat and Round do not usually refer to character change. Static and Dynamic are used for that.
quote:And the saddest part? This is the third best high school in the state where this woman is teaching.
. . . because there are only three schools in that state, right? Please tell me there are only three schools. . .
People like her make me realize how badly we need good teachers. I used to look at some of my fellow English majors and be moved to weeping when I thought, "In a few short years, YOU will be responsible for teaching the next generation." You know, the ones who make brilliant comments at the beginning of the semester, when one still has hope, "You mean we have to read all seven novels? This semester?"
I cringe. I lucked out with some of the best English teachers and English professors, I think. I had teachers who not only knew what they were talking about, but wanted me to know it, too. If I weren't pushing toward something very different, I would have sincerely liked to teach English.
posted
Y'all don't be shocked, but it's been my experience that almost everyone who goes into education in college does so because it's just about the easiest and least intellectually challenging thing you can major in.
I remember one time in my college bookstore I was browsing and overheard two people talking about how much trouble they were having in math. I perked my ears up in sympathy cause I was doing some sort of math in engineering then, maybe differential equations or something, that was also giving me difficulties. Then one of them said, "I just can't figure out fractions!" and the view shifted and I realized they were education majors. Yeah, it IS a bit scary to think about the future of our kids in those hands.
I'm sure the teachers at hatrack are the ones who chose it because they enjoy the important and fascinating challenge of teaching kids, though. That goes without saying. I know Icky, for instance, didn't just pick the major that gave him the most free time to party (even if it's clear from his sojourn to Biloxi that he really doesn't understand math that well <poke, poke>).
[ September 18, 2003, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Education majors, oy. Not to insult anyone, because I'm sure there are some fantastic ones out there, but they were the bane of the non-certifying English majors' daily lives. It took exactly one education class -taught by a former 3rd grade teacher - to teach me that I just really didn't want to take education classes. I couldn't handle it; it was mind-numbing.
posted
The excellence of a highschool doesn't depend only on its teachers. It also depends on the community.
For instance, I have an uncle who has been in education for years, coach and history teacher. Was talking to him once when he bemoaned that fact that most of the parents at his school, an agricultural school, couldn't care less about their child's education. If they can read and do their numbers, everything else is fluff. Even in this day and age. They were extremely unsupportive of school and resented mandatory school attendance, not because they wanted to homeschool but because they thought there were better things their kids could be doing. Like working on the farm or getting a job at the paper mill. And there are kids who drop out and do just that.
I went to three highschools: one from suburban area near Salt Lake City, Utah, then to Boise, Idaho, then to Meridian, Idaho (agricultural town). Each one was a step down, in terms of the commitments of the parents to their children's education, and it showed.
So, it isn't just the teacher that makes or breaks a school.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It actually is an excellent school, and many of the teachers are very good. *loved that school* a lot of the kids from there go to LSU, and we all meet up with each other and talk about how incredibly easy college is after high school
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh anne kate, that post will get you burned, and it should. It too blanket and prejudiced to be fair or accurate.
I know your characterization is an existing stereotype, but it's about as accurate as stereotypes usually are. You don't like being stereotyped, anne kate; don't do it to other people.
And maybe it was just your college. Education was not the hardest major at my university, but there were WA-A-A-AY too many people that I knew that couldn't make the cut to get into the program to make it the easiest.
Maybe your experience is more indicative of the quality of the universities in Alabama than of the field of education in general.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm serious, though. Being an education major was not a cake walk at my school - it was competitive and many, many people applied and were not accepted. Maybe it was the school.
posted
Because usually people with a serious background in Science don't teach, they work at a lab somewhere and make real money. As for math, well, I have no friggin clue.
All I know is all my science/math teachers in high school stank on ice. I'm dreading taking science classes in college, because I just don't know anything, and I'll probably need a tutor.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
<laughs> kat, I see your point. The sad thing is I think BOTH our blanket pejorative statements are probably all too true. Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak to the situation of education majors at large, but I have had a certain amount of exposure to education-types: my best friend's wife just started teaching 3rd grade this year, Juliette started her K-6 credential program this year, I was a lead tutor in the Upward Bound program at my college for 3 years.
The vast majority of people that I've seen going into education have done so because they think it's an important profession. Not all of them think it will be difficult, and some of them are, in my opinion, not as smart as I think teachers ought to be, but I can only think of a couple of people who even considered teaching because they thought it would be easy or as a space-filler on their way to bigger and better things.
One thing that I've never been sure about is the concept of doing an undergraduate major in education, or, in the Cal State system, "liberal studies". People become liberal studies majors because they want to become teachers, often elementary teachers, and they get a very broad course of study, a little here, a little there. They also tend to have more coursework in educational philosophy and methods by the time they get credentialed than people with a more specific major. The issue, to me, is whether it's better to have a teacher who knows everything about teaching and little about anything else, or to have a teacher who knows less about teaching, but a lot about a particular subject. I still haven't made up my mind on that one yet, although I think it MAY be less of an issue with primary teachers.
I would also like to second Amka's statement. After working in LA county high schools for three years, one thing that I noticed time and again is that the students' success was not strongly correlated with the teachers' skills (I saw basically zero competent teachers in those schools), but that it was highly correlated with the involvement of the students' parents and the importance the family placed on education. Students with supportive families quite frequently overcame their teachers' lack of skill and went on to perform well in college.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: BTW, why are we having such a hard time finding science and math teachers?
Math teachers, oh God! My math teacher freely admits he flunked out of UNH (though he changed his ways the next year and went to Cornell) and has spent the last 10 years studying math (NOT studying teaching). He's very good at math I'm sure but he assumes that we are also very good at math and understand or can figure out what he's talking about. We're in 10th grade! His favorite saying is "If you don't understand the material copy over your notes tonight" How will that help? We don't understand what the notes are about! Luckally I've gotten my Dad to teach me the basics so I can figure out the rest and I now spend class toutoring the other students.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
No offense to any of you who have been through them, but I am not a fan of educational programs at colleges... specifically those programs that grant you certification out of school as though it is a brand that "you can teach" - a statement that is patently not true.
Just because you complete coursework, and are a good student, and can make your professors think you know all the pedagogy and philosophy of teaching, doesn't mean you can explain material in any meaningful way to students. I've met far too many education majors who don't know one thing about teaching.
Don't even get me started on all the untested, though philosophically and psychologically sound theories, being pumped out of schools like Brown and the like, designed to "fix" the problems of education by creating brand new ones.
Ahem...
As for why there are no math teachers.
Math majors can come out of college and make a whole heck of a lot more money than a teacher can. That's first. Math education majors often jump ship half way through the program to become Applied Math majors who can really make money without all the responsibility and hard work.
Beyond this, the certification requirements for math teachers who *didn't* go through the collegiate certification route are major obstacles. If you've been an engineer for 10 years, you have to show 30 mathematics credits (not engineering credits) and then submit ridiculous amounts of paperwork and fees (totally over $2500 dollars or so your first year) before taking 200 hours of coursework while teaching your first year. And 100 professional development hours.
No pressure, though. Makes it really appealing, doesn't it? This isn't even mentioning that you have to then get your Masters in mathematics at some point within the subsequent years - while teaching. (and other new provisions of No Child Left Behind making it more and more difficult to get and keep certification)
And all for, on average, between $25-34k per year starting (depending on district... some schools only offer $17k).
There are teacher shortages everywhere, but math is especially bad (and science) because there are so many alternatives that pay far more with far less responsibility (and petty beureaucracy and politics). Now, English teachers are a dime a dozen... cuz an english major is far less saleable. But even those numbers are dwindling.
In ten years, we'll have a severe teacher shortage as the current "old guard" retires... and all these new requirements of No Child Left Behind will be looked at as the final nail in the coffin.
posted
Also, just in general, far more people are good at english and the humanities, than are good at math.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought it'd be fun to teach, but I never wanted to teach to a curriculum. I would love to teach an elective class at a high school titled, "Nick's Fun Stuff" where I can just release my tangential mind on hapless students. Subjects could range from binary logic and basic circuit design to programming to writing to whatever was happening recently on Hatrack. It'd be great!
EDIT: (referring to title): "I ate my crayon, can I have another?" "No, Ralph"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
It would not be pleasant.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
That class is quickly becoming my least-favorite.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
How will that help? We don't understand what the notes are about! Luckally I've gotten my Dad to teach me the basics so I can figure out the rest and I now spend class toutoring the other students.
