"Unqualified" Science and Mathematics Teachers

Squashie

Can somebody please explain this ridiculous **** to me — I've just been looking at a list of this country's degrees and what subjects these degrees enable you to teach in secondary schools (here), and I really don't understand this one trend in particular–


C.I.T.
B.Sc. Applied Physics and Instrumentation - Mathematics and Physics

D.C.U.
B.Sc. Applied Mathematical Science - Mathematics and Applied Mathematics
B.Sc. Applied Physics - Physics
B.Sc. Mathematical Sciences - Mathematics

D.I.T.
B.E. Manufacturing Engineering - Mathematics, Physics
B.E. Building Services Engineering - Mathematics, Physics
B.E. Mechanical Engineering - Mathematics, Physics
B.E. Structural Engineering - Mathematics, Physics
B.E. Electronic/Electrical Engineering - Mathematics, Physics
B.Sc. Mathematical Science - Mathematics
B.Sc. (Ord) Mathematics - Mathematics
B.Sc. Mathematics - Mathematics, Applied Mathematics

N.U.I.G.
B.E. Engineering - Mathematics & Applied Mathematics
B.Sc. Applied Physics & Electronics - Physics
B.A. Mathematical Physics - Mathematics, Applied Mathematics
B.A. Applied Mathematical Science - Mathematics, Applied Mathematics
B.Sc. Applied Mathematics - Mathematics, Applied Mathematics

T.C.D.
B.A.I. Engineering - Mathematics, Applied Mathematics
B.A. Computational Physics - Physics



Which is inherent across all universities and institutes, I haven't listed them all. Now can somebody please explain to me why graduates of these degrees aren't deemed to be able to teach all three of Mathematics, Physics and Applied Mathematics? And in some of the above cases why aren't they deemed to be able to teach Computer Studies and Physics-Chemistry combined aswell?

You have graduates there who are able to teach Mathematics and Physics, but not Applied Mathematics? You have Mathematical Physics graduates who aren't able to teach Physics. Engineering Students who can't teach Physics or Applied Mathematics (despite the fact that engineering is entirely applied mathematics.) Physics graduates can't teach Mathematics or Applied. Mathematics and Mathematical Science graduates who can't teach Physics or Applied Mathematics? Nobody can teach computers, despite the fact we've slaved away ridiculous hours on them for 4 years, and Physics graduates can't teach Physics and Chemistry combined?

I just think all that is a serious ****ing joke, especially considering all the banging on that's being done right now about unqualified teachers in schools

Seamo87

And what about the qualified teachers on the dole? You may believe your problem is unfair, but what about those who 4-5 years ago wanted to do teaching then, did the correct course and now find themselves without oppertunity for employment. Now you want to give the oppertunity to ENGINEERS and COMPUTER SCIENTISTS etc to teach, simply because...what? They too like the qualified teachers find themselves on the dole!!

The more courses you open up to teaching, the more qualified teachers you get on the dole. There are only so many teaching posts, some of these may be failed with unqualified personal, but it isn't because there is a lack of qualified personal. The problem lays deeper then that, how positions are filled, teachers moving subjects within a school, lack of regulation etc.

Their isn't a problem with the 3rd level aspect of the teaching pathway.

rainbowtrout

Well without knowing the content of each degree to be deemed qualified to teach a subject, it must make up 30% of your degree, and you must have studied it in your final year.

I'm assuming in the variety of degrees that you have listed that modules relevant to the various subjects (physics, applied maths etc) were not in the final year of the degree so it makes them ineligible for teaching purposes.

Also a certain range of topics have to be covered in the modules. If the content is not there then they are not recognised. I'm not saying that people holding those degrees would not be capable, but that is how the TC operate.

If you want a good example of how pedantic they are I did the BSc Science Education from UL. From that I'm qualified to teach Ag Science, Biology and Chemistry. A couple of years prior to that the course was known as BSc General and Rural Science and teachers gaining that qualification were qualified to teach Ag Science and Biology only.

The difference between the two? Well, none really. All the same modules were covered in both degrees, only the General and Rural people did all of the chemistry modules were front loaded in years 1 - 3 but in my degree the modules were rearranged so we had some chemistry in year 4 instead. But they are not recognised for chemistry and we are.

Squashie

It's not my problem Seamo87, I don't have a problem. I said nothing about computer scientists and who's on the dole is irrelevant. The point is that engineers and people with physics and maths degrees along with the H.Dip. would all be more than qualified to teach leaving cert Mathematics, Physics, Applied Mathematics and in some cases, computers and Physics-Chemistry combined all together. It's ridiculous that that isn't recognised.

Rainbowtrout wrote:

to be deemed qualified to teach a subject, it must make up 30% of your degree, and you must have studied it in your final year.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Mathematics, Physics and Applied Mathematics make up almost the entirety of every Physics and Engineering degree out there. The vast majority of the subjects taught on these degrees are taught entirely through mathematics, or, to put it another way – is entirely applied mathematics, and especially the final year material.

In which part of the galaxy would an engineer be allowed teach Mathematics and Physics but not Applied Mathematics? They've just spent 4 years applying mathematics to physics! Or the biggest laughs – a mathematical physics graduate unable to teach physics and a mathematical science graduate unable to teach applied mathematics?

rainbowtrout

Squashie wrote: »

It's not my problem Seamo87, I don't have a problem. I said nothing about computer scientists and who's on the dole is irrelevant. The point is that engineers and people with physics and maths degrees along with the H.Dip. would all be more than qualified to teach leaving cert Mathematics, Physics, Applied Mathematics and in some cases, computers and Physics-Chemistry combined all together. It's ridiculous that that isn't recognised.



I think it's pretty safe to say that Mathematics, Physics and Applied Mathematics make up almost the entirety of every Physics and Engineering degree out there. The vast majority of the subjects taught on these degrees are taught entirely through mathematics, or, to put it another way – is entirely applied mathematics, and especially the final year material.

In which part of the galaxy would an engineer be allowed teach Mathematics and Physics but not Applied Mathematics? They've just spent 4 years applying mathematics to physics! Or the biggest laughs – a mathematical physics graduate unable to teach physics and a mathematical science graduate unable to teach applied mathematics?

They may well do, but you are still ignoring the content of the courses. You can do a variety of physics modules in an engineering degree but if they don't cover the content of what is on the Leaving Cert syllabus then you are not deemed qualified to teach it. Do Civil Engineering degrees (for example) cover particle physics, radioactivity etc?

I'm not an expert on the wide variety of engineering degrees out there, but I'd assume there are some that don't cover these type of topics.

You're also ignoring the possibility that if they don't have one of the subjects in their final year (even though it could make up 50% of the degree overall, then they are not deemed qualified). Again not saying it's right, but that probably accounts for the discrepancies.

Why are you so angry about it anyway?

Squashie

Rainbowtrout wrote:

Do Civil Engineering degrees (for example) cover particle physics, radioactivity etc?

I doubt Manufacturing- or Electronic- or Structural- or Mechanical- or Building Services Engineering graduates are covering said subjects in the final years of their degrees either (if at ALL), but yet according to this incredible list, they're perfectly qualified to teach physics. Qualified to teach physics, and qualified to teach mathematics, but not qualified to teach applied mathematics? Who determines who's qualified to teach applied mathematics? No degree in the universe is ever gonna cover the leaving cert applied mathematics course in a final year. It's first year university maths mixed with first year dummy mechanics, a tiny section of leaving cert physics (of which they can teach.) They can teach mechanics in leaving cert physics, but can't teach applied mathematics, which is just mechanics.

Also, I wonder if a mathematical physics graduate has done any physics in their final year? And wonder if a mathematical science graduate has done any applied mathematics.

I'm not angry, don't try extrapolate my emotion from my text. I'm just totally amazed at the above, especially in light of somebody I know who's on redundancy forwarning should they not gain a proper "qualification" to teach one of their subjects.

whiteandlight

Squashie wrote: »

Rainbowtrout wrote:

Do Civil Engineering degrees (for example) cover particle physics, radioactivity etc?

I doubt Manufacturing- or Electronic- or Structural- or Mechanical- or Building Services Engineering graduates are covering said subjects in the final years of their degrees either (if at ALL), but yet according to this incredible list, they're perfectly qualified to teach physics. Qualified to teach physics, and qualified to teach mathematics, but not qualified to teach applied mathematics? Who determines who's qualified to teach applied mathematics? No degree in the universe is ever gonna cover the leaving cert applied mathematics course in a final year. It's first year university maths mixed with first year dummy mechanics, a tiny section of leaving cert physics (of which they can teach.) They can teach mechanics in leaving cert physics, but can't teach applied mathematics, which is just mechanics.

Also, I wonder if a mathematical physics graduate has done any physics in their final year? And wonder if a mathematical science graduate has done any applied mathematics.

I'm not angry, don't try extrapolate my emotion from my text. I'm just totally amazed at the above, especially in light of somebody I know who's on redundancy forwarning should they not gain a proper "qualification" to teach one of their subjects.

In defense of the teaching council (and I'm not a fan) they have to draw the line spmewhere and they have drawn it at two specifics, the subject must have been studied at final year and must take up 33% of the course both pretty reasonable expectations tbh. Take the letter in the independent from the mother complaining that her architect daughter was not qualified to teach maths and art (I think those were what she said)!

Squashie

Physics, mathematics and applied mathematics make up the entirety of every physics and engineering degree out there, from first to final year.

Mathematics and applied mathematics make up the entirety of every mathematical science degree.

Physics makes up the entirety of a mathematical physics degree.

whiteandlight

Ok I'm sorry but it doesn't need extrapolating from your text to point out you clearly are very angry about this for some reason.

And it only took me 5 minutes to get this from NUIM
"As a Double Honours BA degree, Mathematical Physics is taken with two
other subjects in First Year and with one other subject in Second and Third Year"
And the third year subjects for Mathematical Physics.
Electricity and Magnetism
̍̍ Astrophysics and Cosmology
̍̍ Computational Physics II
̍̍ Quantum Mechanics II
̍̍ Mathematical Methods II
̍̍ Statistical Mechanics
̍̍ Particle Physics
̍̍ Quantum Information Processing
̍̍ Chaos and Non-Linear Dynamics
̍̍ Solid State Physics
̍̍ Thermodynamics

The overall course title is Mathematical Physics including (as listed) primarily mathematical physics based modules as one would expect. This, again as one would expect, qualifies you to teach mathematical physics. I'm not sure why you presume to think a person completing this course could teach maths, applied maths and physics? You do realise that a secondary school teacher is expected to have studied far beyond the course content. It is not just a matter of being able to do Leaving Certificate standard work.

I completed mathematical studies and music. I did mathematical physics modules, history of maths and music modules and computer modules as part of the course. I do not presume to say that I am qualified to teach any of those things as I did not complete the requisite number of credits in any other subject apart from the maths and music.

Squashie

Haha sorry excuse me, I never mentioned any courses from NUIM. Nor is the course you've detailed there even included on the teaching council's list. However for argument sake a person who's completed your course there and done all of those subjects in their final year would be undoubtedly fully qualified to teach all three Mathematics, Applied Mathematics and Physics in a secondary school. There's a massive difference between Mathematical Studies courses and proper B.Sc.'s in pure Mathematics, Mathematical Science or Physics alone. I don't mean to belittle what you've done, but your course isn't half as intricate and rigorously mathematical as the courses I've listed are. Next, I'm not sure if you're aware of what those modules you've listed even entail, so I've divided your course into the relevant sections for you

Mathematics
Computational Physics II
Statistical Mechanics
Mathematical Methods II

Applied Mathematics
Electricity and Magnetism
̍̍ Astrophysics and Cosmology
̍̍ Computational Physics II
̍̍ Quantum Mechanics II
̍̍ Mathematical Methods II
̍̍ Statistical Mechanics
̍̍ Particle Physics
̍̍ Quantum Information Processing
̍̍ Chaos and Non-Linear Dynamics
̍̍ Solid State Physics
̍̍ Thermodynamics

Physics
Electricity and Magnetism
̍̍ Astrophysics and Cosmology
̍̍ Computational Physics II
̍̍ Quantum Mechanics II
̍̍ Statistical Mechanics
̍̍ Particle Physics
̍̍ Quantum Information Processing
̍̍ Chaos and Non-Linear Dynamics
̍̍ Solid State Physics
̍̍ Thermodynamics

whiteandlight

First of all it was you that made the claim about "all" courses etc. I quoted you one course from the closest website to hand to dispute your all encompassing claim. You even clarified it yourself, you do realise that three modules of Maths doesnt and I believe shouldn't make a Maths teacher? At most that degree should qualify you to teach physics and applied Maths depending on the amount of credits for each module.

Second did you even read my post carefully? I didn't do that course! I just picked one to dispute your claim. I even told you what course I did. Regardless I don't really understand why you are so het up about it. I've explained or at least attempted to explain some of the reasons behind it. If you are studying one of these courses and have an issue with the accreditation of it then you need to contact the teaching council with the issue. I personally think the idea of a minimum threshold of credits before you are qualified to teach a subject is a good system. We'll have to agree to differ

TheBody

I did a 4 year double honours degree in Pure Maths and Mathematical physics in NUIM. As part of that degree I also took experimental physics for two year. The teaching council say I can't teach physics. Shocking is the only work I have for that.

rainbowtrout

Squashie wrote: »

Haha sorry excuse me, I never mentioned any courses from NUIM. Nor is the course you've detailed there even included on the teaching council's list. However for argument sake a person who's completed your course there and done all of those subjects in their final year would be undoubtedly fully qualified to teach all three Mathematics, Applied Mathematics and Physics in a secondary school. There's a massive difference between Mathematical Studies courses and proper B.Sc.'s in pure Mathematics, Mathematical Science or Physics alone. I don't mean to belittle what you've done, but your course isn't half as intricate and rigorously mathematical as the courses I've listed are. Next, I'm not sure if you're aware of what those modules you've listed even entail, so I've divided your course into the relevant sections for you

I still don't understand why you are so angry about this. First of all your post is quite condescending in its tone when it's quite clear that Musicmental picked one degree at random. Why you think you know more about the course content of the NUIM degree than Musicmental is beyond me...

How are people undoubtedly qualified to teach the subjects you list? Are you an expert on the content of all of these degrees you have listed. I'd find it hard to believe you are. I can describe the content of my own qualifications in detail and would have a vague idea of the content of simliar degrees but I couldn't say for certain what other degrees covered exactly.

Are you on some panel with the NCCA for designing syllabi and therefore have an intricate knowledge of the syllabi for the aforementioned LC subjects? Have you an in-depth knowledge of each of these degrees and can say for sure why they are suitable for teaching? Because I don't really believe you can. Did you design the course content for each of the degrees you listed?

Musicmental85 wrote: »

First of all it was you that made the claim about "all" courses etc. I quoted you one course from the closest website to hand to dispute your all encompassing claim. You even clarified it yourself, you do realise that three modules of Maths doesnt and I believe shouldn't make a Maths teacher? At most that degree should qualify you to teach physics and applied Maths depending on the amount of credits for each module.

Second did you even read my post carefully? I didn't do that course! I just picked one to dispute your claim. I even told you what course I did. Regardless I don't really understand why you are so het up about it. I've explained or at least attempted to explain some of the reasons behind it. If you are studying one of these courses and have an issue with the accreditation of it then you need to contact the teaching council with the issue. I personally think the idea of a minimum threshold of credits before you are qualified to teach a subject is a good system. We'll have to agree to differ

I think Squashie has some sort of agenda and has possibly had their degree rejected by the Teaching Council and is coming here to vent. I can't imagine why anyone would get so strung up about a list of degrees that they are probably in no position to comment on with regard to their suitability as a qualification for teaching.

Squashie

Bahaha at all this text tone-reading and abstract ideas behind my motive. I'm not a teacher, I haven't applied to be a teacher, and I never intend to apply to become one.

I should really have taken this thread to the Physics or Maths forum on this site instead, because clearly you need to have completed a physics, maths or engineering B.Sc. to be able to understand the teaching council's idiocy when it comes to determining who's "qualified" to teach these three subjects. My point all along has been that you can't draw a line between mathematics and applied mathematics in respect of the leaving cert, and you absolutely can't draw a line between applied mathematics and physics.

Obviously that can't be explained here though. That other poster there understands.

/Finished with this thread.

rainbowtrout

Squashie wrote: »

Bahaha at all this text tone-reading and abstract ideas behind my motive. I'm not a teacher, I haven't applied to be a teacher, and I never intend to apply to become one.

I should really have taken this thread to the Physics or Maths forum on this site instead, because clearly you need to have completed a physics, maths or engineering B.Sc. to be able to understand the teaching council's idiocy when it comes to determining who's "qualified" to teach these three subjects. My point all along has been that you can't draw a line between mathematics and applied mathematics in respect of the leaving cert, and you absolutely can't draw a line between applied mathematics and physics.

Obviously that can't be explained here though. That other poster there understands.

/Finished with this thread.

Well despite all your posts you have yet to explain what makes you more of an authority than the Teaching Council on the suitability of the various Engineering/Physics/Maths degrees for secondary school teaching.

Nobody here said the TC was perfect, you were given the basic rules which determine a degree's suitability and you haven't provided a basis for your arguments only to say that it's obvious that these degrees are suitable and that of course undoubtedly they're suitable. Back up your argument.

Squashie

The logic behind my arguement has been perfectly laid out from the beginning. I'm sorry that you can't see it. In order to study a B.Sc. in physics or engineering, a person absolutely has to have an intricate knowlege of mathematics and how to apply it to solve real world problems. This mathematical knowlege, as any person who has completed B.Sc.'s in these subjects will tell you, goes far beyond the scope of the basic leaving cert. mathematics and applied courses. That goes without question. Therefore physics and engineering degrees should automatically qualify you to teach mathematics and applied mathematics in addition to physics.

It can't be put any simpler.

Moody_mona

But the same could be said for business or accounting courses in that you need to have underlying maths skills for graphing etc but a lot of business graduates arent qualified to teach maths. The ones that are have studied maths in more detail for the duration of their degree.

I too am unsure about why this topic is so heated if you are not and have no desire to be a teacher!

I agree that the links between physics, applied maths and maths are clear but it's down to the specific modules and when they are covered, and there's no way around that!

Squashie

Moody_Mona wrote:

same could be said for business or accounting courses, need to have underlying maths skills for graphing etc

No it couldn't, of course it couldn't! That's a ridiculous thing to say. There's no comparing how business and physics or engineering subjects are taught and the level of mathematical understanding that's required to get results in each. An average page in a typical business studies students lecture notes doesn't look like this:



Whereas that's the makeup of pretty much every page for a physics / engineering student, irrespective of what subject the module is in. Now I really am finished replying to this topic. I can't believe I've had to start resorting to pictures to get the point across, and I'm amazed there's so many people who can't understand the logic behind the argument

ray giraffe

Coming from the maths forum, I mostly agree with squashie. The list is fairly arbitrary.

It's scandalous that engineers from good degrees are not allowed to teach maths without doing further study, there is a thread about it somewhere.

The teaching council are mindless bureaucrats "Computer says No".

TheDriver

this is gas, its like some kid doing applied maths going around showing the difficult looking page of their notes to prove they must be better than everyone else!
Can't wait for some more comments from the OP.
At the end of the day, someone with 2nd year maths in college could teach HL leaving cert but its the TC who lay out the boundaries, complain to Engineers Ireland who can lobby on your behalf because really sounds like the OP has been rejected somewhere along the way and has a bone to pick

Moody_mona

Squashie wrote: »

Moody_Mona wrote:

same could be said for business or accounting courses, need to have underlying maths skills for graphing etc

No it couldn't, of course it couldn't! That's a ridiculous thing to say. There's no comparing how business and physics or engineering subjects are taught and the level of mathematical understanding that's required to get results in each. An average page in a typical business studies students lecture notes doesn't look like this:



Whereas that's the makeup of pretty much every page for a physics / engineering student, irrespective of what subject the module is in. Now I really am finished replying to this topic. I can't believe I've had to start resorting to pictures to get the point across, and I'm amazed there's so many people who can't understand the logic behind the argument

I can't understand this. I am a qualified Maths teacher. Should I not be? And business graduates who are qualified to teach maths probably wouldn't either. Your quote is not relevant to LC Maths, whereas the modules I studied are.

rainbowtrout

Squashie wrote: »

An average page in a typical business studies students lecture notes doesn't look like this:



Whereas that's the makeup of pretty much every page for a physics / engineering student, irrespective of what subject the module is in.

Are you now an expert on the content of all the Business degrees in the country as well? Taken any Business Statistics modules recently? Economics perhaps?




This could easily be taken from a Physics book, it's not it's Economics. Anyone can pull out a formula from a page and claim their subject is harder than another and therefore they are undoubtedly qualified to teach maths.


Seems that you have a chip on your shoulder about something and clearly don't rate any degrees other than Maths/Physics/Engineering.

gubbie

In a way I agree with the OP.

Maths isn't about having a lecturer in front of you going through sets, quadratic equations, plots... it's about understanding and applying what has been learned to life. That's what Engineers do.

I may have done a subject called "Renewable Energy" in my final year which may not sound like maths, but was full of powers, roots, quadratics, integrating, differentiating...

I've come to accept it because at the end of the day I've realised that I have other skills that someone who went through the main stream won't have.

And if everything really goes belly up I still can be an engineer

BobbiqB

I too am an engineering student and i was shocked when i realised that I may not have sufficient education to teach at least mathematics and applied mathematics at secondary level.

Further, if you want clarification from the teaching board that the modules you have taken are sufficient, you are obliged to pay 200/100 euro per subject for the privilege! I feel the teaching board should have a commitment to produce an exhaustive list of acceptable graduate modules relating to each leaving cert subject as a cause for being the board that regulate 'the industry'

Alocation of places to study for the hdip in education is already based on grade performance, so it should attract the strongest applicants. No unneccessary beuracracy is required!

boogle

You may have had a better response to your argument if you hadn't turned it into a hostile and condescending rant.

doc_17

I did electronic engineering and computer science as a degree ( in uni of ulster)which qualified me to teach computer in Irish secon level schools. I compared my degree with similiar degrees in Republic. Lots of ones in the republic all allowed the holder to teach Maths as well as computers/IT. I was annoyed that mine didn't. But arguing with the TC really isn't going I get you anywhere