Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Poll on Science Teaching

Options
  • 18-05-2002 11:38pm
    #1
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭


    Lst year I was offered, along with the rest of my physics class the option of dropping from our honours degree, to take a general in order to become science teachers.

    Now in UCC a general still consists of you studying thermal, classical, relativistical, and quantum physics.


    My question is are they putting over-qualified ppl into teaching positions, in an area where a huge gap is at the moment. Why is there a need for a second level teacher to have such a high level in non-relevant material in order to become a science teacher.

    Opinions?

    As outlined below. 12 votes

    Yes, they are overqualified.
    0% 0 votes
    No, it is correct to expect such a standard.
    66% 8 votes
    Does it really matter, so long as the job\\\'s done?
    33% 4 votes


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Nietzschean
    Registered Users Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    I would be completely of the opinion that they are well overqualified...they have very good qualifications and the courses they are teaching are being more basic all the time.

    From my experence with the science teachers they are more and more annoyed with this as it must be like adding 2 + 2 in doing the science involved in the lc. Like i'm doing it and i find it fundamental in boring.......


  • Options
    #3
    scipio_major
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭scipio_major


    I think that science teachers have to be over-qualified. They have to know the "entire" LC course and then the answers to most questions which come from those pieces. I know my own Physics teacher was vastly over-qualified and he was great mainly because he'd constantly add in those little detail, not in the textbook, that made physics interesting for me. Score one for education.

    Fade to Credits
    Scipio_major


  • Options
    #4
    Nietzschean
    Registered Users Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    well i've had 3 teachers of phyics in these last 2 yrs

    and all 2/3 were bored off their nuts teaching lc phyics...ffs i'm bored senceless doing the damn ****e


  • Options
    #5
    thedrowner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,287 ✭✭✭thedrowner


    i dont know, it is nice to add in the little extra's that make it interesting, btu i dont think u get that from being overqualified. i dont know what phsyics for the lc was like, btu chemistry and biology!!! every year of chemistry you do in college is incredible how much stuff gets added on. and ive had tutors admit thta "this isnt what really happens, but yourein 2nd year, and this is all you need to know now, all the course deems capable". think of the rift between someone with a chemistry degree and someone in leaving cert chemistry!!!!! you cant really give out little extra's in a subject like that.
    its probably easier to give those extras in biology, and it is enjoyable, but i ahve never found those extra's in college lectures, really. it depends on how much u love the subject, and how much u love teaching. coz my teacher in school was ok, but when i did grinds in ashfield, the subjects become so much simpler, AND enjoyable.

    However...i think things are good the way they are now. as a student, you dont know what way your degree is going to take you. not many people go into that kind of a degree where teaching is an option, knowing it's what they want to do, so leaving things the way they are now, caters for that, for people who dont get the marks to sdo an honours degree, or people who deide lab work isnt for them, or that kind of thing.


Advertisement