All-day school schedules

silverbear74 said:Two years is more than enough. They breeze through their coursework in just two semesters. A classmate of mine finishing her degree right now said the exact same thing when we compared my textbooks at the FBI to hers. She’s prepping for an exam with only two days to go. Maybe she spent a whole week studying for one of those exams during that entire five-year stretch.
I'm not disrespecting the job, but making a College of Education program last five years is just unnecessary and frankly ridiculous—for them too.

Fine, I'll admit the FBI program is brutal. I've heard that on certain courses, you have to achieve absolute perfection on the exam or you simply fail—there are even stories of people retaking a single subject ten times. All in all, at least it prepares you for the actual job.
But there is another flaw: almost every professor has their own teaching assistant. In my view, it's completely superfluous, given that not every subject is that vast or demanding. Instead, these assistants are worked to the bone while the professors just coast along. I remember my time at my own useless university; most of the lectures and exams were handled by assistants, while the professor would only show up to scribble a grade and a signature in the gradebook.

John Palmer9 said:Maybe we should lower the requirements for teachers—not necessarily needing those advanced degrees. I guess personality and mental readiness matter more than having a PhD or a Master's. It feels a bit redundant to require a specialized engineer just to teach basic math or chemistry.
If the goal is to turn full-day schooling into glorified babysitting, then I guess that's what it is. That should probably be strictly voluntary and limited to elementary school kids.

Honestly, an Associate's degree—or what we'd call a Bachelor's in some contexts—is plenty for teaching lower grades if we're talking about actual subject knowledge. For decades, people taught with much less advanced credentials, and frankly, I don't see those teachers being any worse than the ones we have today.

Before we dive in, perhaps we should take a collective look at how things are handled over in Europe at Eurydice ? That might help us draw some conclusions about what qualifications are actually necessary, what alternative pathways could look like, and where they fit within the educational hierarchy.

As I mentioned before, the issue of subpar degree programs persists. It’s the same old story: whenever people start criticizing education, they aim their shots at primary and secondary schools, while the universities are busy trying to "reform" everything—all while lazy bureaucrats and political appointees run failing departments.

The sheer rigidity of our university system is a problem in itself. On paper, you can supposedly do anything. In reality? You can't. How am I supposed to study chemistry alongside English literature, or physics with art history, if that’s the specific combination I want for my career? The system just won't allow it.

I also think it’s a solid idea to allow people to earn certifications for high-demand subjects through alternative routes. However, we should set some guardrails: perhaps a minimum of a Bachelor's degree for certain roles, or even a Master's combined with relevant teaching experience and a certain level of maturity.

I fully support involving students in the process. We need to drastically cut enrollment quotas for oversaturated fields and boost them for others. Furthermore, we should be hiring students to fill specialized vacancies via a centralized database. Honestly? I’d advocate for penalizing those who refuse such placements. Of course, this would have to be balanced with incentives for those who step up—things like seniority credits and academic points for practical skills.

My stance remains unchanged: for core subject instruction, nothing less than a Master's degree should be considered—except, perhaps, in cases of extreme teacher shortages. Even then, we could follow a hybrid model of classroom instruction and lectures, which I’ll detail further down.

While I welcome alternative pathways and additional training for non-educators, let’s be realistic: with salaries at this current level, nobody is going to jump into teaching for extra work.

In my view, it’s perfectly reasonable for elementary teachers to undergo a five-year program. They could complete three years of traditional lectures and exams, followed by two years of heavy practice and specialized coursework on a 70:30 ratio. A final thesis based on their actual field experience should be mandatory, along with a professional exam and licensing.

Early childhood educators could follow a similar track: three years of college followed by two years of hands-on practice and focused instruction with a reduced course load. This would culminate in a Master's thesis centered on their practical experience, topped off by a professional exam and licensure.

Oh, and yes—this would finally clear out the masses of pure theorists from the universities. I believe I've touched on that before.

shadowtiger0 said:Honestly, an Associate's degree—or what we'd call a Bachelor's in some contexts—is plenty for teaching lower grades if we're talking about actual subject knowledge. For decades, people taught with much less advanced credentials, and frankly, I don't see those teachers being any worse than the ones we have today.

It’s enough to teach anyone up until high school graduation. But that’ll never happen because everyone is too busy protecting their cushy seats and sinecures at the state teacher colleges.

silverbear74 said:And what kind of high schoolers were even applying to the Teacher Training College back then? Nowadays, it’s mostly mediocre—if not bottom-tier—students enrolling. Nobody from the top-tier prep schools in Chicago wants anything to do with it. For years now, they've basically treated Teacher Training College as just another elective course, much like Business or most of the majors over at the University of Arts and Sciences.

Because that’s exactly what it is. Every single one of my colleagues who came from competitive prep schools tells me that high school was actually tougher than college. And we’re talking specifically about the education major here, just so there’s no confusion.

I see people here using "veterinarian" as some sort of insult toward the Secretary (even though the man is a PhD, but let's just gloss over that for a second). Honestly, I wouldn’t want MY KIDS being taught by teachers who think being a veterinarian is somehow derogatory.

It’s an incredibly demanding program—certainly way harder than what some of my colleagues currently working in schools went through—so when they try to degrade him by calling him a "vet," they’re really just exposing themselves. It says more about them than anything else. But then again, I’ve seen plenty of that in faculty lounges: massive egos with absolutely zero substance to back them up.

If they wanted to call him a Republican Party hack, a bad politician, or whatever other labels they want to throw around—fine, no problem there.

But the guy is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, and people with four years of experience from the College of Arts and Sciences are out here trying to use his profession as a slur...

Jose Wells3 said:Before we dive in, perhaps we should take a collective look at how things are handled over in Europe at Eurydice ? That might help us draw some conclusions about what qualifications are actually necessary, what alternative pathways could look like, and where they fit within the educational hierarchy.

As I mentioned before, the issue of subpar degree programs persists. It’s the same old story: whenever people start criticizing education, they aim their shots at primary and secondary schools, while the universities are busy trying to "reform" everything—all while lazy bureaucrats and political appointees run failing departments.

The sheer rigidity of our university system is a problem in itself. On paper, you can supposedly do anything. In reality? You can't. How am I supposed to study chemistry alongside English literature, or physics with art history, if that’s the specific combination I want for my career? The system just won't allow it.

I also think it’s a solid idea to allow people to earn certifications for high-demand subjects through alternative routes. However, we should set some guardrails: perhaps a minimum of a Bachelor's degree for certain roles, or even a Master's combined with relevant teaching experience and a certain level of maturity.

I fully support involving students in the process. We need to drastically cut enrollment quotas for oversaturated fields and boost them for others. Furthermore, we should be hiring students to fill specialized vacancies via a centralized database. Honestly? I’d advocate for penalizing those who refuse such placements. Of course, this would have to be balanced with incentives for those who step up—things like seniority credits and academic points for practical skills.

My stance remains unchanged: for core subject instruction, nothing less than a Master's degree should be considered—except, perhaps, in cases of extreme teacher shortages. Even then, we could follow a hybrid model of classroom instruction and lectures, which I’ll detail further down.

While I welcome alternative pathways and additional training for non-educators, let’s be realistic: with salaries at this current level, nobody is going to jump into teaching for extra work.

In my view, it’s perfectly reasonable for elementary teachers to undergo a five-year program. They could complete three years of traditional lectures and exams, followed by two years of heavy practice and specialized coursework on a 70:30 ratio. A final thesis based on their actual field experience should be mandatory, along with a professional exam and licensing.

Early childhood educators could follow a similar track: three years of college followed by two years of hands-on practice and focused instruction with a reduced course load. This would culminate in a Master's thesis centered on their practical experience, topped off by a professional exam and licensure.

Oh, and yes—this would finally clear out the masses of pure theorists from the universities. I believe I've touched on that before.

A whole crowd of theorists. Ph.Ds who haven't seen a lick of real-world application for anything they teach. Or worse, they're teaching stuff they specialized in twenty years ago—outdated, obsolete garbage.

shadowtiger0 said:Because that’s exactly what it is. Every single one of my colleagues who came from competitive prep schools tells me that high school was actually tougher than college. And we’re talking specifically about the education major here, just so there’s no confusion.

I see people here using "veterinarian" as some sort of insult toward the Secretary (even though the man is a PhD, but let's just gloss over that for a second). Honestly, I wouldn’t want MY KIDS being taught by teachers who think being a veterinarian is somehow derogatory.

It’s an incredibly demanding program—certainly way harder than what some of my colleagues currently working in schools went through—so when they try to degrade him by calling him a "vet," they’re really just exposing themselves. It says more about them than anything else. But then again, I’ve seen plenty of that in faculty lounges: massive egos with absolutely zero substance to back them up.

If they wanted to call him a Republican Party hack, a bad politician, or whatever other labels they want to throw around—fine, no problem there.

But the guy is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, and people with four years of experience from the College of Arts and Sciences are out here trying to use his profession as a slur...

Exactly. Then again, they say an intelligent, educated person knows when they’re out of their depth and stays out of it.

I have two degrees. Does that mean I can teach veterinarians how to treat cattle? They only finished one, right? I've seen a cow, it has four legs, and I've drunk milk—I know where it comes from. Surely that makes me an expert.

nimblelynx7 said:Exactly. Then again, they say an intelligent, educated person knows when they’re out of their depth and stays out of it.

I have two degrees. Does that mean I can teach veterinarians how to treat cattle? They only finished one, right? I've seen a cow, it has four legs, and I've drunk milk—I know where it comes from. Surely that makes me an expert.

I'm in the same boat—two degrees myself, one in Engineering and one in Education.

When I look at my doctor friends or family, I feel like I'm stuck in a sort of intellectual middle ground—both in terms of career trajectory and actual knowledge accumulation, not to mention the stress levels. Honestly, the only person I’d trade places with is a friend of mine who’s a physical therapist; he’s got it pretty good. The only downside is the pay—it's kind of similar to what a veteran high school teacher pulls in.

Jose Wells3 said:Before we dive in, perhaps we should take a collective look at how things are handled over in Europe at Eurydice ? That might help us draw some conclusions about what qualifications are actually necessary, what alternative pathways could look like, and where they fit within the educational hierarchy.

As I mentioned before, the issue of subpar degree programs persists. It’s the same old story: whenever people start criticizing education, they aim their shots at primary and secondary schools, while the universities are busy trying to "reform" everything—all while lazy bureaucrats and political appointees run failing departments.

The sheer rigidity of our university system is a problem in itself. On paper, you can supposedly do anything. In reality? You can't. How am I supposed to study chemistry alongside English literature, or physics with art history, if that’s the specific combination I want for my career? The system just won't allow it.

I also think it’s a solid idea to allow people to earn certifications for high-demand subjects through alternative routes. However, we should set some guardrails: perhaps a minimum of a Bachelor's degree for certain roles, or even a Master's combined with relevant teaching experience and a certain level of maturity.

I fully support involving students in the process. We need to drastically cut enrollment quotas for oversaturated fields and boost them for others. Furthermore, we should be hiring students to fill specialized vacancies via a centralized database. Honestly? I’d advocate for penalizing those who refuse such placements. Of course, this would have to be balanced with incentives for those who step up—things like seniority credits and academic points for practical skills.

My stance remains unchanged: for core subject instruction, nothing less than a Master's degree should be considered—except, perhaps, in cases of extreme teacher shortages. Even then, we could follow a hybrid model of classroom instruction and lectures, which I’ll detail further down.

While I welcome alternative pathways and additional training for non-educators, let’s be realistic: with salaries at this current level, nobody is going to jump into teaching for extra work.

In my view, it’s perfectly reasonable for elementary teachers to undergo a five-year program. They could complete three years of traditional lectures and exams, followed by two years of heavy practice and specialized coursework on a 70:30 ratio. A final thesis based on their actual field experience should be mandatory, along with a professional exam and licensing.

Early childhood educators could follow a similar track: three years of college followed by two years of hands-on practice and focused instruction with a reduced course load. This would culminate in a Master's thesis centered on their practical experience, topped off by a professional exam and licensure.

Oh, and yes—this would finally clear out the masses of pure theorists from the universities. I believe I've touched on that before.

Yeah, universities are incredibly insular. Everyone working in education knows just how desperate we are for special education teachers—so why not allow students from related departments to just take the necessary bridge courses and go straight into a master's program? That would fill those vacancies instantly. Let's be real: a 40-year-old with a psychology degree isn't going to start all over again at the ERF. Just let them move into a master's track and you've solved the problem with someone who actually knows what they're doing.

As for "theorists"—they're mostly just people who love the sound of their own voices.

shadowtiger0 said:Because that’s exactly what it is. Every single one of my colleagues who came from competitive prep schools tells me that high school was actually tougher than college. And we’re talking specifically about the education major here, just so there’s no confusion.

I see people here using "veterinarian" as some sort of insult toward the Secretary (even though the man is a PhD, but let's just gloss over that for a second). Honestly, I wouldn’t want MY KIDS being taught by teachers who think being a veterinarian is somehow derogatory.

It’s an incredibly demanding program—certainly way harder than what some of my colleagues currently working in schools went through—so when they try to degrade him by calling him a "vet," they’re really just exposing themselves. It says more about them than anything else. But then again, I’ve seen plenty of that in faculty lounges: massive egos with absolutely zero substance to back them up.

If they wanted to call him a Republican Party hack, a bad politician, or whatever other labels they want to throw around—fine, no problem there.

But the guy is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, and people with four years of experience from the College of Arts and Sciences are out here trying to use his profession as a slur...

The guy is a VET, NOT A TEACHER. Not even a professor. He has nothing to do with the Department of Education.
And that department is a total mess.
So, yeah—that's why they call him a veterinarian. Because apparently, we have a vet running the whole school system.

People call him a "veterinarian" as an insult because he treats students like a flock of sheep, assuming they can't tell the difference. Honestly, he should just stick to his degree—whether that means focusing on his actual field or tending to livestock—and stay far away from education reform.

There’s a running joke about those attending KFC, but I don't think it's helpful to weaponize someone's education level during a debate before they've even finished their own studies. Even if you believe it, it doesn't actually add anything to the conversation.

Jose Wells3 said:People call him a "veterinarian" as an insult because he treats students like a flock of sheep, assuming they can't tell the difference. Honestly, he should just stick to his degree—whether that means focusing on his actual field or tending to livestock—and stay far away from education reform.

There’s a running joke about those attending KFC, but I don't think it's helpful to weaponize someone's education level during a debate before they've even finished their own studies. Even if you believe it, it doesn't actually add anything to the conversation.

😍 😍 😍

nimblelynx7 said:It’s enough to teach anyone up until high school graduation. But that’ll never happen because everyone is too busy protecting their cushy seats and sinecures at the state teacher colleges.

I wouldn't go that far regarding it being "enough" for graduation. High school curricula aren't some joke—at least they weren't back when I was sitting in those desks.

The real headache is figuring out how to attract top-tier STEM talent into the public school system these days... I never could have imagined a world where kinesiology majors would actively dodge teaching jobs (because, let’s face it, it isn't exactly rocket science), yet here we are. It's simple: there are so many opportunities now. You can make just as much money running a few private training sessions, coaching local club teams, or doing some collegiate sports consulting, and boom—you're pulling in a teacher's salary without any of the soul-crushing paperwork, angry parents, or nightmare principals.

Nowadays, it's really just the humanities majors who are struggling; I honestly don't see a way for them to monetize their degrees in the actual workforce while staying within their field of study.

Even the linguists—those specializing in actually "useful" languages—have basically become the new STEM kids.

shadowtiger0 said:Because that’s exactly what it is. Every single one of my colleagues who came from competitive prep schools tells me that high school was actually tougher than college. And we’re talking specifically about the education major here, just so there’s no confusion.

I see people here using "veterinarian" as some sort of insult toward the Secretary (even though the man is a PhD, but let's just gloss over that for a second). Honestly, I wouldn’t want MY KIDS being taught by teachers who think being a veterinarian is somehow derogatory.

It’s an incredibly demanding program—certainly way harder than what some of my colleagues currently working in schools went through—so when they try to degrade him by calling him a "vet," they’re really just exposing themselves. It says more about them than anything else. But then again, I’ve seen plenty of that in faculty lounges: massive egos with absolutely zero substance to back them up.

If they wanted to call him a Republican Party hack, a bad politician, or whatever other labels they want to throw around—fine, no problem there.

But the guy is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, and people with four years of experience from the College of Arts and Sciences are out here trying to use his profession as a slur...

I have to admit, I half-expected it. Like every new Secretary has to push some new curriculum, I thought they’d introduce something animal-related—maybe even encourage schools to set up their own aquariums or terrariums with turtles, lizards, snakes, or spiders...

Jose Wells3 said:People call him a "veterinarian" as an insult because he treats students like a flock of sheep, assuming they can't tell the difference. Honestly, he should just stick to his degree—whether that means focusing on his actual field or tending to livestock—and stay far away from education reform.

There’s a running joke about those attending KFC, but I don't think it's helpful to weaponize someone's education level during a debate before they've even finished their own studies. Even if you believe it, it doesn't actually add anything to the conversation.

Whatever—the guy has a doctorate. We aren't educators. That's just the reality of it.

As for those jokes about our department? Sure, they exist. They exist for every major out there. But let's be real—we aren't kids anymore; we all know which programs are grueling and exactly what kind of people enroll in them.

shadowtiger0 said:I'm in the same boat—two degrees myself, one in Engineering and one in Education.

When I look at my doctor friends or family, I feel like I'm stuck in a sort of intellectual middle ground—both in terms of career trajectory and actual knowledge accumulation, not to mention the stress levels. Honestly, the only person I’d trade places with is a friend of mine who’s a physical therapist; he’s got it pretty good. The only downside is the pay—it's kind of similar to what a veteran high school teacher pulls in.

You misunderstood me. I have five years in electrical engineering and five years in law.

It all depends on what you do and where you do it. You need to see the kind of expertise and pressure a lead engineer deals with when they're commissioning an industrial plant worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Unfortunately, that wasn't me—that was a colleague of mine.

Jose Wells3 said:Before we dive in, perhaps we should take a collective look at how things are handled over in Europe at Eurydice ? That might help us draw some conclusions about what qualifications are actually necessary, what alternative pathways could look like, and where they fit within the educational hierarchy.

As I mentioned before, the issue of subpar degree programs persists. It’s the same old story: whenever people start criticizing education, they aim their shots at primary and secondary schools, while the universities are busy trying to "reform" everything—all while lazy bureaucrats and political appointees run failing departments.

The sheer rigidity of our university system is a problem in itself. On paper, you can supposedly do anything. In reality? You can't. How am I supposed to study chemistry alongside English literature, or physics with art history, if that’s the specific combination I want for my career? The system just won't allow it.

I also think it’s a solid idea to allow people to earn certifications for high-demand subjects through alternative routes. However, we should set some guardrails: perhaps a minimum of a Bachelor's degree for certain roles, or even a Master's combined with relevant teaching experience and a certain level of maturity.

I fully support involving students in the process. We need to drastically cut enrollment quotas for oversaturated fields and boost them for others. Furthermore, we should be hiring students to fill specialized vacancies via a centralized database. Honestly? I’d advocate for penalizing those who refuse such placements. Of course, this would have to be balanced with incentives for those who step up—things like seniority credits and academic points for practical skills.

My stance remains unchanged: for core subject instruction, nothing less than a Master's degree should be considered—except, perhaps, in cases of extreme teacher shortages. Even then, we could follow a hybrid model of classroom instruction and lectures, which I’ll detail further down.

While I welcome alternative pathways and additional training for non-educators, let’s be realistic: with salaries at this current level, nobody is going to jump into teaching for extra work.

In my view, it’s perfectly reasonable for elementary teachers to undergo a five-year program. They could complete three years of traditional lectures and exams, followed by two years of heavy practice and specialized coursework on a 70:30 ratio. A final thesis based on their actual field experience should be mandatory, along with a professional exam and licensing.

Early childhood educators could follow a similar track: three years of college followed by two years of hands-on practice and focused instruction with a reduced course load. This would culminate in a Master's thesis centered on their practical experience, topped off by a professional exam and licensure.

Oh, and yes—this would finally clear out the masses of pure theorists from the universities. I believe I've touched on that before.

I really dig where you're going with these ideas. 👍

Since 1979, the city of Cleveland has offered an all-day school program, a model that isn't universally available in every district. This initiative has been executed with remarkable success for over forty years, providing a structured environment where children remain on campus from 8:00 AM until 4:00 PM at the latest. Specifically designed for the younger grades, the program ensures that every classroom is staffed by two teachers, allowing for a seamless integration of academic instruction and enriching leisure activities that children truly enjoy.

It is difficult to grasp what this individual could possibly hope to achieve by proposing such a concept, given that a system nearly identical to his vision is already successfully established right here in America.

shadowtiger0 said:Whatever—the guy has a doctorate. We aren't educators. That's just the reality of it.

As for those jokes about our department? Sure, they exist. They exist for every major out there. But let's be real—we aren't kids anymore; we all know which programs are grueling and exactly what kind of people enroll in them.

Which ones?

shadowtiger0 said:I wouldn't go that far regarding it being "enough" for graduation. High school curricula aren't some joke—at least they weren't back when I was sitting in those desks.

The real headache is figuring out how to attract top-tier STEM talent into the public school system these days... I never could have imagined a world where kinesiology majors would actively dodge teaching jobs (because, let’s face it, it isn't exactly rocket science), yet here we are. It's simple: there are so many opportunities now. You can make just as much money running a few private training sessions, coaching local club teams, or doing some collegiate sports consulting, and boom—you're pulling in a teacher's salary without any of the soul-crushing paperwork, angry parents, or nightmare principals.

Nowadays, it's really just the humanities majors who are struggling; I honestly don't see a way for them to monetize their degrees in the actual workforce while staying within their field of study.

Even the linguists—those specializing in actually "useful" languages—have basically become the new STEM kids.

Then where else are you supposed to learn this stuff if not in college? Prep schools are honestly the worst kind of secondary education, even if they act all elite and superior. You spend four years studying everything, then graduate and realize you don't actually know anything useful; everything you learned is basically just trivia for pub quizzes. If you don't head straight to a university after that, you're screwed. You'll be forced into some specific vocational training for a job, and all that knowledge about the Baroque period, logic, the GDP of Uzbekistan, or Napoleon wars? You can just throw it in the trash.

So you're claiming the curriculum at an electrotechnical high school is a total joke, and anyone can teach it?