Semantics, pick a word you like. Conduct science. Do science. Create scientific research data. The point is that people that DO and people that TEACH need different skill sets.
I'm not agreeing with you, I'm pointing out the differences between those who are into the academic side of the law and those that are into the practice of the law and litigation.
Ok.....So you think that a person who teaches chemistry doesn't need to know how to DO chemistry......just TEACH. OK, well I know where you stand. I'm the opposite. I'd rather my kids learn from someone who DOES math than a football coach.
The people on the academic side of law still have degrees in law. They don't have degrees in education......which when you think about it agrees with what I have been saying about knowledge of the subject one teaches certified by a degree.
No, you miss the point once again. I'm saying that the ability to conduct chemistry research does not give one the ability to teach Chemistry effectively. Chemistry teachers need BOTH scientific and teaching training. You seem to imagine that Education majors don't take courses outside of education. You are misinformed.
I was married to a teacher and went to college with her so I know what she took. It's like being an accounting major and taking a chemistry class. Or me, journalism and I had to take econ. Doesn't mean I'm qualified to teach economics. You're ignoring the point. Why aren't all college professors education majors if it's so great? Professors have degrees in the subjects they teach.......master's in the subjects they teach. But you think high school classes are easier and less significant? Seems teachers in college know their subject matter and can teach.....hmmmm. I think we may be on to something here. Maybe the best teachers are people degrees in the subjects they teach. Did you go to a college where your history professor majored in PE?
I think the classes I took in the College of Education at LSU sucked--with three exceptions: Dr. Soderbergh's intro to secondary education (because he's held every job imaginable in education and was full of knowledge that comes with experience) and my English and social studies methods courses (because they were practical and dealt outside of theory.) However, I only took about 5 other courses in education. The others were all English or history courses. Elementary education majors don't take many higher level classes for their majors, but secondary majors take many more classes in their fields, comparable to what an English or history major would take. With all of that being said, I didn't learn to be an effective teacher until 5 or 6 years out of college. Experience is very key in being a good teacher--maturity is another.
Don't we have trouble getting enough good teachers as it is? Making it more difficult to become a teacher won't produce more good teachers. Especially when teachers don't make enough jack.
I begin to understand your animosity towards education majors . . . :wink: Well, . . . yes. Children need different approaches than adults, is it not obvious? Specialization increases with the level of education and require more specialized teachers. But a math major who is a hot-shot at spherical geometry and calculus may not be qualified very well to teach multiplication to third graders with short attention spans. The topic is about teaching children in public schools. Why you are trying to use adult college standards to make your point is quite beyond me. Anyone can see the difference.
Are you saying that China is wrong because they are tinkering with the internal politics of foreign nations? As an American, that wouldn't have much traction with a national audience considering our foreign policy of late. Quoting Obama, from your Obama quotation: "Number one is we've got to get our own fiscal house in order." Sitting down to talk doesn't mean anything of value will materialize, but it does send a message to each country and to the world that we are under new leadership and we are changing our attitude. Clinton doesn't seem very interested in doing that and it seems like you think it wouldn't be wise. Could you expound on Chavez's relationship with Israel? :huh: Why should the US be so involved with Israel's politics? Wouldn't Clinton have pounced on Obama's anti-semitism if there were something to pounce on? You're taking Ron Paul's position on this one. Obama seems much more interested in leaving foreign countries to tend to their own business than any other remaining candidate beside Paul. Maybe. He still seems more genuine and principled but I'll look into it more later. I appreciate all the information you have to give about all the candidates. Shudder. I don't think Clinton is much better, and I can't support McCain because of his foreign policy. I don't trust Huckabee. I will. :grin: I'm very skeptical of Clinton and McCain, the most experienced candidates out there. I'm skeptical of Huckabee. I'll take the good with the bad with Obama and I'll always hold Paul in highest regard. I'm pretty sure if it's Clinton and McCain I'll be voting third party. Toodles.
