I retired from the Army after 35 years. On the strength of my rank (BG) and two Masters Degrees, I was granted the opportunity to teach at one of the nation’s leading community colleges that has more students than most universities. I’ve taught for ten years and was accorded an award as my campus’ outstanding adjunct instructor.

But I have NO certification and therefore am ineligible to teach
high school. What’s wrong with that picture ????

Long ago I read about Isaac Newton, one of the great minds of his time. He was a faculty member at Cambridge. A professor resigned so Newton could take the position. Newton’s lectures were so difficult some were not attended by anyone.

I do not recall Herodotus or Thucydides having a history degree.

And yes, I was a graduate student in Poli-Sci (I have a BA in History) before I started teaching. I know that the demands of the program make you more focused and knowledgeable on the subject matter. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not an Advanced Degree actually makes you a better teacher. Cost/Benefit? I would say that the cost of the degree far outweighs the benefit of getting your ass in the classroom. You can always go back and get the MA. But that’s just me.

Oh, and brother historian, congrats on your MA. But you don’t need a sheet of paper to be a good historian.

Who dives more into history over your arbitrary two-year period? A grad student who constantly reads history books, articles, and primary sources and who regularly discusses these works with other scholars? Or a newly-minted, secondary school teacher scrambling to find their footing at their first school, desperately trying to stay on top of the challenges of lesson planning, correcting papers, maintaining classroom discipline, and all the other demands of being a new teacher? Are you honestly suggesting that the grad student and the full-time newbie teacher have anything remotely close to equal time to “dive further into history”?

The fact that you even ask this question suggests that you either have no idea at all of what goes on in a history graduate program or that you have failed to apply critical thinking to this topic.

Marco

If you want to think that using primaries sources has to do with spending more time in graduate courses, go ahead and believe that. I use primary sources extensively, not because of graduate work, but because it’s good teaching. I liked them in high school, I saved them through college, and that part of teaching was preached in my credential program. If the graduate work helped you with a deeper understanding of history to pass to students, that’s fine too.

What I bristle at is this notion that Graduate Degrees or attending Ivy League schools/Stanford somehow make the better teacher. Save the history information that I can read in a book, everything you mentioned was explained to me by undergraduate professors in pre-credential programs, credential classes, my master teacher, or current colleagues. I don’t like new teachers to think that they need graduate degrees to become good teachers. Yeah, duh, they need to have an exceptional grasp of subject matter. But does that have to include an MA in History? Can’t any decent historian dive further into history without sitting in a classroom for an extra two years? I’d tell a new teacher that the time would be much better spent working with kids, student teaching, coaching, or starting in the first years of the teaching career. Go back and get the Masters later.

Now, that’s my opinion, and it’s not meant to knock your efforts. I think plenty of issues in the public opinion realm regarding teachers are misguided. “Advanced Degrees” making the teacher is just one of them.

By initiating them into the mysteries of the liberal arts, we can raise their minds above the common run.

This may well be true, in your case. Earning my graduate degree helped me become a much better writer. It also improved my research skills considerably. My students benefit from this. For example, my 9th graders have to write a five page thesis paper, and I guide them, step by step. Among other things, this process includes helping students do original research, mainly using primary sources, and reviewing and correcting their rough drafts. I would not teach this project as well if I had only completed my B.A. in history and my California single subject credential. Thus, earning my graduate degree in history has made me a better teacher.

I suspect that I make greater use of primary sources than many teachers, which is largely inspired by my grad school education. You may not associate such sources with being a better teacher, so I’m not really making that my argument. Textbooks and lecture are fine – I just don’t like to depend on them as heavily as some teachers do. Also, my M.A. work broadened my subject knowledge, which has proven useful as a secondary school teacher. I wouldn’t know anywhere near as much about Latin America, for example, if not for grad school.

Marco