ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
63% Positive
Analyzed from 1647 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#teachers#teaching#degrees#advanced#degree#more#education#experience#pay#school
Discussion (49 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Lasker
In general, quite a few people probably do not get degrees in order to get in depth knowledge on the subject they teach. This, along with other factors, makes imo the conclusions more about the current "credential" system than whether actually getting more in depth knowledge affects teaching. Of course, the educational system has a lot more problems than teachers not having master degrees in their fields, but going from anticredentialism to asserting that getting formal advanced (or even any) education in a field is useless is not imo warranted.
I’d love to see this data recut by degree type.
Edit - wow we’re talking about 50-70% of the masters being in Education, Special Education or Admin fields. (Page 14: https://mhec.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/202510-MHEC-Grad...)
This data is basically telling us nothing about the value of a topical masters degree.
Practically nobody teaching K-12 has subject-matter masters degrees. It's just not part of the career trajectory. As unusual as a nurse having an M.A. in history or something. Yes, would occur on the margins of people changing course in life, but not the mainline.
Specifically, the question here is about the efficacy of pay-scale bumps for Masters degrees in education. To your point (and my counter-point), teachers get a substantial pay bump* if they hold a M.Ed, but no bump if they hold a masters in their teachable areas.
For persons who can afford it in the moment, taking a one year or two or three year part-time M.Ed. after getting a few years teaching experience (an entrance requirement in most M.Ed. programs) can pay for itself over the next 2-5 years, then is all surplus for the rest of the career.
* - all of the varies a bit by jurisdiction but I think this is "the general case".
While doing teaching special ed she developed a fondness for teaching math. But she isn't allowed to take on a general ed math class because she doesn't have a "math endorsement" - which would require her to go back to school again for basically another advanced degree in math. And she can't get a general ed job in history because it's too competitive and her years of experience makes her too expensive compared to fresh blood.
Teaching is pretty stable, offers pensions, unionized, yearly adjusted for CPI, opportunities to increase pay schedule + extra pay with extra curriculars / duties, lots of time off, good hours.
Don't get me wrong. There are issues and it does depend on the district (US).
Now the aides..
Is a good idea to select the people who hate teaching to become teachers?
Is a good idea to select the people who hate leading to become CEOs?
CEO is selected by the investors for whoever will side with the investors 100% of the time over every other group including employees
What you suggest would subvert this and so it won’t and can’t happen
Teachers are high in big five trait agreeableness which means they typically don't negotiate on their own behalf
If you were good at teaching STEM, I think you could probably work nearby in a STEM job for more money.
I read through TFA and was impressed at the number of citations they offered. I had assumed (but not strongly) that there'd be a correlation, so this was enlightening.
Do you have any citations apart from your own experience?
I presume the implication is that bad doctors and shoddy lawyers exist and just because they have advanced degrees doesn't make them good at what they do. This seems reasonable.
BUT, I find it fascinating that people who aren't doctors or medical experts think they can spot a "bad" doctor or people who aren't lawyers or experts in law think they can spot a "shoddy" lawyer.
A good doctor/lawyer makes good decisions and executes beneficial actions given the facts surrounding a situation. It's pretty hard to judge whether those decisions and actions are good or bad if one isn't an expert.
That's a huge motivating factor for professional licenses.
Eventually she did get a degree, albeit with my father writing up most of the assignments, however, I was underwhelmed by this. I felt that it was quite an indulgence for just a piece of paper.
Subject matter does matter. My mother was teaching art which might as well have been craft. What she brought to the class was experience, experience in crafts and experience existing as a money-making artist. She also knew a few people.
Few in academia could match her skill set and there were no complaints. It didn't matter that she was practically illiterate when it came to writing.
I don't know how good he was, just saying it wasn't so long ago.
That said, some subjects are more difficult than others to teach, and thus require better education.
If you want to get your foot in the door in a competitive market, degrees help. They offer some substitute for experience. But it's ridiculous to require them.
In computing, in the commercial field, you can of course get by with no degree.