It's funny that this is a question when every college STEM class is taught by people who have degrees that have absolutely nothing to do with being able to teach effectively.
This does suppose there are good jobs in the area, which can be a bit hit or miss especially out in the sticks. Not to say one couldn't move, but moving isn't in the cards for everyone.
A friend who came from a wealthy family went to an Ivy League teaching school. While she was there, her family went bankrupt and she had to take on student loans. Fast forward to today, she regrets going there, saying a cheap state school would have been just as effective for her career.
FYI: the author of this piece is the eugenicist Cremieux who was responsible for using hacked data to attack Zohran Mamdani for checking Black and Asian on his college application.
> Have you never met a bad doctor? A shoddy lawyer? A barista with a PhD?
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.
Teaching salaries start at $48,112 on average. If schools want advanced degrees the industry needs to pay more, and that's beyond whatever adjustment the provide for holding an advanced degree.
All things considered, it's much better than it's made out to be.
Teaching is pretty stable, offers pensions, unionized, yearly adjustments 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.
When you underpay teachers, people who hate teaching, and hate being teachers, will become teachers because all the people that had better options did something else.
Absolutely dumb take. There are plenty of very bright and talented people that would have made excellent teachers but chose different career paths because - surprise surprise - the pay is better.
No job "needs advanced degrees". They need experience.
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.
Do you mean for a teaching job, or just any job? Certainly in fields like biology, you can only be taken seriously by others in the field by having an advanced degree (which is really only the beginning).
In computing, in the commercial field, you can of course get by with no degree.
Those who produce the materials teachers teach should have advanced degrees. Teachers should have degrees demonstrating their competence in accessing and relating to such knowledge.
It depends on the grade though: no degree would probably be fine for a kindergarten teacher, but I'd be a little concerned if a high school math/science teacher had zero post-secondary experience, especially if this were at a school where most students are planning on attending university.
My mother was one of those teachers that had questionable qualifications. This was a problem from time to time as different government edicts and local authority changes made teachers effectively reapply for their jobs.
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.
Such a ridiculous framing. Of course a teacher needs to provably know their subject, along with a solid practicum and a dollop of teaching theory, because, as with teaching oneself piano, bad teaching habits get engrained easily.
That said, some subjects are more difficult than others to teach, and thus require better education.
My understanding is that, these days, a lot of advanced degrees held by teachers are in Education, not say Math or History.
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.
It's funny that this is a question when every college STEM class is taught by people who have degrees that have absolutely nothing to do with being able to teach effectively.
I think a lot of teaching jobs are like that.
If you were good at teaching STEM, I think you could probably work nearby in a STEM job for more money.
This does suppose there are good jobs in the area, which can be a bit hit or miss especially out in the sticks. Not to say one couldn't move, but moving isn't in the cards for everyone.
A friend who came from a wealthy family went to an Ivy League teaching school. While she was there, her family went bankrupt and she had to take on student loans. Fast forward to today, she regrets going there, saying a cheap state school would have been just as effective for her career.
FYI: the author of this piece is the eugenicist Cremieux who was responsible for using hacked data to attack Zohran Mamdani for checking Black and Asian on his college application.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Lasker
> Have you never met a bad doctor? A shoddy lawyer? A barista with a PhD?
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.
Teaching salaries start at $48,112 on average. If schools want advanced degrees the industry needs to pay more, and that's beyond whatever adjustment the provide for holding an advanced degree.
All things considered, it's much better than it's made out to be.
Teaching is pretty stable, offers pensions, unionized, yearly adjustments 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.
Now the aides..
Well, the way you get instant raises in the public school system is by completing more advanced degrees
They're already paid better than adjunct professors or grad students which is the normal career path for people with advanced degrees.
this. there's almost no fiscal incentive to even BE a teacher, let alone a well-educated one.
When you overpay teachers, people who hate teaching, and hate being teachers, will become teachers for the money.
Is a good idea to select the people who hate teaching to become teachers?
When you underpay teachers, people who hate teaching, and hate being teachers, will become teachers because all the people that had better options did something else.
Yeah, why would we pay top dollar for top talent and then hold that talent to high standards? That certainly doesn’t work in any other profession.
When you overpay CEOs, people who hate leading, and hate being CEOs, will become CEOs for the money.
Is a good idea to select the people who hate leading to become CEOs?
We call this new movement “involuntary CEO”. Bob you’re now it.
You say that as though it’s an option
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
Yes
This is true of every single job.
Teachers are high in big five trait agreeableness which means they typically don't negotiate on their own behalf
Absolutely dumb take. There are plenty of very bright and talented people that would have made excellent teachers but chose different career paths because - surprise surprise - the pay is better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
No job "needs advanced degrees". They need experience.
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.
Do you mean for a teaching job, or just any job? Certainly in fields like biology, you can only be taken seriously by others in the field by having an advanced degree (which is really only the beginning).
In computing, in the commercial field, you can of course get by with no degree.
Those who produce the materials teachers teach should have advanced degrees. Teachers should have degrees demonstrating their competence in accessing and relating to such knowledge.
Shouldn't need any degrees tbh, only the ability to do their job
It depends on the grade though: no degree would probably be fine for a kindergarten teacher, but I'd be a little concerned if a high school math/science teacher had zero post-secondary experience, especially if this were at a school where most students are planning on attending university.
My mother was one of those teachers that had questionable qualifications. This was a problem from time to time as different government edicts and local authority changes made teachers effectively reapply for their jobs.
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.
Fwiw, in 1900 my grandfather taught school in Washington State. He was 16 years old.
I don't know how good he was, just saying it wasn't so long ago.
No.
Such a ridiculous framing. Of course a teacher needs to provably know their subject, along with a solid practicum and a dollop of teaching theory, because, as with teaching oneself piano, bad teaching habits get engrained easily.
That said, some subjects are more difficult than others to teach, and thus require better education.
some studies even saying experience was irrelevant along with advanced degrees. so what do teachers need? big personalities?
they need money, in america.