Job Discussion Forums

[jw72]

I've heard that in the Middle East, there is a bias against Education-related ESL graduate degrees (M.S. in Language Education) and a bias in favor of Linguistics degrees. Is this true?

Thanks,
John

[veiledsentiments]

jw72

That is one of those rumors that one hears, but never runs into anyone who can verify it. I have worked with people with all sorts of MAs... from Linguistics to English Literature to totally unrelated majors like Criminal Justice MAs.

People who have all kinds of MAs have not been hired - not even made it to interview - even MAs in Linguistics or even actual MAs in TEFL.

I don't think it matters.

Vs

[Sekhmet]

That certainly seems to be the case... In Egypt especially, I know of very few people who have a Masters. The people I do know of who are working in this field are actually all Egyptian anyway!!! So I'm not convinced that a Masters is any more likely to get you a job than experience....
Anyway, if it's a matter of choice between the two, go for Linguistics - way more fun!!!!

[veiledsentiments]

Hi Sekhmet,

Well, it depends on what kind of job you want. If you don't mind the low pay of language schools, you don't need an MA. But, if you want the high pay university jobs (with low teaching hours and benefits - like AUC or the Gulf unis), you have a signficantly better chance if you have some kind of language related MA.

I definitely agree that a Linguistics MA is more fun and interesting than an education (or 'applied' linguistics) degree. But, then some of us have an odd idea of what is fun.

VS

[guest of Japan]

Veiled Sentiments, could you elaborate on this?

"I definitely agree that a Linguistics MA is more fun and interesting than an education (or 'applied' linguistics) degree. But, then some of us have an odd idea of what is fun. "


Thanks. [/quote]

[veiledsentiments]

Hi Guest,

Speaking only for myself here... personally I found things like transformational grammar and psycholinguistics and pragmatics and sociolinguistics, etc to be fun. But many dislike the theoretical courses because they don't feel that they are relevant to the classroom. Where I got my MA, we had a choice of tracks - one more theoretical and one more practical. I went theoretical and wrote my thesis on the topic of pauses and hesitations. It was fun and fascinating, but it is likely that many people wouldn't agree.

I hope you didn't think that I was making a value judgement on either... just a matter of taste.

VS

[guest of Japan]

Thanks Veiled Sentiments.

It was interesting. I hadn't made any judgement whatsoever. On these pages it is a little rare to support theory over practical usage (at least in the modest way you did). It was refreshing to read what gave you pleasure as both and academic and a teacher.

All the best, Mark

[veiledsentiments]

Hi Guest,

I can certainly understand why many people are critical of having to take courses that they feel do not directly help prepare them for their field. I suspect that the fact that my MA was free under a Fellowship allowed me to be able to ignore 'value for tuition dollar' - so to speak. I have heard that since I left, non applied linguistics theses have not been allowed. It is sad when even academic management loses its curiosity.

Even way back when I got my first degree, which was mostly English Lit (to teach secondary school) - for fun I took things like pre-med courses in Human Anatomy and Physiology. Of course then Daddy was paying.

VS

[godleyangel]

It is my experience that many language teachers do not have the background knowledge in Linguistics that would enable them to better teach whatever language it is that may be their focus. I am thankful that I am finishing my degree in Linguistics and have gone through the L2 acquisition process myself a couple of times because I feel like even though I have no teaching experience to date, I am more prepared to teach English than I would be had I not studied Linguistics, I mean just understanding the basic concepts of phonology and morphology of English -- not to mention a little transformational grammar like you mentioned, VS -- really make it easier. Those are my 2 cents.

~Angelique

[guest of Japan]

What good will that phonology and morphology do you when your students don't want to learn the language? Being a student and being a teacher are two very different things. You can be certain that whatever is interesting to you will be of no interest to your students (unless of course you are teaching graduate students).

[veiledsentiments]

Hi guest,

I do think the art of student motivation is a whole other thing. But that is another one of those things that they don't really teach you - whatever they call your degree.

If I had to give a weight to how much those theoretical linguistics classes actually added to my daily teaching, I'd have to say... maybe 5%. But, I don't think the methodology courses that they made me attend helped much either.

I'm one of those who learns by doing, so I guess the students eventually taught me much more about teaching than any course ever taught me.

VS

[guest of Japan]

Hi VS.
My previous post wasn't really an attack on the study of linguistics. It was more of a response to the haughtiness of the post that preceeded it. I felt particular contempt at reading the "in my experience" shortly followed by "though I have no teaching experience" sandwiching in the opinion.

I'll make no false claims. I am not a linguist and am problably weaker in the area than all who frequent the Middle East forum. My educational training was for teaching secondary ed, and I later supplemented it with a heavily theory based TEFL certificate. My lower level educational courses have never offered me much insight into the classroom, but the higher level ones focused on teacher and learner strategies, with lots of reflection and analysis. These have helped me immensely in the classroom.

Teaching a second language is a strange bird. In some ways it is similar to that of other subjects, but in others it is far removed. It does require additional training, and even that fails to meet the multitude of dynamics that teachers will encounter from place to place. I have no doubt that deep study of linguistics is fascinating and certainly requires quite a lot of grey matter. But by itself it doesn't make a person prepared to be a teacher in most environments. Perhaps the other poster is prepared to be a very interesting lecturer, or can turn the truly bright and inspired into supernovas, but teaching the masses takes more than subject knowledge.

Years back, when I was about to do my student teaching (high school history) I was worried that I didn't have enough subject knowledge. I had done far more than the required study, but felt I had to many gaps. When I actually started teaching, I found that the subject knowledge requirement was actually quite small and I never met any teachers within 20 years of my age as having more. The challenge was the actual teaching. Since that time my hierarchy has been; experience, pedagogical training, and finally subject content.

I applaud those who explore the depths of their content fields. It makes you not only more knowledgable, but also more inspiring. I don't applaud those who explore only the content portion and dismiss the rest. Collecting knowledge, is the easier and more enjoyable part. That's why students pay and teachers get paid.

[veiledsentiments]

Well G of J,

I guess we should just give Angelique a little break. She is, after all, correct that even those theoretical classes - that so many criticize as unnecessary - will help her in her teaching. I don't think she intended to sound as if she knew all the answers.

If her theoretical classes allow her to go into the classroom feeling a bit more secure, more power to her. Those of us who have taught know how it feels to be out of our depth - regularly. With every new group of students, you wonder how they are going to challenge you.

I too have my original degree in Sec Ed, but a double major in business and English (literature, of course) - with at least some student teaching. With that and my MA, after about 10 years or so in the classroom, I actually felt that I knew what I was doing - most of the time.

VS

[guest of Japan]

You're probably right VS. Perhaps it is me displaying too much haughtiness.

[Tuttifruitti]

Hi guest,

While I can see what angel means about the advantages of having a good knowledge of the content, personally I would agree that there is no substitute for experience. I think it's knowing what to do with the content in the context presented that's important.

I too have great admiration for those who wish to 'delve deeper' into their content area, especially those who work full time and study. As you say, it definitely makes them more knowledgeable and inspiring. But I feel it is a bit naive to think that good knowledge of a content area is enough to make a good EFL teacher.

T