History teachers and solicitors i want to hear from you

PasturesNew

I know a prosecuting solicitor who has to live in another county from where they work because of the trouble they can experience in the job from the gobby baddies. They've experienced intimidating stares/jostles on the way into court, being called all names under the sun, having their car broken into in the court car park - and when their name was accidentally released in the lead up to a high profile case they had a break in at home and their first thought was "it's them".

So, it's easier to live a long way away. Oh - and definitely be ex-directory too.

PasturesNew

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I'm afraid you're being over optimistic on this one as well. Let's face it, would you want your children to be taught a subject by someone without a degree in it?

I don't think it matters one jot... so long as the subject is known and the person knows how to teach, I feel a degree is irrelevant at many ages.

Teachers never used to have degrees. About 23 years ago, I answered an advert in the paper for a part-time teacher at a school, I applied, got the job - no previous experience or training, no degree. I did well, I doubled the exam pass rate and the head teacher wrote good reports when he dropped in for teaching appraisals mid-lesson. I only did it for a year as it was part-time, 10 miles from home and the job was to cover somebody's sick leave - and I needed a full-time income... but they did ask me if I'd take on teaching their GCSE course in Business Studies, so I must have been doing something right.

Retrospectively ... I should have said yes and moved closer ... but hindsight's wonderful isn't it.

chewmylegoff

dmg24 wrote: »

Sorry to tell you this, you will not get a position at Eversheds with a 2.2. To be honest, considering the current situation in the legal industry, I would be surprised if you get any offers with a 2.2.

unless it's oxbridge, and even then...

that said, the most decent law firms would just chuck CV in the bin when they see 2.2 on it, the OP seems to have at least managed to get over that hurdle.

dmg24

chewmylegoff wrote: »

unless it's oxbridge, and even then...

that said, the most decent law firms would just chuck CV in the bin when they see 2.2 on it, the OP seems to have at least managed to get over that hurdle.

Even an Oxbridge 2.2 will rarely be looked at. There are far too many better qualified candidates.

As Eversheds have stopped recruiting indefinitely, I doubt that he has managed to get over that hurdle. AFAIK the letters that they sent out stated that applications received during the current campaign (which they closed unexpectedly) would be considered when they reopened the campaign (which may be September 2010 or later). No one was guaranteed interviews.

Oldernotwiser

PasturesNew wrote: »

I don't think it matters one jot... so long as the subject is known and the person knows how to teach, I feel a degree is irrelevant at many ages.

Teachers never used to have degrees. About 23 years ago, I answered an advert in the paper for a part-time teacher at a school, I applied, got the job - no previous experience or training, no degree.

Teaching only became an all graduate profession in the 70s so times have definitely changed but, even then, there were 3 year teacher training courses.

I don't see how you can argue that "the subject is known and the person knows how to teach" unless the person in question has actaully studied both the subject and the skills of teaching. These things don't just happen!

SandC

PasturesNew wrote: »

I don't think it matters one jot... so long as the subject is known and the person knows how to teach, I feel a degree is irrelevant at many ages.

Teachers never used to have degrees. About 23 years ago, I answered an advert in the paper for a part-time teacher at a school, I applied, got the job - no previous experience or training, no degree. I did well, I doubled the exam pass rate and the head teacher wrote good reports when he dropped in for teaching appraisals mid-lesson. I only did it for a year as it was part-time, 10 miles from home and the job was to cover somebody's sick leave - and I needed a full-time income... but they did ask me if I'd take on teaching their GCSE course in Business Studies, so I must have been doing something right.

Retrospectively ... I should have said yes and moved closer ... but hindsight's wonderful isn't it.

I guess it depends on the subject and always has done. History to me says you should have a degree in the subject - otherwise surely you'd be swotting up on the syllabus every year? It's a heck of a lot of background knowledge to have on a subject teaching ages 11 to 16. Is this part of the reason why teachers are often so hard pressed for time, because they are having to learn their own subject?

Business Studies however is more general and a lot of knowledge of the subject taught at degree level can be gained just by working in a variety of industries for a few years.

Can't have been GCSE though could it? That was brought in the year after I left school, 1988.

little_sarah_2

I'm afraid that History teaching is a very competitive field.
When I trained 2 years ago, there were over 200 applicants for 60 places on the PGCE course (and I believe that the TDA is cutting the number of places available too). As a result, there were no non History specialists on the course as far as I know, and no-one had a lower classification than a 2:1. A good number of people also had MAs in History or related subjects.

It's also quite difficult to find jobs even in London - if you look at the TES jobs website, you'll notice that there are a lot less History jobs available.

It is possible to get onto a course, but I'd suggest that you get lots of classroom experience before applying - working as an LSA for a History department might be a good way in.

Garlicbread

Unfortunately teaching is not the profession it used to be. The area that I live in is so short of teachers that you can have a degree in any discipline, do a one year course and become an NQT. I know of a teacher who thought it hillarious that they were teaching GCSE Maths when they only scrapped a C in the subject themselves. It's far too easy to become a teacher these days and is sometimes chosen by people who like the idea of a career that is respected but don't have the credentials to do something equally as professional. That's why the phrase 'those who can't, teach' evolved from the teaching recruitment campaign. I don't want to appear to be slating the teaching profession - it is one of the most difficult jobs out there. I'm simply saying that a course lasting a year doesn't seem anywhere near enough time to learn what is needed to be a competent teacher. And unfortunately this impacts on the quality of education delivered in some of our schools. It certainly takes exceptional people to become successful teachers. It's a very demanding job indeed.