texkam wrote in post #17527009
I found these requirements (below) for a Photojournalism position at my local community college. I know someone who was good enough to win a Pulitzer, and work over 30 years as a photographer for one of the best newspapers around, but that's not good enough to be an adjunct Photojournalism professor at a community college? Wonder how many other top pros couldn't make the cut. Lots of great shooters out there with no masters.
- - - - Master’s degree or higher in Journalism or Photo-Journalism, or Master’s degree or higher in a related field with at least 18 graduate hours in Photo-Journalism or in Journalism with an emphasis on Photo-Journalism.- - - -
I am hoping your title was seriously just an attempt to grab attention and not your stance... I am going to assume that you are honestly looking to understand why though.
Most job ads and classifieds as well as positions in education are created by a Human Resources office in conjunction with lawyers so that the language does not get them into legal issues down the road. One should NOT assume that the description is directly connected to educators, professors, or someone who has said experience in that field. Why? Because everyone who is not an educator has mandated for quite a long time many of the ways education is run and it's many facets. Even in post-secondary it has become subject to many federal and state laws that cause a schism between what the average person assumes and what is reality.
Now back to the classified, because of the need to meet certain legal requirements and because quite often the first step of the employment process is NOT handled by anyone with an educational background you have generic requirements put together that match a legal description of the position. This is done because every penny is accounted for, and time spent on sifting through resumes and applications is money lost. Do I personally agree with this? As someone who has been a part of the hiring process in my previous jobs and as someone who is also an educator I see both sides... you can easily lose good applicants that are non-traditional because of this but it streamlines the process for that human resources person responsible for being the first line in the application process.
Quite often though with ingenuity, people that do not meet these requirements but have an extensive background in the field can still manage to get into interviews. It isn't difficult with a little bit of work, networking, or understanding of the system. As has been addressed by other comments part of being hired into a position is understanding how things function in that system. Hiring someone with those minimal qualifications usually (not always) assures that they at least have familiarity with the system that their students would be going through.
Now as to talented people doing and the untalented being teachers... that is self aggrandizing at it's best... in any population you will always have a top percentage that are above and beyond everyone else in that field period - true geniuses. There will then be a layer that is talented above the norm but not genius, and a layer that is just above the norm, those that are at the norm and etc... Just like in ANY industry you get a mixture of all those in education as well. I have met and worked with some people that could easily be in a field of industry and be in those upper layers but choose not to.
Also just being able to do something does not qualify you to teach it. I had a geometry professor teaching a 201 level course. For his day job he was a civil engineer, Russian immigrant that had graduated from a top academy, and had some rather impressive credentials. While sitting in that class I KNEW the guy was legit. He knew his stuff forwards and backwards and could demonstrate his knowledge with ease... but he failed miserably at being able to TEACH the material to those of us who were not on his level. There were only 4 of us in a class of 16 that were even holding a passing grade... and none of us had better than a middling B. We struggled translating what he was saying into something usable for the average non-math genius. This is just one of various examples I have of going through college courses with professors that are well versed in their arena but not in the arena of actual education.
I have also had teachers and professors that are not, and self-professed btw, the most experienced in a field, but could teach the concepts and ideas of their given educational field to a 5 year old in a manner that would allow them to grasp complex items.
I could go on and on in this post, but not sure if I want to wade too far into a debate as I am merely assuming what your stance is... and assuming it was meant in honest good faith...instead of in the manner that most of society appears to perceive the field of education or educators altogether...
BTW - full disclosure I am a high school teacher, I have been in military service, worked in industry, and at a point recognized I got personal satisfaction from teaching. Take that fwiw, but hopefully you don't take that as I became a teacher because I was too incompetent to do anything otherwise...
Gear: Nikon D750, Nikon D7200, Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS, Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS HSM EX , Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR1, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, Tamron 28-300mm Di VC PZD, Tamron 16-300mm VC PZD, Tamron 150-600 VC, Nikon AF-S 50mm 1.8, Nikon SB-900
POTN Seller Feedback (and other)