5016 highschool
From Studyplace
As I mentioned in class, I have a question: What work is being done to differentiate (or "track") students at TC, in the Anthro & Ed program, and especially (locally) in classes like 5016? In what ways might they (we) be tracked? What is the rationale behind such moves? What effects might these moves be having on learning? How do we feel about it?
Also, how is the socio-political landscape of TC/A&E structured to support this kind of tracking, and similarly, what openings might this landscape afford for moving differently? In essence, what else might be possible, are these possibilities better, and how do we mobilize available resources to get that done?
Here's a quote from our syllabus:
"My goal in this course is to get students to think further about education as something that all human beings are ubiquitously and continually do[ing], practically, to themselves and to each other.
For students in professional tracks (MA and EdD), this means that they will face the fact that schools, and all other forms of professional educational practice, are only one setting or set of voices that will be heard within a chorus of other voices in other settings.
For students in research tracks (EdD and PhD), this means that they will come to phrase their research projects, even if focused on schools and other settings for expert practice, in a way that acknowledges the partial character of these institutions." - couldn't help myself from changing a few bits of grammar.
Getting a MA and getting a PhD are two different things therefore I think it is only fair that professors expect different things from PhD students then they do from MA students. To have PhD students in the same classes as the MA students leaves me wondering what the differences between the two programs are, other than the colloquium, and also leaves me wondering what I will have left to do, again, other than designing my own research, after I have achieved my MA. The differences between the two tracks outlined in the syllabus and replicated above seem not to apply to me because I intend on pursuing a PhD after obtaining my MA therefore I am already formulating research ideas admittedly to a lesser extent than PhD students. When two different degrees are being obtained in the end tracking students makes sense, it has to. If there were more differences between the two tracks I would be more confident that Teachers College had more experience and knowledge to offer me and I would reconsider my decision to leave Teachers College and moving on to another university after obtaining my Masters here.
As to the question why there are two degrees in the first place one would have to understand the history of education and the field of anthropology. It may be that PhD s exist to keep people out of the field of anthropology who are not serious about it or to prevent people who are not learned from infiltrating the social entity that the field has created. It seems that anthropology is one of those fields that anyone who as an interesting idea and a sound hypothesis could do but these degrees exist to keep these people from doing so. How many flawed ethnographies, written as PhD dissertations or written by doctors of anthropolgy, have we read? It raises the question of the importance of these degrees and why laypersons, if they follow ethical guidelines are prevented from practicing anthropology?
Previous Discussion Classrooms: Comparative Perspectives--Next Discussion College: Friendship, Love (Academics?)
