VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:29:13 02/12/06 Sun
Author: Devin Bramel
Subject: Re: Choral Vs. Instrumental
In reply to: Bradley Jayne 's message, "Choral Vs. Instrumental" on 10:57:31 02/12/06 Sun

At this point in our careers it may seem useless to study choir or instruments if we know we want nothing to do with one of those in our futures. However, consider the following scenario. A college graduate is interviewing for a high school choral director position. However, during the interview, the potential teacher discovers that, because of a scheduling conflict with the band director, part of the choir director job would entail teaching beginning band as well. If this person had only specialized in choir and had no instrumental training, they would have no chance of getting hired. (The same would hold true for a teacher who wants to teach high school band only to find that they must also teach choir.)
My point is that although our degree does not allow much for specialized training, it does provide a solid foundation that will allow graduates to be successful in any area. (One can always specialize in graduate school, anyway.) Besides, although we may be certain at this point that we want nothing to do with instruments (or choir), we have no way of knowing what jobs will be available. If you want to get paid, you have to accept whatever jobs are available; the odds of finding your dream job right out of college are probably close to 1,000,000 to 1, anyway. Flexibility and willingness to adapt are, in my opinion, essential traits of the college graduate.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Re: Choral Vs. Instrumental -- John Padley, 19:40:09 02/12/06 Sun [1]

I believe that the education we get at heidelberg is much more useful than that of other colleges and universities that teach only in a specific area. Our education is not deep, but it is broad. Our education here teaches us where to find the information we'll need in the future. We learn where to look and who to talk to to learn more after we graduate. Our education stresses that we won't know nearly enough when we graduate, but some of those other schools tell students that they will know everything when they graduate. Other big schools claim that they give students a license to teach, but heidelberg gives us a license to learn. In the long run, though, it all depends on the student. If the student wants to learn and wants to be an excellent teacher, he/she will. Everything depends on the student's desire to learn, not what the school teaches them.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Choral Vs. Instrumental -- Dr. O., 07:50:13 02/13/06 Mon [1]

This is another interesting discussion link. There have been many conversations among the music faculty about this very issue. The discussions always come down to two basic points:
1) The music licensure is ages 3-21, instrumental and vocal. Since that is the licensure that our graduates will hold, it makes good sense philosophically to develop a curriculum which incompasses those teaching areas.
2) There is considerable evidence that, as some of you point out, first jobs in music tend to be in smaller schools where the teacher is likely to be teaching a variety of subject areas rather than specializing in a single area. We have had many examples of our alums getting hired because they were able to teach the broad range of music courses and ensembles.

Remember that there are other divisions within the music discipline which are even more important than the "instrumental vs. choral" argument. For example, once someone decides that their specialty is going to be elementary classroom music they have no real need of any of the secondary methods courses either in MUS or EDU. To strictly serve their career interest, they would be better off taking courses in Orff, Kodaly, or Dalcroze certification and doing all their field work in elementary music. For that matter, they probably have no professional need to be in ensembles in college, or study applied music, since they won't be working in any of those areas. The obvious fallacy in this argument is that there isn't a lower primary music teaching license. Even if that is the career interest, the licensure is broader than that.

John's statement about breadth in the curriculum is valid: there are lots of opportunities to add depth in specialty areas (jazz, marching band, show choir, musical production, etc.) through summer workshops. If you check MEJ, you'll see lots of those workshops offered throughout the country. In fact, we're going to start offering some of them ourselves, perhaps as soon as this summer.

By its very nature, the undergraduate degree is intended to be a broad preparation in music teaching, with each person working to develop their own teaching areas further as they specialize professionally. Incidentally, this is one reason states are now requiring graduate work: to be sure that teachers do pursue further education in their teaching fields.

I can't believe that anyone hiring a first-year teacher expects them to know everything in their field. Rather, they recognize that first-year teachers bring an enthusiasm and energy peculiar to younger teachers, as well as very up-to-date methodology, since they just left college. Content knowledge for a first-year teacher is always going to be less than for a veteran teacher, but on the other hand, the first-year person is a lot cheaper to hire! First-year teachers are a lot like the quote from my favorite old basketball coach, Al McGuire: "The best thing about freshmen is that they become sophomores."


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.