TubeNet

My wife (flute) 's university is always LOOKING for a terminal degree for all of the applied faculty.

Well, while doing my undergrad, one of the trombone teachers earned his bachelors while teaching there. He walked when I did. He had been teaching there for a couple of years with no degree at all.

I heard a rumor (I know, shame on me) that a certain well-known retired tuba player who now lives somewhere in Colorado was snubbed by a big university for not having a degree, so now he teaches at a smaller university. Of course, I have no way of knowing if it is true or not.

However, if it is true, they missed out big-time...

To be an adjunct instructor at most schools you needs to show "Mastery" in playing and teaching. Often this means a masters degree, sometimes (especially in a conservatory setting) mastery is proven by resume and other credentials rather than a degree earned. Rarely is adjunct teaching someones "real job."

To be a tenure track professor a masters degree is almost always required and a doctorate is usually what is expected. I was hired ABD, but I still intend to finish my dissertation.

You can be a full time adjunct, but that is different that being a tenure track professor. The difference is in rank and pay and other things, but also there are expectations of research or other scholarly activity, community service, service to the profession, etc.

I have heard many on this board criticize schools for requiring degrees rather than just hiring the best player. This logic is flawed because the job of a professor is a whole lot more than teaching lessons.

Gorilla Tuba wrote:I have heard many on this board criticize schools for requiring degrees rather than just hiring the best player. This logic is flawed because the job of a professor is a whole lot more than teaching lessons.

... and the JOB of teaching lessons involves the ability to teach, which does not come automatically with the ability to play the best

bloke wrote:The lowest percentage of multi-degreed faculty would probably be found in the two most exclusive conservatories:

Juilliard

Curtis

I believe IU should be in that group....they do not, to my knowledge, require other than proven performance mastery to teach an instrument at full professor level, unless that has changed. A guy I went to high school with is prof of trumpet there; I ran into him at a reunion a few years ago, and commented he must have his phD to be teaching there...and he commented back that he had trouble getting his bachelor's degree. He was a fine tpt player in HS, too.

MA

The poll left out one popular option: a DMA degree in Performance and Pedagogy.

This kind of degree balances playing and teaching. There is some research involved (usually a DMA essay), several degree recitals (usually 3-7), and numerous courses in brass pedagogy and literature. Some require foreign language study at the graduate level?!

Brass players receive enough training to teach trumpet, horn, euphonium, tuba and trombone at a fairly high level (enough to work with advanced HS players or average college students). Ideal for starter jobs where one brass teacher wears many hats.

Performance/Pedagogy degrees help prepare a person to do a good job teaching methods classes on instruments other than their own. DMA grads should be able to teach their primary instrument at a high level, and play professionally. (As is the case with any degree, there are some good graduates and weak ones.)

Performance-only degrees may be limiting when it comes time for a job search at many universities. Unless a candidate has secondary skills (conducting, theory, history, jazz, composition, technology, education) or has held a major orchestral/top military position they might find it hard to land that first college-teaching position. To give their students an edge, Indiana requires doctoral students to study a minor field--history or theory. Now that there are so many people running around with doctorates, this isn't much of an edge.

A lot of it has to do with who the college/university WANTS their image to be.

Some hire based on (not in any sort of order here):
a) degrees - what looks good on the letterhead.
b) the "name" - having a name students and parents recognize will be a huge factor in students attending the school.
c) the ability to teach - having teachers that know how to teach (as well as play), acting in the best interests of the student.

Some students learn by listening to their teacher. In this case, it is good to study with someone from a conservatory, such as Julliard. However, some need to learn by being told what to do. In this case, it's probably best to be taught by someone with a degree from college/university.

In my opinion, taking a tuba lesson from someone with a doctorate means very little. What matters is HOW THEY TEACH. This is why many schools "audition" teachers by watching them teach lessons.

I guess maybe things are different in the USA, but that's how they are done in Canada. Also, usually the person who teaches also holds a principal position with the city's orchestra.

We are talking about private lesson instructors at the college/university level, right? A totally different ideology applies for those who teach academic courses.

bloke wrote:From college students (rather than teachers), I would like to see some comments regarding the idea of running state universities along the lines of the conservatory model...Not completely, of course, but where (when possible)

There are pluses and minuses to this approach. To play devil's (professor's) advocate:

Most of the music students at public universities are music education majors. Even in the applied studio, these students will benefit from studying with somebody who has actually set foot (taught) in the public schools. If their teacher has not taught at the HS level, they should at least be familiar with approaches used in public school settings. There are lots of teaching and classroom discipline tricks band directors know that orchestrally minded players may not know. Learning how to phrase and play an instrument at a high level is only a small part of becoming a good music educator. How do you teach dotted rhythms to fifth graders? There are many approaches--better have a few ideas in your bag of tricks or the kids will eat you alive.

There is more to life than mastering excerpts--while many orchestral players are well versed in all aspects of playing, there are many others who focused solely on the art of winning an audition during their schooling. (Perhaps this is why so many of today's recordings are technically perfect but emotionally dull.) Sometimes this may mean that a given player has a less well-rounded knowledge of the pedagogical repertoire. Excerpts are only a small part of the equation for music majors, but for some conservatory players, make up a large portion of study. Etudes and solos should comprise the majority of an undergraduate's playing diet. (Occasionally this is overlooked by purely orchestral players in teaching situations.)

Many of the best players are the worst teachers. (OK, too much of a generalization, but I bet many people have experienced what I'm talking about.) People who have struggled through every possible chop problem are more apt to be able to help a young player overcome difficulties. (Teachers who have worked through personal difficulties may be less likely to hold major orchestral jobs than players who have had fewer physical challenges. A guess? )

The following important tasks are more easily handled by full-time faculty rather than adjuncts (it would cost too much to pay adjuncts to do these tasks):
-recruiting in the high schools on a regular basis
-supervising graduate projects (final degree papers/recitals)
-hiring committees
-teaching methods classes that meet more than one day a week
-attending as many student performances as possible (students benefit from having their teacher attend performances to provide support and monitor progress. This can help build a positive program. Given the nature of orchestral schedules, it can be tough for full-time players to attend many student performances.)
-be available on a daily basis for advising, motivation, and exchanging ideas
-curriculum committees and other necissary evils of running a music program
-keep an eye on the practice area, noticing and reinforcing good practice habits

The other side of the equation has many positive aspects as well. There are definite duds in the academic world. It is no wonder that people who perform every week in a professional orchestral job are often better players than many college professors (but not always). Likewise, there are many weak players who are hanging on to jobs in good orchestras . . . tenure can be good/bad in colleges and orchestras.

bloke wrote:
bloke "arguing with you mostly because you were not invited to answer"

I was looking for an emoticon with it's tongue out

I would go one step further and say that music education students need better instruction than performance majors. Somebody has to reverse the downward trend of music in our schools. Playing at a high level is easy, especially if a person doesn't run into chop problems. Teachers at the top conservatories have their pick of students that are already close to beinig able to win jobs. Is it harder to teach polished students like this, or the average music major who walks in off the street, with a bag full o' bad habits?

Playing devil's advocate requires sweeping generalizations that don't hold up to close scrutiny!

In spite of what I said in my earlier post, there are tons of fabulous orchestral players who teach college. I was just representing one extreme example.

There are several principal players and many section players in XX symphony that are weak musicians (terrible intonation and flat expression or a love of chainsaws with no concept of phrasing).

The idea that some orchestral player/teachers neglect to teach music comes from hearing too many college-aged "excerpt jocks" who are unable to read or phrase music at sight. Then again, it is probably the fault of the student.

The tenure comment was just to say that there are teachers and orchestral players who don't deserve tenure in their respective positions.

And finally the poll was originally intended for people who teach college. Your de-invitation makes me want to take my stuff and leave the party. You will be missing out on trying out my new Stainless Steel Hot Pink Kellyberg (SSHPK).

OK bloke, I'm one of those people who ALWAYS thinks of themselves as a student (but may not be in the age group you're looking for... )

First of all, I've seen the conservatory model not work in an university. I've seen it fail where the adjuncts were so worried about their own playing gigs (and rightfully so, since the university was "saving money" by just paying for the adjunct part, not full-time) that they weren't at all helping the students who weren't raised in the conservatory environment (self-directed or die), nor should they have been, since the students would have gone there instead if they were truly self-directed and serious about playing. For most, if not all programs, applied tuba (and/or euphonium) just isn't a full time job.

So how do you make it a full time gig and get the type of students you've got IN your school the type of teaching they're paying for? By adding something else, be it history, methods, theory, or whatever. And how should someone who is seriously looking into a university gig prepare for getting one? By getting some backround in another subject, which usually means an advanced degree.

Should you be able to play your *** off? Yes. But, unless you're a trumpet teacher, expect either to spend some contact time teaching a class as well, or put your school behind your gigging. Should paying students be happy with that? (plus, while you may be able to play, it doesn't automatically mean you can do more than just grunt at the students, or tell them what works for YOU).

[side note] Why is Bill Bell considered a GOD? He could both PLAY and TEACH.

Mudman wrote:I was looking for an emoticon with it's tongue out

Here:

My favorite quote on this issue comes from Richard Davis. He often says he holds a doctorate from the Sarah Vaughan Academy.....And he does.


The only other thing I can add is another quote from a trombonist friend of mine who says, "A bad music teacher has to listen to bad music all day".

I've heard that Your Name Here guy play before, and I wasn't ALL THAT impressed...

It is very interesting reading all the debate about performance degrees etc. In the UK, it was virtually impossible until fairly recently to apply for a Ph.D in performance. (although honorary doctorates have been the case for some time - e.g. Lambeth degrees for Church music etc.)

Admittedly certain colleges do offer this qualification now, but I suspect that there is still some degree of academic snobbery from the majority academic players regarding the granting of Doctorate status for performance studies.

I am not denying the efficacy of an educational system that offers doctorates in performance but am rather questioning how the two disciplines measure up in terms of academic rigour.

In short - I would be very interested in finding out, just what level of academic research is required for a performance doctorate , and whether the degree is afforded equivalent staus to a more tradition musicology doctorate.