TubeNet

What topics did you cover in your MM/DMA thesis'? Is there a list of them from low brass players? I'm guessing they would be interesting to read... Is there a 'masterlist' out there, or do I have to go to each school's library (online) and dig around..?

That was the 'scholar' in me that just snuck out. I must now counter him with grabbing a pizza a watching the NCIS marathon until I fall asleep.

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/jul2001 ... 61604.html

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/jan2002 ... 82015.html

My Master thesis was about fatigue on zinc plated cold-drawn steel wire.
Anybody interested????

One of my old band directors told me many years ago that "A MM is just really about getting More Money--it looks good behind your name, on a resume and that's all its good for". Would anyone disagree with that?

JJ

TUBAD83 wrote:One of my old band directors told me many years ago that "A MM is just really about getting More Money--it looks good behind your name, on a resume and that's all its good for". Would anyone disagree with that?

JJ

I would.

*any* degree has two, distinct, types of worth:

a) what you gained by putting in the effort
b) advertisement to the world - not so much about what you did, but the fact that you *finished* it.

Some people go 90% of the way and then say "I don't need a piece of paper". Others say "it's just a piece of paper". They are both wrong.

It is what it is - no more, and no less.

So...did your "old band director" *have* a MM?

sloan wrote:

TUBAD83 wrote:One of my old band directors told me many years ago that "A MM is just really about getting More Money--it looks good behind your name, on a resume and that's all its good for". Would anyone disagree with that?

JJ

I would.

*any* degree has two, distinct, types of worth:

a) what you gained by putting in the effort
b) advertisement to the world - not so much about what you did, but the fact that you *finished* it.

Some people go 90% of the way and then say "I don't need a piece of paper". Others say "it's just a piece of paper". They are both wrong.

It is what it is - no more, and no less.

So...did your "old band director" *have* a MM?

Yes he does...and he got it to get a raise (which he received before the ink was dry on his new diploma). With that in mind, would a MM (or any graduate degree for that matter) still be as valuable if there was no economic incentive--if there was no raise, promotion, or better paying gig waiting? I wonder how many music schools would even offer a MM under such a condition?

TUBAD83 wrote:One of my old band directors told me many years ago that "A MM is just really about getting More Money--it looks good behind your name, on a resume and that's all its good for". Would anyone disagree with that?

JJ

Most public school educators feel this way because they are trapped in a tiered system that doesn't reward performance. So to get a "raise", they have to have the next degree. I know folks with a PhD who are classroom teachers. They do okay, I guess, in terms of pay.

Because of the system, a lot of teachers will feel that the Master's of _______, is only tied to pay. And that is shown in many of them now going to online coursework just to get the credits. So they roll through the coursework (for which they usually have to pay out of pocket, another issue), and get the degree to make a few more dollars. The thing is that they are often being exposed to additional knowledge, but they choose whether or not to leverage it.

One other issue with a Master's degree is that it is an "in-between" degree. Most professional jobs don't need it, and it won't gain access to most university-level academic jobs. There are people who do get this level of degree to gain additional knowledge or to switch fields. However, if their is one level of degree that seems to be most tied to "money", I would agree it is the Master's level degree.

TUBAD83 wrote:

Yes he does...and he got it to get a raise (which he received before the ink was dry on his new diploma). With that in mind, would a MM (or any graduate degree for that matter) still be as valuable if there was no economic incentive--if there was no raise, promotion, or better paying gig waiting? I wonder how many music schools would even offer a MM under such a condition?

Well then, at least his MM demonstrates an ability to deal with administrative rules and regulations. That's something.

The fact that he viewed it as "just for the money" is disturbing. I'd put it in the same category as a student saying that "learning scales is just about the audition".

Note that a high school teacher who "gets a raise" as a direct result of earning an MM is essentially getting the opportunity for education in music FOR FREE (yes, he does have to front the money - but I'm sure the raise covers those expenses fairly quickly). What do we have to say about a music teacher who turns up his nose at learning about music - and being paid for it? That he already knows everything he cares to know about music?

Is an MM "valuable" for people who don't get a raise? Of course it is - but now the question is whether they can afford the tuition. Perhaps, for them, the value doesn't equal the cost.

And, of course, it depends on the particular program. Some schools are worth what they cost - and perhaps some are not.

The acid test for an individual student might be: when you finish your BM, are there still courses you wish you had taken but could not take because you ran out of time (damn those pesky "distribution requirements" that made you waste time on history and English and economics and...). A Master's degree says (more or less) "I've taken all the formal course-work there is in this field; I've seen it all". A Bachelor's degree says "I've been broadly educated, with lots of extra courses in my Major". Thus, a BM says that you know a lot about Music - and a MM says that they have nothing more to teach you (in terms or formal coursework).

The next level is about creating new knowledge.

In terms of actual working knowledge, a Master's is the approximate equivalent of 5 years of professional work in the field. If it were just about knowledge, then perhaps teachers should get that raise based on experience rather than a MM. But, if *all* you do is teach during those 5 years, have you really gotten 5 years of professional experience in music? You have experience in teaching - but have you learned anything more to teach? Have you perhaps gotten 1 year of experience, 5 times. It's difficult to judge.

And finally, perhaps school boards want to reward teachers who have the *desire* to get that extra experience. If I were hiring a new HS band director who told me "I don't have any interest in pursuing a MM - even if you pay for it", that person would go directly to the bottom of the hiring list. Alas, by directly tieing the money to the MM, the school board will end up hiring (and giving raises to) teachers who are "just doing it for the money". That's a risk they take. I suppose there's always hope that the teachers "forced" to do a MM might actually learn something along the way, against their will.

I believe that a Masters of Music is a beneficial thing for the extra knowledge you gain, as well as the added credibility and time spent in the stacks of a library. The only thing that's stopping me from getting mine is money. It's the most expensive piece of paper you'll ever receive, and whatever thesis is written gets written to the benefit of the writer more than the audience.

As for the original question: dig around, by all means. There's skeletons to be found in any library, and more online. All of them can help write the all-important thesis.

Matthew Gilchrest wrote:

TUBAD83 wrote:One of my old band directors told me many years ago that "A MM is just really about getting More Money--it looks good behind your name, on a resume and that's all its good for". Would anyone disagree with that?

JJ

Most public school educators feel this way because they are trapped in a tiered system that doesn't reward performance. So to get a "raise", they have to have the next degree. I know folks with a PhD who are classroom teachers. They do okay, I guess, in terms of pay.

You missed one point though, and I hope people realized this and just forgot to mention....

Teachers are required to further their education is most/all states in the country. You have to continually take classes just to be able to teach (some number of them every 5 years). For most teachers, it is much easier to just get a masters if you're going to take those classes. (This of course goes with the exception of a few years when teachers were granted permanent licenses).

This also opens up another interesting point: What if teachers were not based on a tier pay schedule but for performance. How would performance be measured? Likely, it would become a "who has the better national student testing scores". And then, what would we really be teaching our students/children? We'd all be teaching to the test because it's the easiest way to get a raise or not get fired.

Teachers are required to further their education is most/all states in the country. You have to continually take classes just to be able to teach (some number of them every 5 years). For most teachers, it is much easier to just get a masters if you're going to take those classes. (This of course goes with the exception of a few years when teachers were granted permanent licenses).

This is true, but there are a lot of "easy" ways to get those continuing education points without having to do real classes. If a teacher already has a family, getting a master's is quite hard, but the continuing education points are normally pretty easy.

This also opens up another interesting point: What if teachers were not based on a tier pay schedule but for performance. How would performance be measured? Likely, it would become a "who has the better national student testing scores". And then, what would we really be teaching our students/children? We'd all be teaching to the test because it's the easiest way to get a raise or not get fired.

How is performance measured in the "real world". The best companies use a mix of internal metrics, product performance metrics, and customer feedback. Sure, those tests would get used, but there are also other viable metrics. The reason I like charter schools is that they are very reflexive with positive feedback. Since they can break free from the tiered system, they can/will reward teachers who do receive positive feedback from students and (especially) parents. Showing up on time, helping with committees, and being a positive employee are also measurable. Schools could pay in regards to this metric as well, but most are stuck with the tiered system.

IMHO, standardized tests and standardized pay have evolved hand in hand. Both are easy tools for lazy bureaucracies to use.

Matthew Gilchrest wrote:
How is performance measured in the "real world". The best companies use a mix of internal metrics, product performance metrics, and customer feedback. Sure, those tests would get used, but there are also other viable metrics. The reason I like charter schools is that they are very reflexive with positive feedback. Since they can break free from the tiered system, they can/will reward teachers who do receive positive feedback from students and (especially) parents. Showing up on time, helping with committees, and being a positive employee are also measurable. Schools could pay in regards to this metric as well, but most are stuck with the tiered system.

IMHO, standardized tests and standardized pay have evolved hand in hand. Both are easy tools for lazy bureaucracies to use.

Your point is noted, however it negates the actual public school system. Yep, charter schools tend to do a more rounded way of teacher evaluation. Public schools would likely have more pressure from the government and less desire to spend the time/resources to evaluated teachers properly. In an ideal scenario, yes a non-tiered system, would be desirable. But in today's climate, I am not sure it would go as smoothly as one would hope. So I agree, that ideally it would be good, however I don't think it would pan out that way.

On the subject of MM:

I had the opportunity to pursue a Masters this fall at a good school with a very good teacher and an outstanding commercial program (IE probably lead to studio opportunities) I ultimately had to turn it down. WHY? They don't offer full scholarships at the grad level, only partial. And since their endownment has taken a beating and is only worth about 40% of what it once was, they aren't giving out 5 digit scholarships. I thought about this long and hard, and I could not justify an additional 50-75 thousand dollars worth of student loans based on what my expected increase in purely tuba earnings would be.

(As a side note, if I ever do wrote a thesis it will probably "Blokepiece® I vs. Blokepiece® II" and ultimately become a made-for-cable movie.)

My thesis, covering mostly birdwatching and the theory of endemism applied to Antarctic ecosystems, is due to be published next May. I have already completed it, but the school insists on pairing the publication with graduation for some reason I do not comprehend.

Biggs wrote:My thesis, covering mostly birdwatching and the theory of endemism applied to Antarctic ecosystems, is due to be published next May. I have already completed it, but the school insists on pairing the publication with graduation for some reason I do not comprehend.

Perhaps the school does not trust its own ability to judge the validity of your thesis.

jon112780 wrote:What topics did you cover in your MM/DMA thesis'? Is there a list of them from low brass players? I'm guessing they would be interesting to read... Is there a 'masterlist' out there, or do I have to go to each school's library (online) and dig around..?

I would imagine that, like other data bases (e.g., Fish and Fisheries, MathSciNet, etc.), there is one (or several) for music and you could input a few search terms and see what kind of hits you get. Many universities require that thesis and dissertation abstracts are published with one of the larger abstracting services (e.g., ProQuest). Online databases often have a box that can be checked for "Theses and Dissertations Only" or will specify a sub-database that consists of theses and dissertations. You'll probably have to go to a library to use their database subscriptions. As a Master's or PhD student, it would be your responsibility to evaluate any knowledge gaps in the primary literature. Knowing how to research a topic is a skill, one that should (hopefully) be learned during your undergraduate degree.

Reference librarians are employed to help people use the library's resources effectively. I have no doubt that a reference librarian would be happy to teach you how to research this very topic. Having specifics, like searching theses and dissertations, only makes it easier.

As far as my MS thesis, it can be found here. Unless you're into fisheries bioenergetics models, fish metabolism, or fish physiology, you probably won't find it very exciting.

With regards to how useful an MM is for the humanities (i.e., music), I really have no idea. However, in the fisheries and wildlife fields, an MS is all but required for any kind of job above a technician. If you're happy to do someone else's research and never have the opportunity to do any real science, by all means, stick with a BS. If, however, you'd like to get paid more than $30,000/year, it's almost a necessity to have an MS. I've seen a number of students go to school only to get that paper which will allow them to have their "dream job" (i.e., a fisheries manager in state X). They dislike the research and writing required to get the degree and view it as an impediment to their career. In reality, any research is a means to further knowledge--scientific or otherwise--and should not be taken lightly.

[An MS] is the most expensive piece of paper you'll ever receive...

In reality, think terminal degree. Thankfully, most science programs pay their students to go to school. The stipend is a pittance, but I've been lucky that I've not had to have a second job outside of my degree program. (Any graduate degree program worth attending should be considered a full-time job.) From my experience (again, in the fisheries and wildlife world), people who aspire to terminal degrees don't spend 3 - 5 years pursuing them for the money. Though outliers do exist, rarely do PhD's in the sciences get paid that much, even in academia. (Private consulting firms may swing the cash around, but those gigs are few and far between.) Most of us do it because 1) we care about the system (or organism) we're studying and 2) we think that we'll be happy in a rewarding career after we've finished.

Steven

My dissertation was about the neuroantomy and single unit electrophysiology (recording the activity of single neurons) of two areas of the brain, the claustrum and the insular cortex. The single unit recording was in response to different modalities of stimuli and classical conditioning. If anyone is really interested I can send the link to get the publication that came out of the dissertation (at least the abstract). Also, if someone wants some insight into the scientific world Steven Ranney gave a nice sketch in the previous post.

Please notice the varied fields that our TubeNet readers are successfully involved with (science, enginering, law, education, music, instrument repair, you name it). I think that this is excellent evidence for music education and a lifelong association with music (and the other arts) as being important.

best,
Mark

My MM thesis consists of critical analyses of five standard works in the wind ensemble repertoire - Wagner's Trauersinfonie, Sousa's The Black Horse Troop, Persichetti's Symphony for Band, Grainger's Sheperd's Hey, and Shostakovich's Folk Dances. It's extremely long-winded and boring which I mostly attribute to my dislike of the conducting activity by that point in my degree.

I don't even have a copy of it, except possibly on my dusty old Power Macintosh 6100 that I haven't booted up for about 5 years. There's a bound copy of it somewhere in the Director of Bands' office, I think.

Todd S. Malicoate wrote:My MM thesis consists of critical analyses of five standard works in the wind ensemble repertoire - Wagner's Trauersinfonie, Sousa's The Black Horse Troop, Persichetti's Symphony for Band, Grainger's Sheperd's Hey, and Shostakovich's Folk Dances. It's extremely long-winded and boring which I mostly attribute to my dislike of the conducting activity by that point in my degree.

I don't even have a copy of it, except possibly on my dusty old Power Macintosh 6100 that I haven't booted up for about 5 years. There's a bound copy of it somewhere in the Director of Bands' office, I think.

If that file may be opened on a current Mac, I would be very glad to have it for my own reading.

Klaus

MIne is still in my head. Didn't have to write one. MM, that is.

It would have been on the acoustical effect of dents.