A B.A. Or a Ph.D. For the Latin CLassroom?

What are the benefits to having a scholar, someone who holds a Ph.D., teach in the secondary Latin classroom? Access to recent criticism and theory in scholarly literature, connections to other graduates, who may work at Universities or in museums, and in-depth knowledge of artifacts and sites when traveling abroad all contribute to the rationale for hiring a Ph.D. These are real advantages, but they are either narrowly focused to support the Advanced Placement classes, which tend to be very small in this discipline, or they are tangential to the core curriculum. Is the more educated teacher capable of relating material to his or her immature audience; is that teacher able to keep the focus on student achievement? These are central to the debate as to whether or not secondary schools should hire professors to serve in their buildings.

David J. Murphy, in his article "Horatian Scholarship in the High School Classroom: A Ph.D's Perspective", advises fellow Ph.D.'s to consider teaching at the secondary level, since "teaching in high school is a career for (the) teacher-scholar" (98). His purpose is to attract those who might prefer teaching at the university level to consider the benefits of work in a high school. He offers that college students can be more "mercenary about their grades" than high school students, that the adolescent mind, in tenth or eleventh grade experiences a dramatic increase in the ability to think abstractly, and that high school teaching does offer time for independent research and other benefits (98). He suggests that the high school student may have more of a sense of learning for learning's sake and that research done by a high school teacher is less prone to the scholarly conformity that shackles many professors competing for recognition or rank (98).

Murphy reveals that his research topics, "the hyphen in Greek manuscripts" and an "obscure Renaissance poet" are too "unsexy" for the college job market, but that high school teaching gives him the liberty to indulge in these (98). He adds that the fertilization of his teaching from his scholarly life is as important as guiding young people to "latch onto other people's discoveries" and joining them "as partners in making original discoveries" (98).

The problem with this article is that the references to classroom practice or to students are sparse and incidental. The pronoun "I" is overused. For example, in discussing a guest speaker, he says :

I always looked forward to Ronnie's visit, because I knew that my students would think about the perspective they bring to a text as well as about the words of the text... (100)

Aside from clairvoyance, one wonders how Murphy can gloss such a conclusion from a guest speaker's visit.

Although Murphy is able to bring his work as a paleographer and researcher into his classroom, he seems to have brought also the idea that connections with other scholars trump connections with students. His students bask in his wisdom: by the fact that the majority of his article is about himself, apparently he does too.

This is precisely the fear that Lee T. Pearcy delineates in his article: "'So Why Should We Hire You, Dr. Wilamowitz': An Administrator's Perspective on Scholars and Scholarship in Schools". Pearcy reveals the reasons that administrators hesitate to hire Ph.D.'s for school teaching, offers suggestions for justifying Latin study, and lets such scholars know what they may have to do to become school teachers.

Pearcy claims not to share the bias against the Ph.D. applicant, but he offers concerns prevalent among his colleagues. A primary accusation against the Ph.D. is that the precision and narrowness of the scholar's research makes him or her incapable of connecting with student's on the level of basic human interest, i.e. that they are "incomplete human beings" (106). This is a charge which Murphy inadvertently confirms:

My chief caveat: I have seen few people who are raising their own children succeed in teaching in high school and in publishing at the same time (100).

Additionally, Pearcy reveals that administrators suspect that "scholars" will "take school time for non-school work" (106). He further contrasts the "unstructured, reflective hours of the scholar" with the "fragmented day of a school teacher" (106). Although he concedes the partial verity of each of these beliefs, he blames the bias in the main on the "anti-intellectual reflex in American thought" (106).

Pearcy emphasizes the need of Classicists to sell not only themselves, but also their subject, by proving the practicality of Latin, to future bosses, students, and parents. He says that teachers should "stress the educating power of classical studies", be able to identify "connections between classical and contemporary...life", and specify how their particular training can positively impact students in the classroom (106).

Near the end of his writing, he poses an important question: why should a school chose a young Ph.D. candidate, with virtually no life experience, before a candidate with a B.A. in the subject matter with experience in life and teaching (107)? The question is left unanswered.

Lee F. Sherry, in "Scholarship in the Catullus Classroom", is as guilty as Murphy in the excessive use of the first person, singular pronoun, but Sherry does make more of an obvious effort to discuss student learning and achievement. He posits that having a scholar as a high school teacher can help to plant "the seeds of scholarship" (104). His definition of who qualifies as a "scholar is one who has the "ability to edit a (Classical) text" and one who is able to think creatively "within the bounds of accepted wisdom", and one who does not "trust all printed material" (104-5). Sherry uses these propositions as points of departure for some explicit discussion of techniques to use in the classroom and ways to engage students. He supports a freer approach to translation, and evidences a belief in helping students become autonomous: "We must not stifle young scholars with the handbook knowledge of our generations but let their imaginations grow in leaps and bounds so that they can challenge the accepted wisdom" (105). His approach is better than Murphy's, and he devotes more of his essay to students and practices, but still there is the overriding focus on self-fulfillment as a scholar. Maybe this is the bait necessary to appeal to Ph.D.'s in drawing them to high school teaching, but this type of reasoning and personality may be better suited for post-secondary education. As Pearcy warns: "Insincerity...is the one mistake from which one cannot recover in interviewing for a teaching job. Successful pretense in hiring means failure in the job itself" (107).

So, should the high school hire the holder of the Ph.D. or the B.A.? Although the scholar brings certain specific skills to the table, it seems that what he or she lacks in experience as a teacher and in interpersonal skills mitigates the advantages. The fact that these two professors of Latin intrude excessively with the ego in their articles warrants consideration. A teacher's individuality must necessarily be part of the classroom experience, but the danger for the scholar to lord his or her knowledge over the student increases with the educational gap between teacher and student. Personal experience has taught me that the college professor must be more careful about his or her facts and opinions than does the high school teacher. Opinion, backed by a Ph.D., in front of an undiscerning audience, can lead to egoism, and egoism is a sort of unreality. The philosopher and Classicist, Simone Weil, says, in Gravity and Grace, that "the Romans did evil by robbing the Greek towns of their statues, because the towns, the temples and the life of the Greeks had less reality without the statues, and because the statues could not have as much reality in Rome as in Greece" (76). When the focus of education moves from the student to the teacher's ego, such an act of unreality has occurred; a theft of the mind. The inexperienced Ph.D. may fall more easily into this trap. The experienced B.A. candidate may have more understanding and respect for the students, due to time served in the classroom and the community, and does not see teaching at the secondary level as a kind of failure. It is what he or she wanted to do in the first place. Given the choice, hire the B.A.

Works Cited

Murphy, David J. "Horatian Scholarship in the High School Classroom: A Ph.D's

Perspective." The Classical Outlook #3, 83 (2006): 98-100

Pearcy, Lee T. "'So Why Should We Hire You, Dr. Wilamowitz': An Administrator's

Perspective on Scholars and Scholarship in Schools." The Classical Outlook #3, 83 (2006): 106-107

Sherry, Lee F. "Scholarship in the Catullus Classroom." The Classical Outlook #3, 83

(2006): 104-105

Weil, Simone. Gravity and Grace. London: Routledge Classics, 1999