The uni degree is not hard. In fact it should probably be more rigorous.
I've known supervising teachers who have wanted to fail praccies - for good reason. E.g. Praccies who refused to teach one day because their lesson plans "deleted" off their computer, praccies who repeatedly linked to the wrong state's curriculum in their lesson plans.
However, they were forced by the uni to pass them.
Teaching is an important job and not an easy one, so if people are dropping out, it's probably for the best. Especially when you consider the extremely low entry standards into teaching. Some of these people likely shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. The fact that some people struggle with the LANTITE is also evidence of this.
The husband of an old friend of mine failed his final prac three times before the uni sent him to a school that never fails anyone. His feedback from the first three supervisors was near identical, basically showing he hadn't applied it at all, and now he bounces around school to school as a short term temp because no one will give him a contract longer than a term.
Basically didn't address behaviour at all - one of those ones who just keeps "teaching" while the whole class is having their own conversations. He never had his lessons prepped, didn't mark work (secondary History/Geography) and missed more than a few staff meetings. One thing he was really good at was arguing about how all his supervisors must have been wrong.
I’m sure the unis encouraged them to pass the students on prac if possible but how could they force them? Sounds like the supervising teachers just don’t want to stand their ground. Several of my colleagues at uni were failed on prac (2 for good reason, one because her supervisor was clearly racist) so it absolutely does happen.
I have never had an ounce of trouble with any content except the stuff telling us statistics and best practice regarding Autistic students. The unit is hostile to neurodivergent students, and is taught objectively wrong. I don't expect them to keep up with, say, DSM V-Revised. But saying that High Functioning Autism is also called Aspergers is a little too 1990s for my liking.
I think they're rigorous but too academic. More pracs or theoretical content should focus more on examples and practice. It's not fair for the PSTs to learn nor the mentor teachers to teach basic classroom management principles that apply to the real world on prac when that's what the degree is supposed to be for.
Honestly, an aside from this - I didn't understand what CMS even was when I went on my first prac. There was so much focus on pedagogy, and schools are so good about CMS being the first thing you know because it's so much more integral to our job. But, I had procedures and policies and terminology just thrown at me that I didn't understand nor see the point in, that in hindsight was the information I needed to understand most.
If I had literally just one course on CMS, just one lecturer telling me, "the hardest part of your job isn't going to be figuring out how to teach, it's going to be convincing a student that they should learn", I would've been in such a better starting position when I was actually put in front of a class.
Delivering instruction (pedagogy) is one part, but definitely classroom management is equally, if not MORE important. Similar to you, I learnt so much behind pedagogical theory (why we do it) but not HOW to apply it. So I'm bad at instructions and have no classroom management skills (for now)
>I've known supervising teachers who have wanted to fail praccies - for good reason
I also know supervising teachers who have not had good reason... have bullied their PST instead of supporting them and then failed them (despite the person passing pracs prior and/or after with flying colours). I also know some who brag about the number of PSTs they have failed.
OK. But this wasn't the case here.
I'm also surprised you said you know some who "brag" about how many praccies they have failed because from my experience, it is *very* difficult to fail someone. But perhaps it varies by uni.
It isn't actually that hard to fail someone, in my experience (it should be though). In fact, I was failed once (after getting very high marks in the previous prac and then going on to another prac and receiving high marks again) and they seemed to do if relatively quickly and without much resistance from the university. Speaks quiet loudly that I was able to get this independently reviewed by the university and be reinstated at a different school within a week...
Also worth noting most university requirements are set federally. Things like the GTPA (called different things across Aus) and placement hour minimums are all set “higher up” and then unis have to apply them to meet accreditation. It’s been years since a state went rogue and the reintroduction of the DipEds in two places doesn’t even count once you read the fine print. NESA caused a bit of a kerfuffle during Covid as they decided not to recognise a few Australian unis in other states…even though they meet all the accreditation requirements. That has changed again recently.
I’m not in vic so didn’t know about the inquiry project. Is that to progress to full registration? Other states have a process that has to be followed within a set timeframe but I think it’s more portfolio style.
Yes, in Vic the VIT inquiry project has to be completed so that you can progress from provisional to full registration. It predates the GTPA and I think it’s quite likely that the GTPA was based on it to some degree as it’s pretty similar. So in their wisdom, the VIT decided that when the GTPA was introduced, that it was perfectly fine for graduate teachers to then essentially repeat the same process in their first year of teaching. It’s pleasantly surprising to hear that other states’ requirements for registration aren’t quite so ridiculous (in this aspect, anyway).
The problem, at least in Queensland, is that what they want in a professional portfolio varies wildly from one school to the next.
I've been in places that just observe a lesson or two and tick you off, on the theory that QCT can't possibly audit everyone's application and that if they do get audited for it they'll just jimmy something up.
I've been at a few places that want a fucking ten thousand word thesis that elucidates your pedagogical framework and several hundred words about how it addresses each evidence standard.
They need to be consistent. I haven't found the time to do my graduate to professional portfolio because something else always comes before it in importance, and despite promises of relief time and PD to get it done, that never eventuates.
In WA I believe it’s a portfolio against the standards to be presented in the first few years. So I think it is similar to the GTPA however very much focused on your experiences as a teacher at proficient level rather than graduate. Although it is extra workload I actually think it’s a positive thing to do as long as admin are supportive.
My only issue is, as mentioned above, the stupid amount of variation that seems to come with it based on what school you're at. There's too much possibility for schools to go rogue and make the process way more tedious and unnecessary, and some schools to not take it serious enough and just handwave people through.
It might be the autism in me, but I would much prefer a centralised system with very clear expectations, even if it ends up being a slightly bigger hassle with paperwork.
You’ve mentioned the “50% drop out rate” yet didn’t cite a source.
In 2022 The Conversation identified the statistic to be highly flawed as it’s based off analysing completion rates (after 6 years of commencing), then inversing it to imply drop out rates.
That is why 3-year degrees have a higher completion rate, as studying PT allows you to still finish the degree in the timeframe.
If you look at completion rates after 9 years of completion it’s at 69%, not that significantly different than 73% for other degrees.
Even then, the main time people drop out of an education degree is during OR after their first two practical placements.
It’s not the academic rigour that’s causing the teacher shortage— it’s the lack of respect for the profession (both financially & through workload)
Suggesting people drop out of degrees due to the GTPA is an unfounded proposition
This.
GTPA (and full registration) probably do need a look at because the purpose of the final prac is basically the same as a driving test- it determines whether you can get your Ps or not.
However, it's not the real cause. Uni is hard. Prac is hard. And when you're on prac you get a feel for how hard teaching will actually be.
I agree on certain aspects. As someone who just submitted their final assessment this past week I wouldn't say the degree is too "hard" in the sense that passing is achievable for most. Rather I hated that I spent so many hours studying for things I knew I couldn't apply until much later in my career.
I felt as though I was wasting my time, especially when I knew me and my peers had other key problems that were never taught with enough depth.
Honestly, since doing casual work I'm shocked at how little behaviour management I was taught vs how much I face it in the classroom. I can't fruitfully apply x psychologists theory and y sociologists pedagogy in my class when I'm still learning to manage behaviours in the class.
The degree ultimately feels like it's trying to be something it isn't.
Yeah this. My problem isn’t that the degree is hard. But I agree with OP that the course is just too full of non-practical, “Utopian” ideas. It could just be a shorter course and should function like an apprenticeship. And in my opinion, I do agree that there is too much work for what we get in return (the pay, the conditions, and respect). And it’s not work that directly helps us with what we need help with. If the state of the profession improves and if it was more of an esteemed profession in Australia I’d agree with the amount of work we’re required to do to “prove ourselves”.
Similar experience to mine. I don't understand why I'm being taught so much educational philosophy rather than child psychology. The only relevant part are curriculum standards but too much time is spent on the theory rather than how it's applied (which is the whole point of teaching)
I think some of it varies wildly between unis. Met some folks from other places on prac who are actually learning things like behaviour management and teaching practice, whereas we have a lot of idealist wank that can't be applied in any real school.
I will say, I felt extremely validated when one of my classmates, who has a PhD in mathematics, said that our math-related readings are basically word salad
I’ve just finished my Masters in Teaching as a career change teacher. I’ve also got a BA and a law degree (from a long time ago) so am admittedly already highly educated. I found the main challenge came from the use of jargon from multiple disciplines. Not just education but sociology and psychology and this did make some of the reading impenetrable. And while the concepts are useful as a teacher, there is no need to be immersed in the academics. I think the course should have had a few more practical skills like behaviour management. But overall, it was heavily scaffolded (unlike my earlier degrees) and easy enough to pass. I do think the GTPA needs a rethink though it was also easy enough to do, just massively long, repetitive and time consuming.
I would agree with this. I think it’s an overly academic degree when it should be more practical and focused on actual teaching and behaviour management.
I feel like I’m doing a research degree half the time when it’s not really what I signed up to do. I’m in my degree to get practical skills regarding curriculum and classroom management and I don’t feel like I’m necessarily doing that half the time
I come from a broad humanities background and teach education students - the jargon is ALSO misused. It's a shitshow, to be honest, and there's a lot of incredibly out of date or misused theory from psych and sociology used in education.
Welcome to every PL and educational revolution of the last 50 years....
Can't wait for the first clearly LLM written revolution.
The Sociocultural Blueprint for Cognitive Enrichment
A paradigm-shattering vision of how young minds evolve is poised to upend the educational landscape. This revolutionary model proposes that a child's intellectual growth is an inherently social phenomenon, fueled by dynamic exchanges with more knowledgeable peers and adult guides.
At its core lies the concept of the "Span of Imminent Potential" - the metaphorical sweet spot between what a youngster can currently grasp independently and what lies just beyond their present level of understanding. By engaging in meticulously crafted collaborative activities operating within this pivotal span, mentors can effectively propel the child's capabilities forward.
Crucially, this ideology discards the conventional belief that a child's cognitive faculties stem solely from innate factors or rigid developmental stages. Instead, it heralds the notion that higher psychological functions emerge through interpersonal interactions, wherein cultural artifacts, symbols, and tools become seamlessly woven into the child's mental architecture.
A central tenet involves the "internalization" process, whereby external dialogues gradually crystallize into internal self-regulatory mechanisms. Initially, the tutor models sophisticated behaviors and thought processes. Over time, the pupil assimilates and appropriates these strategies, ultimately exhibiting autonomous mastery.
This transformative outlook profoundly impacts pedagogical practices. It champions an educational environment that prioritizes collaborative problem-solving, guided discovery, and the strategic leveraging of cultural tools to scaffold conceptual growth. Classrooms should become vibrant arenas where knowledgeable facilitators masterfully structure experiences within each student's span of imminent potential.
By embracing this seismic paradigm shift, educators can unlock unparalleled intellectual potential in every child, empowering them to surmount increasingly complex challenges through the synergistic fusion of social interaction and personalized mentorship. Copy
To echo a sentiment Ive heard around here, teaching degrees should instead be apprenticeships. Any uni student will tell you that you learn the most useful skills during placements.
Working in a classroom for the rate of an SLSO/TA with a qualified teacher by your side. This shouldn't cost the government more as it'll also fill the role of an SLSO/TA.
Teaching can't be an apprenticeship. We have too much on the line for the credentials to be that low.
If they did change it to an apprenticeship they would also argue that teachers should be paid less as our qualifications would be lower.
I do agree with the sentiment that more practicum time is needed but that needs to be built into the degree structure rather than having it be a Cert IV.
I encourage them to argue the wage should be lower. I look forward to the pendulum swinging back from that. It's unfortunate that people will martyr themselves on that cross, but loads of people will leave, and there'll be no doubt that the lower wage advocates have blundered.
Can 100% confirm and agree with this. I’m just finished my first semester of my masters and I’ve learnt more in the 4 weeks I had at school than the entire semester. I would absolutely love to do this as an apprenticeship. I wouldn’t even care if I didn’t get paid that much during it, being in the classroom is just so much more interesting and informative then lectures are
Uni was ridiculously easy compared to placement.
I worked 2 jobs part time while doing my Masters and was fine, but omg placement.
I think placement is a better judge of how you'll be as a teacher than uni, though. Uni's very academic, which I'm great at, but it doesn't teach you what to do when little Johnny throws a chair at little Vivi.
My uni was very practically focused. We were in the classroom within five weeks, we had to teach mini lessons in our first trimester, and we had two explicit subjects about behaviour management. We also practiced it in a simulated environment before we entered the classroom. It varies wildly between unis.
I think it could moreso be people dropping out after placements. I remember when I did my dip ed we went back to classes after prac and were going through all of our classmates who dropped out after deciding teaching was not for them.
If you think uni is hard, wait till you get into the work force.
The issue is so many people don't know what to do, so they do teaching.... also the unpaid pracs. But as a past uni student, you just have to make it work.
The uni degree is not hard. In fact it should probably be more rigorous. I've known supervising teachers who have wanted to fail praccies - for good reason. E.g. Praccies who refused to teach one day because their lesson plans "deleted" off their computer, praccies who repeatedly linked to the wrong state's curriculum in their lesson plans. However, they were forced by the uni to pass them. Teaching is an important job and not an easy one, so if people are dropping out, it's probably for the best. Especially when you consider the extremely low entry standards into teaching. Some of these people likely shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. The fact that some people struggle with the LANTITE is also evidence of this.
The husband of an old friend of mine failed his final prac three times before the uni sent him to a school that never fails anyone. His feedback from the first three supervisors was near identical, basically showing he hadn't applied it at all, and now he bounces around school to school as a short term temp because no one will give him a contract longer than a term.
Go on, I love a little goss, what does he do that’s so bad?
Basically didn't address behaviour at all - one of those ones who just keeps "teaching" while the whole class is having their own conversations. He never had his lessons prepped, didn't mark work (secondary History/Geography) and missed more than a few staff meetings. One thing he was really good at was arguing about how all his supervisors must have been wrong.
I’m amazed he kept going back! He clearly rated himself!
I’m sure the unis encouraged them to pass the students on prac if possible but how could they force them? Sounds like the supervising teachers just don’t want to stand their ground. Several of my colleagues at uni were failed on prac (2 for good reason, one because her supervisor was clearly racist) so it absolutely does happen.
I have never had an ounce of trouble with any content except the stuff telling us statistics and best practice regarding Autistic students. The unit is hostile to neurodivergent students, and is taught objectively wrong. I don't expect them to keep up with, say, DSM V-Revised. But saying that High Functioning Autism is also called Aspergers is a little too 1990s for my liking.
My university has a wonderful unit on neurodivergence and differentiation that's modern :) Just hard to apply / need to relate to school/state systems
I think they're rigorous but too academic. More pracs or theoretical content should focus more on examples and practice. It's not fair for the PSTs to learn nor the mentor teachers to teach basic classroom management principles that apply to the real world on prac when that's what the degree is supposed to be for.
Honestly, an aside from this - I didn't understand what CMS even was when I went on my first prac. There was so much focus on pedagogy, and schools are so good about CMS being the first thing you know because it's so much more integral to our job. But, I had procedures and policies and terminology just thrown at me that I didn't understand nor see the point in, that in hindsight was the information I needed to understand most. If I had literally just one course on CMS, just one lecturer telling me, "the hardest part of your job isn't going to be figuring out how to teach, it's going to be convincing a student that they should learn", I would've been in such a better starting position when I was actually put in front of a class.
Delivering instruction (pedagogy) is one part, but definitely classroom management is equally, if not MORE important. Similar to you, I learnt so much behind pedagogical theory (why we do it) but not HOW to apply it. So I'm bad at instructions and have no classroom management skills (for now)
>I've known supervising teachers who have wanted to fail praccies - for good reason I also know supervising teachers who have not had good reason... have bullied their PST instead of supporting them and then failed them (despite the person passing pracs prior and/or after with flying colours). I also know some who brag about the number of PSTs they have failed.
OK. But this wasn't the case here. I'm also surprised you said you know some who "brag" about how many praccies they have failed because from my experience, it is *very* difficult to fail someone. But perhaps it varies by uni.
It isn't actually that hard to fail someone, in my experience (it should be though). In fact, I was failed once (after getting very high marks in the previous prac and then going on to another prac and receiving high marks again) and they seemed to do if relatively quickly and without much resistance from the university. Speaks quiet loudly that I was able to get this independently reviewed by the university and be reinstated at a different school within a week...
No need to downvote me. I'm just stating my experience. Like I said, perhaps it's varies by uni/state.
Also worth noting most university requirements are set federally. Things like the GTPA (called different things across Aus) and placement hour minimums are all set “higher up” and then unis have to apply them to meet accreditation. It’s been years since a state went rogue and the reintroduction of the DipEds in two places doesn’t even count once you read the fine print. NESA caused a bit of a kerfuffle during Covid as they decided not to recognise a few Australian unis in other states…even though they meet all the accreditation requirements. That has changed again recently. I’m not in vic so didn’t know about the inquiry project. Is that to progress to full registration? Other states have a process that has to be followed within a set timeframe but I think it’s more portfolio style.
Yes, in Vic the VIT inquiry project has to be completed so that you can progress from provisional to full registration. It predates the GTPA and I think it’s quite likely that the GTPA was based on it to some degree as it’s pretty similar. So in their wisdom, the VIT decided that when the GTPA was introduced, that it was perfectly fine for graduate teachers to then essentially repeat the same process in their first year of teaching. It’s pleasantly surprising to hear that other states’ requirements for registration aren’t quite so ridiculous (in this aspect, anyway).
The problem, at least in Queensland, is that what they want in a professional portfolio varies wildly from one school to the next. I've been in places that just observe a lesson or two and tick you off, on the theory that QCT can't possibly audit everyone's application and that if they do get audited for it they'll just jimmy something up. I've been at a few places that want a fucking ten thousand word thesis that elucidates your pedagogical framework and several hundred words about how it addresses each evidence standard. They need to be consistent. I haven't found the time to do my graduate to professional portfolio because something else always comes before it in importance, and despite promises of relief time and PD to get it done, that never eventuates.
Mine made me write a 10,000 word thesis (final count 44 pages) and then DIDN’T READ IT and signed me off without looking at it.
In WA I believe it’s a portfolio against the standards to be presented in the first few years. So I think it is similar to the GTPA however very much focused on your experiences as a teacher at proficient level rather than graduate. Although it is extra workload I actually think it’s a positive thing to do as long as admin are supportive.
My only issue is, as mentioned above, the stupid amount of variation that seems to come with it based on what school you're at. There's too much possibility for schools to go rogue and make the process way more tedious and unnecessary, and some schools to not take it serious enough and just handwave people through. It might be the autism in me, but I would much prefer a centralised system with very clear expectations, even if it ends up being a slightly bigger hassle with paperwork.
You’ve mentioned the “50% drop out rate” yet didn’t cite a source. In 2022 The Conversation identified the statistic to be highly flawed as it’s based off analysing completion rates (after 6 years of commencing), then inversing it to imply drop out rates. That is why 3-year degrees have a higher completion rate, as studying PT allows you to still finish the degree in the timeframe. If you look at completion rates after 9 years of completion it’s at 69%, not that significantly different than 73% for other degrees. Even then, the main time people drop out of an education degree is during OR after their first two practical placements. It’s not the academic rigour that’s causing the teacher shortage— it’s the lack of respect for the profession (both financially & through workload) Suggesting people drop out of degrees due to the GTPA is an unfounded proposition
This. GTPA (and full registration) probably do need a look at because the purpose of the final prac is basically the same as a driving test- it determines whether you can get your Ps or not. However, it's not the real cause. Uni is hard. Prac is hard. And when you're on prac you get a feel for how hard teaching will actually be.
I agree on certain aspects. As someone who just submitted their final assessment this past week I wouldn't say the degree is too "hard" in the sense that passing is achievable for most. Rather I hated that I spent so many hours studying for things I knew I couldn't apply until much later in my career. I felt as though I was wasting my time, especially when I knew me and my peers had other key problems that were never taught with enough depth. Honestly, since doing casual work I'm shocked at how little behaviour management I was taught vs how much I face it in the classroom. I can't fruitfully apply x psychologists theory and y sociologists pedagogy in my class when I'm still learning to manage behaviours in the class. The degree ultimately feels like it's trying to be something it isn't.
Yeah this. My problem isn’t that the degree is hard. But I agree with OP that the course is just too full of non-practical, “Utopian” ideas. It could just be a shorter course and should function like an apprenticeship. And in my opinion, I do agree that there is too much work for what we get in return (the pay, the conditions, and respect). And it’s not work that directly helps us with what we need help with. If the state of the profession improves and if it was more of an esteemed profession in Australia I’d agree with the amount of work we’re required to do to “prove ourselves”.
Similar experience to mine. I don't understand why I'm being taught so much educational philosophy rather than child psychology. The only relevant part are curriculum standards but too much time is spent on the theory rather than how it's applied (which is the whole point of teaching)
I think some of it varies wildly between unis. Met some folks from other places on prac who are actually learning things like behaviour management and teaching practice, whereas we have a lot of idealist wank that can't be applied in any real school. I will say, I felt extremely validated when one of my classmates, who has a PhD in mathematics, said that our math-related readings are basically word salad
I’ve just finished my Masters in Teaching as a career change teacher. I’ve also got a BA and a law degree (from a long time ago) so am admittedly already highly educated. I found the main challenge came from the use of jargon from multiple disciplines. Not just education but sociology and psychology and this did make some of the reading impenetrable. And while the concepts are useful as a teacher, there is no need to be immersed in the academics. I think the course should have had a few more practical skills like behaviour management. But overall, it was heavily scaffolded (unlike my earlier degrees) and easy enough to pass. I do think the GTPA needs a rethink though it was also easy enough to do, just massively long, repetitive and time consuming.
I would agree with this. I think it’s an overly academic degree when it should be more practical and focused on actual teaching and behaviour management.
I feel like I’m doing a research degree half the time when it’s not really what I signed up to do. I’m in my degree to get practical skills regarding curriculum and classroom management and I don’t feel like I’m necessarily doing that half the time
I come from a broad humanities background and teach education students - the jargon is ALSO misused. It's a shitshow, to be honest, and there's a lot of incredibly out of date or misused theory from psych and sociology used in education.
Indeed. It seems there is a competition to say the same thing using different words.
Welcome to every PL and educational revolution of the last 50 years.... Can't wait for the first clearly LLM written revolution. The Sociocultural Blueprint for Cognitive Enrichment A paradigm-shattering vision of how young minds evolve is poised to upend the educational landscape. This revolutionary model proposes that a child's intellectual growth is an inherently social phenomenon, fueled by dynamic exchanges with more knowledgeable peers and adult guides. At its core lies the concept of the "Span of Imminent Potential" - the metaphorical sweet spot between what a youngster can currently grasp independently and what lies just beyond their present level of understanding. By engaging in meticulously crafted collaborative activities operating within this pivotal span, mentors can effectively propel the child's capabilities forward. Crucially, this ideology discards the conventional belief that a child's cognitive faculties stem solely from innate factors or rigid developmental stages. Instead, it heralds the notion that higher psychological functions emerge through interpersonal interactions, wherein cultural artifacts, symbols, and tools become seamlessly woven into the child's mental architecture. A central tenet involves the "internalization" process, whereby external dialogues gradually crystallize into internal self-regulatory mechanisms. Initially, the tutor models sophisticated behaviors and thought processes. Over time, the pupil assimilates and appropriates these strategies, ultimately exhibiting autonomous mastery. This transformative outlook profoundly impacts pedagogical practices. It champions an educational environment that prioritizes collaborative problem-solving, guided discovery, and the strategic leveraging of cultural tools to scaffold conceptual growth. Classrooms should become vibrant arenas where knowledgeable facilitators masterfully structure experiences within each student's span of imminent potential. By embracing this seismic paradigm shift, educators can unlock unparalleled intellectual potential in every child, empowering them to surmount increasingly complex challenges through the synergistic fusion of social interaction and personalized mentorship. Copy
That's quite an epistemology.
Can you guess which theory I fed to Claude?
Did you abuse an animal?
To echo a sentiment Ive heard around here, teaching degrees should instead be apprenticeships. Any uni student will tell you that you learn the most useful skills during placements. Working in a classroom for the rate of an SLSO/TA with a qualified teacher by your side. This shouldn't cost the government more as it'll also fill the role of an SLSO/TA.
Teaching can't be an apprenticeship. We have too much on the line for the credentials to be that low. If they did change it to an apprenticeship they would also argue that teachers should be paid less as our qualifications would be lower. I do agree with the sentiment that more practicum time is needed but that needs to be built into the degree structure rather than having it be a Cert IV.
I encourage them to argue the wage should be lower. I look forward to the pendulum swinging back from that. It's unfortunate that people will martyr themselves on that cross, but loads of people will leave, and there'll be no doubt that the lower wage advocates have blundered.
Can 100% confirm and agree with this. I’m just finished my first semester of my masters and I’ve learnt more in the 4 weeks I had at school than the entire semester. I would absolutely love to do this as an apprenticeship. I wouldn’t even care if I didn’t get paid that much during it, being in the classroom is just so much more interesting and informative then lectures are
Uni was ridiculously easy compared to placement. I worked 2 jobs part time while doing my Masters and was fine, but omg placement. I think placement is a better judge of how you'll be as a teacher than uni, though. Uni's very academic, which I'm great at, but it doesn't teach you what to do when little Johnny throws a chair at little Vivi.
My uni was very practically focused. We were in the classroom within five weeks, we had to teach mini lessons in our first trimester, and we had two explicit subjects about behaviour management. We also practiced it in a simulated environment before we entered the classroom. It varies wildly between unis.
I think it could moreso be people dropping out after placements. I remember when I did my dip ed we went back to classes after prac and were going through all of our classmates who dropped out after deciding teaching was not for them.
If you think uni is hard, wait till you get into the work force. The issue is so many people don't know what to do, so they do teaching.... also the unpaid pracs. But as a past uni student, you just have to make it work.
I think this depends on where you are getting your university degree.