DR John Sandall’s letter (ViewPoints, December 6), presumably in response to mine a week earlier, raises some interesting issues with which I should not necessarily disagree.
My proposal was that those obtaining third-class honours, were extremely likely to be deficient in some way, not necessarily thick.
Secondly, I wholeheartedly acknowledge that those with firsts do not always make the greatest teachers. One only has to contemplate so many university teachers, who are both professional and general disasters.
Thirdly, I read modern languages – chiefly literature and linguistics – a different kettle of fish from the technical disciplines he mentions, with respect to which I, to some extent, take his point.
Fourthly, having taught myself three of my A-Levels, two from scratch, one of my many shortcomings was being unable to comprehend not only why some of my pupils struggled, but also why they should need a teacher at all!
Perhaps Dr Sandalls would graciously accept that those with lower upper, or higher lower second-class honours, all else, being equal, make the best schoolteachers.
DAVID DIMENT Riverside Court Oxford
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here