Professor files grievance over having to teach more than once a week

[annasdad]

<p>

your frequent suggestion that such people are just after prestige

</p>

<p>Some people surely are. Others confuse prestige with educational quality; and no wonder, since USNWR trumpets its nonsensical prestige-based rankings as “America’s best colleges.”</p>

[anon94785555]

<p>I wonder if ASU will be able to get rid of this guy- perhaps their intent by pressuring him to do what they know will push him out when they need more productivity, both scholarly and in teaching.</p>

<p>[deleted by moderation]</p>

<p>One problem I see for PhDs is getting stuck at some average LAC teaching average college students (this is not Lake Woebegone, most college students fall into this category) without the stimulation from their own college grad school days. It must be hard to teach those who need the class but don’t especially like the subject (and with no TA buffer to handle the mundane and the idiocy of some students)- a lot of science falls into this category and is not the focus of LACs. No wonder they fawn over majors in their field- they are desparate for people with interest in it. Disclaimer- the above represents a worst case scenario. Professors are multifaceted people like everyone else, there are many diverse reasons for choosing where to be. As I said in an earlier post, my bias is towards the large research U’s. The old “different strokes for different folks” line. I’m sure the undergrad college experience influences later choices as does the childhood that leads students to different undergrad schools.</p>

<p>Prestige, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Prestigious schools below the elite in the east are under the radar in other parts of the country. The vast majority of schools, including the numerous LACs fall into the “who cares” category.</p>

<p>Enough, especially as I’m crossposting as I write/think. Cleaning house as I should be doing will be more productive…</p>

[Hunt]

<p>I certainly agree that anybody who relies only on rankings is making a big mistake. However, I do think that the rankings are based on a lot of data that do make a difference. For example, I think it’s quite reasonable to look at the stats of matriculating students if you want to attend a college with highly able students. And it turns out that this correlates surprisingly well with typical “prestige” rankings. Whether this is cause or effect is debatable. But as I’ve noted before, if everybody thinks a school is the best, it actually gets better because it attracts better students and better factulty. This is why PR campaigns such as the one carried out by WashU pay off in the long run. Of course, if attending college with highly able classmates is not a primary criterion for a particular kid, then that particular stat is less useful.</p>

<p>Also, Annasdad–it’s not always what a person says, but how he says it that creates a negative impression. That’s harder to refute with logic.</p>

[annasdad]

<p>

if everybody thinks a school is the best, it actually gets better because it attracts better students and better factulty.

</p>

<p>Better students, perhaps. But faculty that is “better” at teaching undergraduates - or at attracting research grants?</p>

[oldfort]

<p>This is the link (article) annasdad posted in #73
[Three</a> tips from The Thinking Student’s Guide to College: 75 Tips for Getting a Better Education by Andrew Roberts](<a href=“Three tips from The Thinking Student's Guide to College: 75 Tips for Getting a Better Education by Andrew Roberts”>Three tips from The Thinking Student's Guide to College: 75 Tips for Getting a Better Education by Andrew Roberts)</p>

<p>It was just written by someone giving advise to students on how to select a college, with 3 tips, one of them was The Key Distininction is between Small Colleges and Large Universities.</p>

<p>Nowhere did the article say professors at large universities do not like to teach.</p>

<p>Few quotes from there (you see, I know how to do that too):</p>

<p>

If you are sufficiently proactive and ambitious, you will find in them (Universities) the best possible education the world has to offer…
To get the best education at such a university, you have to be a go-getter. You have to make yourself known to the full-time faculty…
If you are shy and lack self-confidence, however, you may lose some of the benefits such universities offer

</p>

<p>

A small college is perfect for you if you are less confident in your abilities and lack the moxie to draw attention to yourself…
This is not to say that you are less talented. Only that you would thrive more in an environment where you are a big fish in a small pond. Indeed, there is a less competitive atmosphere at such schools.

</p>

<p>The writer concluded by saying:

Note that what I have set out here is a contrast of ideal types—the difference between the prototypical large research-oriented university and the prototypical small teaching-oriented college. In fact, over the past twenty or so years these distinctions have been breaking down. Large universities have started to offer more college-type experiences with smaller seminars and greater contact with faculty (though they have not forsaken research or graduate students). Some offer special honors programs or liberal arts colleges embedded within the university. Conversely, small colleges have begun to require a much greater research commitment from faculty. Differences between the two types may thus be on the decline, but they still exist.

</p>

<p>I do not disagree with a lot that was written by this person, but at the same time I don´t think it could be viewed completely as gospel either. The problem with annasdad is that when he reads an article which supports his point of view, he views it as a datapoint. No, it is not unfortunately. It is just another person´s view which is similar to yours, and the person bothered to print it. I don´t believe everything I read in the paper, do you?</p>

[annasdad]

<p>

Nowhere did the article say professors at large universities do not like to teach.

</p>

<p>No, but if you read the book, you’ll find his “Secrets of the Guild: Rules Professors Live By,” (pp. 149-162) which include (among others) “Reduce Thy Teaching Load” and “Limit the Effort You Devote to Undergraduates.”</p>

<p>Doesn’t it seem reasonable to you, oldfort, that a professor who liked to teach undergraduates would want to increase their teaching load and devote major effort to undergraduates?</p>

<p>

I don´t believe everything I read in the paper, do you?

</p>

<p>No, but when the author cites a study involving a survey of thousands of students across a wide variety of colleges, I don’t consider that “a datapoint” and “just another person’s view.” It may be, of course, that the conclusions the author draws can be challenged, or that the data have limited validity; do you have any data or a logical argument to support either challenge?</p>

[annasdad]

<p>

Opposing views with good information are useful, you have not shown that.

</p>

<p>So oldfort asks for data to support my view, and I respond with citations to two sources, each of which in turn cites research studies, and you don’t consider that “good information?” What are your standards for “good information,” if I may be so bold to ask?</p>

<p>You continue to try to make this about me instead of addressing the points I have made - and have backed up with data and argument that I believe to be logical and consistent. If the data is invalid, show that it is invalid. If my argument lacks logic or consistency, point these out. If you can.</p>

[SlitheyTove]

<p>The paper (a preprint) referenced in post #73 is based on a survey administered to faculty at one specific state institution, with followup interviews administered to 17 subjects. The paper is sloppy–the interviews seemingly weren’t recorded, and the included excerpts are noted as being “approximate”. That’s not an “ad hominem” attack, it’s something that any reviewer worth their salt is going to mention and issue strikes against, which implies it was only meant to be used in a local (Portland State) context. In short, interesting, but not definitive. The Braxton et al papers referenced therein seem more definitive but are harder (for me, at least) to get to (which is rather ironic, given their subject matter), and I ended up reading an Inside Higher Education article about Braxton’s suggestions on improving faculty incivility. </p>

<p>

Most of the academic administrators in the audience seemed to consider Braxton’s idea of trying to police this sort of faculty behavior impractical, for a number reasons. One described professors’ tendency to hide all sorts of questionable behavior behind the shield of “academic freedom”; another bemoaned the increasing tendency of students to consider themselves customers who are always right: “I’m paying x dollars for this and therefore you owe me,” as one academic vice president put it.</p>

<p>There was widespread agreement, too, that civility is a slippery topic, because of how bound up it is in issues of culture.

</p>

<p>[‘Condescending</a> Negativism’ and Other Transgressions | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/06/civility]'Condescending”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/06/civility)</p>

<p>Some of these nuances might be picked up on in the actual paper, but the bit above means that a statement about how the authors “point out in their study of 70 universities that the majority of surveyed faculty were not amenable to six identified recommendations to improve undergraduate teaching and learning” could well mean that they approve of some of the recommendations, but not of others. I also suspect that even LAC professors might have issues with “set[ting] up “teaching integrity committees” to respond to reported violations of norms for teaching behavior.” :eek: </p>

<p>The funny thing is that the prof at ASU might well be someone who would do just fine under Braxton’s protocol.</p>

[SlitheyTove]

<p>

I respond with citations to two sources, each of which in turn cites research studies, and you don’t consider that “good information?”

</p>

<p>No, I don’t. Because as I clearly and at ridiculous length demonstrated many posts above, you initially did the exact same thing (rely on a secondary source) where the secondary source misinterpreted the primary source.</p>

[Trinity]

<p>We were forced to remove or edit a number of posts that contained veiled ad hominem. Please consult our TOS for further guidance.</p>

<p>

General Behavior. Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others.

</p>

<p></p>

[annasdad]

<p>SlitheyTove, thank you for actually responding to what I posted. How refreshing on this thread!</p>

<p>I was aware, of course, of the limitations of the Portland State paper, which is why I limited my quotes from it to its citations from the Braxton papers which, as you indicate, seem more definitive.</p>

<p>I think you’re stretching when you suggest that possibly “they approve of some of the recommendations, but not of others,” but that is, of course, possible. I’m not sure what the relevance is of an article apparently taking the author of one of the studies to task on a different topic.</p>