The metric wasn’t important per se for one of my kids, but in each course that he took he was happy that the prof was stellar and absolutely top of the field. Found it invaluable
Some people who are tops in their fields do not have high terminal degrees.
You didn’t read what I wrote.
The colleges market this as a metric to students, giving students the ‘image’ that classes taught by a Phd are better. How often do you read - my kids class was only taught by a grad student.
You are saying how they earn a ranking. I am sharing how colleges make this a marketing tool to students by saying our education is better, in fact 97% of our faculty has a PHD or terminal degree.
The college has no reason to respond to US News through its student marketing.
No reason to debate this. It’s simply an observation I made.
I’ve never seen the terminal degree in any marketing. Yes, schools do market that their courses are taught only by professors, and not TAs. But all professors do not have PhD degrees. I will allow that probably most do…but not all do. And I’ve never seen mention of the degrees of the faculty as a marketing tool.
2 Likes
There are or were some posters here who did not like the idea of graduate student instructors, whether as TAs or primary instructors for frosh/soph level courses, and therefore strongly favored LACs.
Sure – in things like the performing arts, or in areas like hacking, some expert in foreign policy who is a senior person in the state department etc. In most traditional areas, they will have a terminal degree, often very actively participating in the academic community in that field, editing journals etc.
And I’m saying whatever marginal benefits a college’s brochures and mass mailings may have, they are negligible in comparison to what one or two ranks in the USNews can do as a result of manipulating its metrics.
ETA: And I agree with @thumper1 that you are very likely conflating how many courses are taught by TAs with how many professors hold what kinds of terminal degrees. Two different things,
1 Like
I’m a speech pathologist. My clinical supervisors were a very critical part of my training both in undergrad and grad school. None had PhDs. All were outstanding.
I’ll add, the class instructors all had PhD degrees, and some of them were just horrible teachers.
So…I will opine that having a PhD doesn’t necessarily equate with being a great college teacher. Some are and some aren’t.
3 Likes
That makes sense — you are in a professional field. In an academic field, the top credentials in the field are a low bar.
Say what?! A low bar for what?
1 Like
I think what he’s saying a I agree - if you are studying journalism or speech pathology, working professional or those with prior work experience teach others, regardless of educational background.
But for an academic subject vs pre professional, the PHD is typically the minimum.
1 Like
Exactly as @tsbna44 says above
Nailed it.
OK, but it just seems to me a bit a bit strange to consider having a PhD as a requirement to be a “low” bar. That just seems to be a pretty high bar to me.
Because a PhD is primarily a research degree. While in the past few decades, many (or even most) PhD programs require that a students get training and experience in teaching undergraduates, that wasn’t the general rule before that. Many PhD programs in other countries do not have any training in teaching at all, and the USA does recruit a good number of these as faculty.
MDs are often worse, at least at teaching undergraduate classes.
3 Likes
If you want the kids to be exposed to the cutting edge of the field, the phd is pretty much a low bar for the faculty that is teaching the course. A more reasonable requirement is that the faculty should be actively involved in research to be able to expose the students to the cutting edge of the field. It really depends on what you are looking for from your college experience
1 Like
I think if we substitute the words “minimum requirement” for “low bar”, we can get off this subject. 
3 Likes
Where I went to college(s), all PhD professors were required to engage in active research to maintain their tenure.
My issue is…some of the academia folks have little experience actually working in the fields about which they teach. They are theorists and impart info about their areas of expertise…and sometimes don’t do a terrific job of that even.
I think we can agree to disagree on this issue…but I will say…researching this as part of looking at undergrad schools? Not an easy task.
Interestingly some employers (maybe many) want the kids to learn the theory really well at school. The practical part — the company can train you in a few months often. It is the theoretical part that the company cannot train you on. I’ve heard examples of returning summer interns asking their mentors at the company for advice, and being told that they take the theoretical grad version of the course than the practical industry version of the course. The theoretical foundations last a life time.
Also this preference (sometimes very strong preference) for theoretically trained kids is entertained by the largest and the best paying employers. They have the resources to bring you up to speed on the practical stuff with another 6-18 months of company training. Eg FAANG
The cutting edge of most parts of the field is more relevant at graduate level, then upper level, courses.
In lower level courses, it may be that the education of those new to the field may be the most relevant research area that instructors may want to be familiar with.
I agree that carelessness about the meaning of words is something that characterizes every discussion about the liberal arts, including the meaning of “liberal”, the meaning of “arts” and the meaning of “university”. You can throw the meaning of “cutting edge” on the pile too, if it suits you.
2 Likes