<p>Also, don’t underestimate the utility of developing the ‘right-brain’. There’s a scientific-based argument made that abstract/critical-thinking nurtured by the ‘arts’ provides the foundation for a powerful evolutionary advantage. This is the argument made by many, including Denis Dutton in [The</a> Art Instinct](<a href=“theartinstinct.com”>http://theartinstinct.com/):</p>
<p>Unfortunately, what goes on at elite institutions at Harvard becomes the proxy for the entire university system in the US. The majority of faculty in higher education are not teaching at these elite institutions and have very different experiences.</p>
<p>My experience as a tenured prof is very similar to stradmom’s. I teach anywhere between 80-90 students a semester with no TA, etc. My office has no windows. I don’t even have my own computer printer.</p>
<p>I just finished teaching in the morning, meeting with a few students to discuss a lecture I plan to give to a student club, grading essays for one of my first-year classes, and I’m in the middle of writing a recommendation for graduate school. I’m taking a break while I finish up the recommendation. I have to then plan for a colloquium talk that I am giving at another university. In the middle of all this, as a member of a school-wide committee, various faculty members bounce in to air grievances that they wish I would share with the committee. If I can, by the end of the day, I’ll try to complete a review for the journal I edit.</p>
<p>Not every place is Harvard. I have to work just as hard, but I don’t get the same perks.</p>
<p>Forgive my ignorance – but what is the reasoning behind the tenure system? How does it benefit anyone other than the professors themselves? I find it very disturbing that tenured professors can never be fired. I truly believe that 90% of these teachers are ethical and professional but the other 10% who are not can cause a great deal of damage.</p>
<p>On another note, this is not a problem that is exclusive to the college environment. Our local high school is another example. I don’t think a teacher has ever been fired for not meeting professional standards. It would practically take an act of murder or admitted sexual abuse before anyone in our school system is ever dismissed.</p>
<p>checkers has a very valid point. colleges shouldn’t engage in the practice of ‘weeding’. the goal should be TEACHING, and teaching well. there was an excellent radio documentary about this the other day. the lecture format is outdated!</p>
<p>I know this is oft-repeated, but Schaefer Riley’s main point was that students are subsidizing research. Tenured professors are being paid high salaries for very little class time. They are expected to spend the bulk of their time in pursuit of publications. I know some would argue the opposite–that research subsidizes undergraduates, but I don’t see it. When you think of the actual time spent in class by students, the cost per hour is enormous. Looking at it superficially, I’ve never understood why it should be so much higher than at a private high school, especially considering what they pay adjuncts.</p>
<p>Some private high school tuitions are over $30,000 per year. While private university tuitions can top $40,000 per year, it is not like private high schools are that far behind.</p>
<p>(note: above are tuition only, not including living expenses and the like)</p>
<p>Public high school budgets are probably in the $11,000 per year per student range, though there is considerable variation. The supposedly self-supporting UC Berkeley Extension Fall Program for Freshman charges $6,415 for one semester’s worth of freshman level non-lab courses (so theoretically equivalent to annual tuition and fees of $12,830).</p>
<p>^yes, but in a high school you get about 7 hours of class time per day, with a much lower average class size if you factor in big lectures at college. And there is overall much more extra “correction” work for a teacher to do on assignments.</p>
<p>checkers’ point is that professors should take responsibility for student learning and ensure that all students get 100% on the test, apparently ignoring the fact that students are expected to work hard to master the material. That’s nonsense.</p>
<p>But that does not invalidate your second point. Lecturing is not teaching. College teaching is the one “profession” that you don’t need to know anything about to practice. College professors have a lot of subject matter knowledge, but most know next to nothing about learning theory or effective teaching methods. So what do they do? Lecture - because that’s all they know how to do, because that’s how they were taught. Designing effective instruction and working with students to help them master material takes hard work and a knowledge of how people learn. Most college profs aren’t willing to put in the work and wouldn’t know where to start if they were willing.</p>
<p>Of course, when you have 500 kids in a lecture hall, it’s impossible for the instruction to be really effective - but it could be lots better than it is.</p>
<p>I’m wondering if a part if this is also the commonplace idea among old-school Profs that it is the student’s job to take in, use their critical thinking/analysis skills they brought with them from high school to figure it out, and take a more active role in independently learning the material rather than having it “spoon-fed” to them by the Prof as in K-12. </p>
<p>As for learning theories of pedagogy and teaching methods…I hope you don’t mean what’s covered in the graduate Ed schools. From what I’ve heard from several friends who attended some of the best Ed schools in the country(Harvard & Teacher’s College), practically none of it was relevant or useful once they hit a real classroom…especially if it happens to be in an impoverished rural area or inner-city neighborhood. In fact, the whole education field tends to be looked upon with much skepticism and disdain by academics/students in other fields/schools.</p>
<p>Right, that’s the standard copout from professors who are comfortable recycling the same tired old lecture year after year and never doing the hard work necessary to engage students and actually teach them. And the canard about schools of education is also part of the excuse-making. You don’t need an education degree to apply the principles of effective instruction; you do need the initiative to move out of your comfort zone and learn at least the basics of your craft.</p>
<p>On the lectures part, I agree. While I do feel too many undergrads and more recently…their parents expect the Professors to spell things out to the same degree that IMHO was more appropriate in K-12, lecturing…especially if it is delivered poorly doesn’t do very much for the learning process. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, unless the Prof is teaching at an LAC…the hiring/promotion process is such that mastering good teaching is not only not incentivized…but also viewed with some validity as a liability. There are countless stories of Profs at many research universities being forced to leave after not getting tenure or being promoted despite receiving several excellent teaching awards. In some universities/departments…tenure-track faculty view teaching awards as a black mark which may derail their chances at tenure/promotion because of the fear it signals their lack of prioritization of academic research/publications. Understandable when it is well-known that research universities prioritize research/publications in judging someone for tenure/promotion. </p>
<p>As for your viewing the Profs’ views on the education field as another canard…I’d respectfully disagree after seeing some of the research they’ve published and the lack of relevance of much of what they teach/research for the teacher in the classroom from friends’ experiences. When they publish education recommendations based on public policies/ideologies* which have proven to be failures or not the panacea they thought it would be in other parts of the world and the US…something’s seriously wrong. </p>
<ul>
<li>I.e. Articles calling for dismantling of public magnet high schools and encouraging the brightest students to be mixed in with the rest of the mainstreamed student population.</li>
</ul>
<p>I think you are uninformed. I know that at least two top “research” universities, Ph.D. candidates have to teach courses as part of their training. They receive instruction in how to teach. When they are “section” leaders or lab instructors, the grades their students receive are evaluated. Students also provide course evaluations. I also know that many of the top research universities give awards for outstanding teaching to some of their graduate students. </p>
<p>All of these are VERY important in hiring decisions. A newly minted Ph.D. from a top research university who gets poor course evaluations is extremely unlikely to get a teaching job. A newly minted Ph.D. who has been awarded an “outstanding teaching by a graduate student” award is much more likely to get a job.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13253573-post49.html]#49[/url]”>quote</a> …Lecturing is not teaching. College teaching is the one “profession” that you don’t need to know anything about to practice. College professors have a lot of subject matter knowledge, but most know next to nothing about learning theory or effective teaching methods. So what do they do? Lecture - because that’s all they know how to do, because that’s how they were taught. Designing effective instruction and working with students to help them master material takes hard work and a knowledge of how people learn…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For parents and prospective collegians that would like to see a specific example of the difference between lecturing and teaching, here’s an excellent video from MIT’s online courses. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s more than meets the eye (pun intended) from Professor Lewin’s presentation. As you watch the video note how he introduces a bit of mystery with his demonstration of [Fechner</a> Colors](<a href=“http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Fechner_color]Fechner”>Fechner color | Psychology Wiki | Fandom); admiting that the illusion experienced by the audience is out of his realm of expertise (physics) and subtlely inviting the ‘students’ (all instructors themselves) to think hollistically. He humbly shares the limits of physics; suggesting that it is part of a greater whole.</p>
<p>Any student would be lucky to have at least one professor like Professor Lewin in their college career; one who would get you ‘psyched’ for knowledge.</p>
For as long as anyone can remember, introductory physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was taught in a vast windowless amphitheater known by its number, 26-100.</p>
<p>Squeezed into the rows of hard, folding wooden seats, as many as 300 freshmen anxiously took notes while the professor covered multiple blackboards with mathematical formulas and explained the principles of Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism.</p>
<p>But now, with physicists across the country pushing for universities to do a better job of teaching science, M.I.T. has made a striking change.</p>
<p>The physics department has replaced the traditional large introductory lecture with smaller classes that emphasize hands-on, interactive, collaborative learning. Last fall, after years of experimentation and debate and resistance from students, who initially petitioned against it, the department made the change permanent. Already, attendance is up and the failure rate has dropped by more than 50 percent. <a href=“emphasis%20added”>/quote</a></p>
<p>checkers’ point is that professors should take responsibility for student learning and ensure that all students get 100% on the test, apparently ignoring the fact that students are expected to work hard to master the material. That’s nonsense.</p>
<p>No, that was not MY point. But thanks for assuming…</p>
<p>Yes, professors DO need to take responsiblity for student learning/teaching, of course, kids need to study too. Kids need to attend class. Kids need to take responsibility. </p>
<p>However, I also think the professors and the school are in the business of providing an education. I’m not paying for self-taught classes. A graduate that comes out educated, confident in their field, and able to excell at a career says a lot more about the education provided by a college than the number of kids it flunks out. Or the number of kids who barely made the grades to graduate…only learned part of what is needed and inadequate knowledge to even be competitive in their career choice - yet still received a diploma. </p>
<p>It’s about being held accountable. Everyone always worries about the kids that party and don’t go to class. Not all young adults are screw ups. It’s about providing an education and maybe even hiring professors who can actually teach others. Not everyone can do that. </p>
<p>College is not free public school. You can choose where to go. You can choose your major. It’s the same as any other business arrangement, you expect quality. And yes, part of that IS having professors that know how to teach the classes.</p>
<p>Everybody’s so down on lectures these days, but I think they can still be part of an effective teaching repertoire. Listening to a gifted lecturer is much more stimulating than engaging in poorly conceived “group work” projects with half-ignorant and variously motivated peers. When I was in college I loved listening to my professors lecture because they were good at it. Lecturing is an art that not everyone can master.</p>
<p>I agree NJSue. The funny thing is, people are so down on lectures – yet in much of the world, which outscores us on all kinds of math and science tests, that’s exactly how middle and high school kids are taught. They listen to a lecture. They take notes. They’re assigned material. And practice it at home. </p>
<p>In fact, when you talk to ANY foreign student they’re always amazed at how involved, approachable and student-oriented professors are in America’s colleges. Something doesn’t add up here. Methinks it’s generalizations ;)</p>
<p>One expectation many Profs…especially those from the old school have about students who are ostensibly “young adults” is that they won’t need the degree of handholding and “spoon-feeding” that was the academic norm from K-12. In K-12, the teachers and parents had a greater portion of the responsibility for the education of a given student. </p>
<p>By contrast, many college Profs…especially those from the old school feel that as “young adults”, the students now bear most(90%+) of the responsibility for their own education. To believe otherwise is to implicitly admit one is not mature enough to be a “young adult” IMHO. </p>
<p>Also, is it the Prof’s fault and responsibility if a given young adult student is not prepared academically for college level work? I’m not sure about you…but I’m inclined to disagree…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One common issue I’ve seen with college classmates and heard from grad students who came from such countries is that they had a harder time learning how to “think on their feet” in a lively classroom discussion/debate with well-motivated and well-prepared US classmates. </p>
<p>Another was trying to adjust psychologically from an academic culture where merely asking questions…much less openly disagreeing/debating with a Prof’s opinion on a subjective interpretation or opinions was considered rude/impertinent to one where such behaviors are not only expected…but encouraged/rewarded by US Profs. In addition, I have found that a few had issues with learning how to disagree without taking it too personally.</p>