|
I received news a few weeks ago that one of my classes was being dropped next quarter, it contained a comment informing students that the professor will not be returning in the fall. I think it's safe to assume this is due to the massive budget cuts because the state of California is basically out of money and in massive debt. I've no problems with dropping classes to meet budget, shit happens and you deal with it.
My prospective professor was a young part-timer who actually works in the field, which in my experience, tends to be the formula for the best teachers. I know this because I've had him, and similar teachers before. However, I suppose for "obvious" reasons, being a new part-time professor means you're one of the first to be lined up for the firing squad, while older or full-time professor get priority.
Here's the goddamn problem. All the full-time professors suck. Most of these full-time professors are people who got their PhD in some semi-related field 20+ years ago and wrote some paper about it. They may, at some point, have worked in the field but have not for a very long time (which is even longer in the technology field). I don't understand the necessity of having an academically successful person be a teacher. It is not, at all, relevant to students, nor is it done in their best interest.
Those who live their live by the absurd rules and standards of academia will only live to know academia. Their classes will have a ridiculously stupid grading system, while learning and relevance become secondary to maintaining the purity of the academic system of points and grades. It's bullshit and everyone knows it; but the only people suffering are the students.
This rant isn't really going any where. I'm just pretty pissed my school decided to drop one of the best professors on campus. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else had similar stories of terrible teachers so I know it's not just me.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:10 mahnini wrote:
All the full-time professors suck. Most of these full-time professors are people who got their PhD in some semi-related field 20+ years ago and wrote some paper about it. They may, at some point, have worked in the field but have not for a very long time (which is even longer in the technology field). I don't understand the necessity of having an academically successful person be a teacher. It is not, at all, relevant to students, nor is it done in their best interest.
Professors need to do academic research as part of the professor title, in general. Professors aren't simply PhD holders that have got more prestige, but they have specific requirements (usually in the form of a set number of research papers per year) that they need to fulfil, depending on the university they work at.
I'm not saying that makes them good lecturers, but it does generally mean that they need to keep up with what's going on in the field. That said, I also prefer young, energetic lecturers over old, experienced ones, granted that the young lecturers no what the hell they are talking about. But don't underestimate professors. The ammount of work that you must put into, and the amount of knowledge you should have, to become a professor, is scary. Whenever I think a professor that lectures me is a retard, I'm always shocked at how intelligent and knowledgeable they are when you talk to them outside of the classroom environment.
|
Norway1004 Posts
My prospective professor was a young part-timer who actually works in the field, which in my experience, tends to be the formula for the best teachers. I know this because I've had him, and similar teachers before. However, I suppose for "obvious" reasons, being a new part-time professor means you're one of the first to be lined up for the firing squad, while older or full-time professor get priority.
Here's the goddamn problem. All the full-time professors suck. Most of these full-time professors are people who got their PhD in some semi-related field 20+ years ago and wrote some paper about it. They may, at some point, have worked in the field but have not for a very long time (which is even longer in the technology field). I don't understand the necessity of having an academically successful person be a teacher. It is not, at all, relevant to students, nor is it done in their best interest.
Those who live their live by the absurd rules and standards of academia will only live to know academia. Their classes will have a ridiculously stupid grading system, while learning and relevance become secondary to maintaining the purity of the academic system of points and grades. It's bullshit and everyone knows it; but the only people suffering are the students. I like your points, and as far as the state of California being in deep economically shit well you do have this man trying to get things right by raising taxes and cut, cut, cutting budgets to pay the debts but that was a few months old news in the paper, I honestly don't really know much about the situation.
![[image loading]](http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh211/Sir-BraveHeart/arnold-schwarzenegger-11.jpg)
Anyway I also agree 100% with what Daigomi said, it's sort of how I feel about them to.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
Oops you went to a state school instead of an undergrads-only liberal arts college, sorry dude better luck next time. Oh wait there is no next time.
|
United States24676 Posts
Something I never understood is why someone who can get a phd in say, math, is able to teach me math. Sure, knowing the content is important, but...
|
Tenure is the problem, not so much being a professor. It kinda kills any incentive to actually improve your class, and most teachers/professors pack it in once they get their job fo' life. I've always been amazed that it's legal to have tenure in a publicly funded institution.
|
On August 13 2009 03:19 Daigomi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2009 03:10 mahnini wrote:
All the full-time professors suck. Most of these full-time professors are people who got their PhD in some semi-related field 20+ years ago and wrote some paper about it. They may, at some point, have worked in the field but have not for a very long time (which is even longer in the technology field). I don't understand the necessity of having an academically successful person be a teacher. It is not, at all, relevant to students, nor is it done in their best interest. Professors need to do academic research as part of the professor title, in general. Professors aren't simply PhD holders that have got more prestige, but they have specific requirements (usually in the form of a set number of research papers per year) that they need to fulfil, depending on the university they work at. I'm not saying that makes them good lecturers, but it does generally mean that they need to keep up with what's going on in the field. That said, I also prefer young, energetic lecturers over old, experienced ones, granted that the young lecturers no what the hell they are talking about. But don't underestimate professors. The ammount of work that you must put into, and the amount of knowledge you should have, to become a professor, is scary. Whenever I think a professor that lectures me is a retard, I'm always shocked at how intelligent and knowledgeable they are when you talk to them outside of the classroom environment.
That's very true. I have no doubt they had to be smart to get those degrees. I just wish they were better teachers. How intelligent they are outside the classroom environment isn't very helpful. 
|
On August 13 2009 03:30 motbob wrote:
Oops you went to a state school instead of an undergrads-only liberal arts college, sorry dude better luck next time. Oh wait there is no next time.
i dont get what you're trying to say.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:30 Hawk wrote:
Tenure is the problem, not so much being a professor. It kinda kills any incentive to actually improve your class, and most teachers/professors pack it in once they get their job fo' life. I've always been amazed that it's legal to have tenure in a publicly funded institution.
Not only that but most schools stop giving teacher evals for those who have tenure. Tenured professors are the ones who most need evals since job security is no longer an issue.
|
You're not at university to learn, and professor's aren't there to teach. You're there to write essays, and professors are there to grade them. Sure a professor with witty anecdotes throughout the class makes it go by a hell of a lot faster, but my experience has been that if you need to learn anything, you have to teach yourself.
|
I swear to god if I see that Arnold pic from you one more time chaser..
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:36 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2009 03:30 motbob wrote:
Oops you went to a state school instead of an undergrads-only liberal arts college, sorry dude better luck next time. Oh wait there is no next time. i dont get what you're trying to say.
At undergrad-only private colleges, professors are there primarily to teach, whereas at a university/stateschool you will probably be taught by people who focus primarily on their research. It makes a big difference.
|
United States24676 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:55 Chef wrote:
You're not at university to learn, and professor's aren't there to teach. You're there to write essays, and professors are there to grade them. Sure a professor with witty anecdotes throughout the class makes it go by a hell of a lot faster, but my experience has been that if you need to learn anything, you have to teach yourself.
This only describes a very narrow portion of university courses, but your point is well taken.
Have you had the opportunity to take many technical classes? They tend to be a lot different than core or liberal arts classes.
|
Norway1004 Posts
On August 13 2009 03:57 NoobsOfWrath wrote:
I swear to god if I see that Arnold pic from you one more time chaser.. Im sorry lol 3rd time won't use it anymore but out of curiosity what If I do, then what will you do? :o
|
On August 13 2009 04:03 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2009 03:36 mahnini wrote:On August 13 2009 03:30 motbob wrote:
Oops you went to a state school instead of an undergrads-only liberal arts college, sorry dude better luck next time. Oh wait there is no next time. i dont get what you're trying to say. At undergrad-only private colleges, professors are there primarily to teach, whereas at a university/stateschool you will probably be taught by people who focus primarily on their research. It makes a big difference.
there's plenty of shit teachers at private schools, what are you talking about
|
On August 13 2009 04:03 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2009 03:36 mahnini wrote:On August 13 2009 03:30 motbob wrote:
Oops you went to a state school instead of an undergrads-only liberal arts college, sorry dude better luck next time. Oh wait there is no next time. i dont get what you're trying to say. At undergrad-only private colleges, professors are there primarily to teach, whereas at a university/stateschool you will probably be taught by people who focus primarily on their research. It makes a big difference.
so what you're saying is that it's my fault that i went to an educational institution assuming i was going to be taught?
|
Research universities put a premium on... research rather than teaching. Many reasons for this, but a short list includes:
1. A significant part of university budgets come from alumni donations, federal and/or state grants and so on, all of which could not care less about the "teaching" skills. They want visible names and research to brag about. Far more interesting to rub elbows at a fundraising dinner with a Nobel laureate.
2. The same is partly true for incoming undergrduates: many people will prefer to study with "famous" professor vs. an unknown guy who finished his PhD recently and is a great teacher. Why this is....deserves a book of its own, but basically "brand names" matter. 10 years from now, when you will have forgotten all you learned in that course anyway, you will be prouder to say you have studied under a well known guy.
3. Famous professors attract better graduate students, who go on to be famous alumni and give the school future bragging rights. BTW, in "research" fields graduate students are subsidized with revenues from undergrads.
So... you might not like it (now?), but the incentives are stacked against the good teacher / mediocre researcher types at good schools.
|
16986 Posts
Actually, at many schools, the university will hire lecturers for the sole purpose of being good teachers - they're not restricted by any publishing or research requirements, just for the education of students. However, often time they're not tenured.
|
Yet another reason(s) that college is bullshit.
|
Same problem but i just had to deal with it.
|
5673 Posts
This is one of the biggest problems in academia. There is a saying -
When you graduate and become an Asst. Lecturer (sorta like a TA), you can teach most of the courses offered by the department.
When you get your Masters, you can teach 3 - 4 courses.
When you get your PhD, you can teach one or two, if you're lucky. 
As a young part-timer myself, let me just say that we all live with this problem constantly hanging over our heads. We teach for senior staff, we grade papers for them, we take their classes when they cant, and we work long and hard, only to get dropped when there are things like budget cuts. The most we can do is to get out there, get qualified, and get hired in a position where dropping us isn't an option. I hope your professor does that, and that you get to see him again in a few years. Good teachers aren't made, they're born, and it would be a shame if something like this discouraged him from getting back into academia, because it's one institution that really needs more people like him.
Having said that, academically successful people can be good teachers, and when they are, they're really, really good. Not everyone is a good teacher though, and it's up to the relevant department to know where they should put each person. If I had to choose an experienced professor versus a young lecturer though, and this is assuming they were both good teachers, I'd take the experienced one any day. In fact, most universities often put their most experienced people for first year courses, and I personally think that makes sense, given that they can teach well of course.
|
i'm not too worried about his future. i'm just selfish. plus, most part-time professors that teach here work in the field concurrently while teaching, it's what makes their teaching style much more appealing and practical. while many of the full-time professors have done nothing but taught classes for years and years and as admirable as that may be it doesn't seem to work out well. i mean, even they seem to get sick of teaching the same thing over and over for years on end, and it definitely shows.
|
Something I have definitely noticed is that the best professors tends to be the ones working toward their PH.D while teaching.
I actually had one of these and he was working on his dissertation at the same time as he was teaching that semester and man I have never seen someone so passionate about a subject in my life.
He knew what he was talking about and he knew how to teach it... world needs more people like that.
|
On August 13 2009 03:23 ChaseR wrote:Show nested quote +My prospective professor was a young part-timer who actually works in the field, which in my experience, tends to be the formula for the best teachers. I know this because I've had him, and similar teachers before. However, I suppose for "obvious" reasons, being a new part-time professor means you're one of the first to be lined up for the firing squad, while older or full-time professor get priority.
Here's the goddamn problem. All the full-time professors suck. Most of these full-time professors are people who got their PhD in some semi-related field 20+ years ago and wrote some paper about it. They may, at some point, have worked in the field but have not for a very long time (which is even longer in the technology field). I don't understand the necessity of having an academically successful person be a teacher. It is not, at all, relevant to students, nor is it done in their best interest.
Those who live their live by the absurd rules and standards of academia will only live to know academia. Their classes will have a ridiculously stupid grading system, while learning and relevance become secondary to maintaining the purity of the academic system of points and grades. It's bullshit and everyone knows it; but the only people suffering are the students. I like your points, and as far as the state of California being in deep economically shit well you do have this man trying to get things right by raising taxes and cut, cut, cutting budgets to pay the debts but that was a few months old news in the paper, I honestly don't really know much about the situation. Anyway I also agree 100% with what Daigomi said, it's sort of how I feel about them to.
The state senate is making it very hard for him to work. The reality is that Giant Douche (aka Gray Davis, the former state governor) fucked California hard in the ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
