Universities are seen as the forefront of advancing research. Institutions that have a good reputation for research are usually seen as the “best.” History has instilled that in us. In my other class, we are currently discussing physicists who worked on discoveries leading up to the creation of the atomic bomb. Almost every great discovery was accompanied by “discovered in *some* university’s lab” or “research conducted at *insert name* University.”
Research is truly a great thing and universities have shown us (and continue to) some of the most advanced science we’ve ever seen. Although this is fine and dandy, when most common folk think of a university, they don’t see RESEARCH, they see EDUCATION: an opportunity to learn more so that in the future, you may be able to use your knowledge and skills to make a decent living (of course this definition of a college education may garner some argument, but for the most part, I think I cover it okay). Lately, I have been getting a feeling that this isn’t really the case for most institutions.
In one of our first classes, a student mentioned something about his Organic Chemistry professor that irked me. He relayed to us that the only reason this professor is here, is so that he can get support for research. Is it me or is that just messed up? Students go to a college and take classes so that they can learn the material and move further into their field of study. For Pre-Meds especially, Orgo is a really important class for a student to understand. When you put a professor that doesn’t really seem to love teaching in a difficult class, how could you expect him/her to teach well? His/her ulterior motives cause students to lose out.
I feel like there’s an issue with the hiring process at colleges. Most professors require doctoral degrees (usually very research-heavy) to teach at a university. These professors are experts in their fields, no doubt, but are they experts at teaching? Potentially not. High school and elementary school teachers must follow strict DOE rules affecting how they teach their classes. College professors, in some cases, don’t have to answer to anyone. Shouldn’t we hold them to a similar kind of standard, even something less strict?
Before going on, I have to clarify that there are some incredible professors who have their PhDs and other doctoral degrees. They’re AMAZING. BUT, there are also some who “aren’t the best” (please excuse my euphemism). Maybe it’s not that they “aren’t the best” in their field, but they certainly “aren’t the best” at teaching or perhaps it’s caring (about the students that is).
I propose that the system change. Do all of our professors really need doctoral degrees? For more advanced and specialized classes, yes. But for lower level classes, perhaps not. My Calculus II professor certainly didn’t need a PhD – he made it easy to ace Calculus with a strong understanding of it too. It’s an important, lower-level Math course that can be taught beautifully by a person who might not have their doctoral-level degree. What I am saying to colleges is: Please hire professors based primarily on how well they can teach, not how well they can research (make that a secondary consideration).
I write this based off of my own personal experiences. Ultimately, I have had many more great professors than I have had “bad” professors, but for the few times that I had those “bad” professors, it made college more difficult than it had to be.
Of course there are some issues with what I propose and discuss here. There always are. There can be a fundamental difference between professors which fall into this group of “bad”: Case 1- They have a secured job (tenure) or Case 2- They’re just not trained to teach well. This one example shows just how dynamic the situation could be and it’s hard to capture it all in a blog post.
This issue of hiring brings to light even bigger issues with the Higher Education system at large. Must universities always flaunt their research status? And if they don’t have that status, do they really need it? Maybe institutions should focus on flaunting their extraordinary teaching.
I could not agree with you more. There is something totally — not sure what adjective to use here – let’s just say “wrong” — with the way doctoral students are trained, as many will end up teaching at some point, yet their training, until recently was almost totally in the realm of research. You are right to question whether this is logical. But there is this value system that puts research on a higher run than teaching. The value system needs some adjustment.
Hey Chris, I second that agreement. I even see many instances where professors abuse their tenure status and use it as an excuse to not teach the class properly. I am not kidding. Not to drop any names but my child psych professor literally spends 20 mins per class bragging about how he was a tenured professor and all the research he did to achieve it. So instead of doing his job as a professor and actually teach the subject, he made sure the class knew that he wasn’t going to be fired because he was tenured and that he’s been teaching for many years at the college and many more to come. It makes no sense to me that some professors become professors not to teach but for their own personal research reasons. Don’t get me wrong, research discoveries lead to great things but some professors are just abusing tenure system…I definitely agree we need change.