4 ms·

2 things about this fascinate me: 1) The knock-on effect of having this cross-published on HN and reddit will somehow make this story reach some form of news-m

2 things about this fascinate me: 1) The knock-on effect of having this cross-published on HN and reddit will somehow make this story reach some form of news-media -> which in turn will influence UC Berkeleys decision, as they will be under the media-spotlight. 2) I always thought many STEM professors were useless educators who only taught students as a by-the-way while they chased fame/recognition among their peers for academic-success (or status). I guess this rings true for Math departments in many parts of the world. As many others are saying, it would be better for this guy to leave, because if the department was overtly toxic before, the true assholism will shine once the other profs create a siege mentality against this guy for "outing them".

jldugger 11y ago
> 2) I always thought many STEM professors were useless educators who only taught students as a by-the-way while they chased fame/recognition among their peers for academic-success (or status). Well, you forgot Research Dollars. It's an open secret that STEM undergraduate education is seen as a departmental obligation, and that your goals, and what you were hired to do is produce new research. Best case scenario you use classes to filter and train people to perform your wage slave researcher staff. Realistically, STEM is moving towards a Lecturer / Researcher model, though faculty unions, senates, and ethics panels have opinions on the matter. In contrast, instead of research dollars subsidizing undergraduate education, math departments generally are set up to use education to subsidize research. Fortunately mathematician's needs are typically quite modest. But when cheaper Lecturers are introduced to the department, it's clear that the department could be cut. > As many others are saying, it would be better for this guy to leave, because if the department was overtly toxic before, the true assholism will shine once the other profs create a siege mentality against this guy for "outing them". Realistically, it sounds like they're already in siege mentality. The picture he paints is that hiring an adjunct was controversial within the department because it represents a shift away from research, especially if he can improve on outcomes despite larger class size. Several tenure track faculty lines could feasibly be cut as a result of decreased need for teaching. His best case scenario would have been for the information in that open letter to reach the hands of the people in power pushing for more Lecturers (and less tenure track faculty lines), before he was fired.
- wfo 11y ago
  It's true; while his grievances are valid in effect he's putting forth a very good argument for the MBAs running the show in the administration that are frothing at the mouth to cut faculty, hire adjuncts and pay them nothing, which makes room in the budget for fancy unnecessary buildings and higher admin salaries -- Sorry, I mean "make universities more efficient".
Simulacra 11y ago
Very good point. A professors job should be foremost to teach. Research and chasing fame should come second. In my opinion, universities have flipped this on its head. They've allowed and in some ways forced professors to relegate teaching to a level of "by the way". Students pay and go to university to learn from teachers, not to subsidize researchers. There's something very wrong when a University places more emphasis on research than in teaching students
- wfo 11y ago
  There are research universities and teaching universities. If you want to go to a college that focuses on teaching calculus 101 they exist though I don't know why as a budding mathematician you'd want to sprint full speed away from doing real mathematics. The research has to be done somewhere. It's supposed to be subsidized by the public or private donations but funding is regularly and methodically cut so the only remaining reliable source of income is tuition which ends up having to pay for both. Not an ideal situation but unless Americans start deciding research is worth paying money for (unlikely) it's what we have.
- TruePath 11y ago
  Umm why? For the most part a professor is a talking text book that stands in front of the class. You can go download charismatic people with fancy approaches to the material online. However, I don't think this really makes much of a difference (choosing the right curriculum does though). The one place I've seen professors have real impact is in their ability to both answer innovative and novel questions and convey a sense of excitement and interest in a subject. While these only affect a small fraction of any given class they are the important value add and they are what someone who is personally passionate about the field and deeply knowledgeable about it brings to the table. Worse, what seems like "good teaching" can often reflect a counterproductive attitude to the subject. Everyone I know who has become a mathematician has done so DESPITE (not because) of their pre-college teachers (some have had the good fortune to run into one or two exceptions but still struggled past teachers who attempted to ruin the subject). These teachers were chosen entirely for their teaching ability but to no avail since without the perspective of a research career they weren't teaching people how to duplicate a computer algebra system instead of understanding the math. Focusing on accurate symbol manipulation and memorization is in active tension with understanding but is an easier rote to solving the kind of problems you can ask on AP tests. College students are big boys and girls. They can read the damn textbook if needed. I spent an entire semester at caltech (my most productive one) without attending a single class (I had my friends turn in my homework in section). However, having professors available who could accurately convey (through course content, discussion and even research projects) what a discipline was about was invaluable. Let's give up the charade people and let professors play videos of better speakers in lecture but lend their expertise to answering questions and talking to students.
joeevans1000 11y ago
Just throw in the towel and leave? By that thinking, he'd have already acquiesced and not let the world know about this, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. I say don't give in easily without trying to improve things... he might even stay and shake up the department for the better.

jldugger 11y ago

> 2) I always thought many STEM professors were useless educators who only taught students as a by-the-way while they chased fame/recognition among their peers for academic-success (or status). Well, you forgot Research Dollars. It's an open secret that STEM undergraduate education is seen as a departmental obligation, and that your goals, and what you were hired to do is produce new research. Best case scenario you use classes to filter and train people to perform your wage slave researcher staff. Realistically, STEM is moving towards a Lecturer / Researcher model, though faculty unions, senates, and ethics panels have opinions on the matter. In contrast, instead of research dollars subsidizing undergraduate education, math departments generally are set up to use education to subsidize research. Fortunately mathematician's needs are typically quite modest. But when cheaper Lecturers are introduced to the department, it's clear that the department could be cut. > As many others are saying, it would be better for this guy to leave, because if the department was overtly toxic before, the true assholism will shine once the other profs create a siege mentality against this guy for "outing them". Realistically, it sounds like they're already in siege mentality. The picture he paints is that hiring an adjunct was controversial within the department because it represents a shift away from research, especially if he can improve on outcomes despite larger class size. Several tenure track faculty lines could feasibly be cut as a result of decreased need for teaching. His best case scenario would have been for the information in that open letter to reach the hands of the people in power pushing for more Lecturers (and less tenure track faculty lines), before he was fired.

wfo 11y ago
It's true; while his grievances are valid in effect he's putting forth a very good argument for the MBAs running the show in the administration that are frothing at the mouth to cut faculty, hire adjuncts and pay them nothing, which makes room in the budget for fancy unnecessary buildings and higher admin salaries -- Sorry, I mean "make universities more efficient".

Simulacra 11y ago

Very good point. A professors job should be foremost to teach. Research and chasing fame should come second. In my opinion, universities have flipped this on its head. They've allowed and in some ways forced professors to relegate teaching to a level of "by the way". Students pay and go to university to learn from teachers, not to subsidize researchers. There's something very wrong when a University places more emphasis on research than in teaching students

wfo 11y ago
There are research universities and teaching universities. If you want to go to a college that focuses on teaching calculus 101 they exist though I don't know why as a budding mathematician you'd want to sprint full speed away from doing real mathematics. The research has to be done somewhere. It's supposed to be subsidized by the public or private donations but funding is regularly and methodically cut so the only remaining reliable source of income is tuition which ends up having to pay for both. Not an ideal situation but unless Americans start deciding research is worth paying money for (unlikely) it's what we have.
TruePath 11y ago
Umm why? For the most part a professor is a talking text book that stands in front of the class. You can go download charismatic people with fancy approaches to the material online. However, I don't think this really makes much of a difference (choosing the right curriculum does though). The one place I've seen professors have real impact is in their ability to both answer innovative and novel questions and convey a sense of excitement and interest in a subject. While these only affect a small fraction of any given class they are the important value add and they are what someone who is personally passionate about the field and deeply knowledgeable about it brings to the table. Worse, what seems like "good teaching" can often reflect a counterproductive attitude to the subject. Everyone I know who has become a mathematician has done so DESPITE (not because) of their pre-college teachers (some have had the good fortune to run into one or two exceptions but still struggled past teachers who attempted to ruin the subject). These teachers were chosen entirely for their teaching ability but to no avail since without the perspective of a research career they weren't teaching people how to duplicate a computer algebra system instead of understanding the math. Focusing on accurate symbol manipulation and memorization is in active tension with understanding but is an easier rote to solving the kind of problems you can ask on AP tests. College students are big boys and girls. They can read the damn textbook if needed. I spent an entire semester at caltech (my most productive one) without attending a single class (I had my friends turn in my homework in section). However, having professors available who could accurately convey (through course content, discussion and even research projects) what a discipline was about was invaluable. Let's give up the charade people and let professors play videos of better speakers in lecture but lend their expertise to answering questions and talking to students.

joeevans1000 11y ago

Just throw in the towel and leave? By that thinking, he'd have already acquiesced and not let the world know about this, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. I say don't give in easily without trying to improve things... he might even stay and shake up the department for the better.