3 ms·

[I attended GT for Computer Science and signed one of these petitions] This comment seems to misunderstand professors and universities. Instruction is a relati

[I attended GT for Computer Science and signed one of these petitions] This comment seems to misunderstand professors and universities. Instruction is a relatively small part of professor responsibilities. Most tenured professors will teach perhaps one class a year, some one class a semester. Some do more, though often by choice and at least at Georgia Tech, much of the undergraduate instruction is done by lecturers, who are not tenure track faculty. So the value they produce won't decrease by much. In fact it might actually increase. Georgia Tech is, and has been, one of the leaders in online instruction through the OMSCS program. This allowed professors to be in many ways more valuable and teach more students per professor (with an increase in TAs). My experience is limited mostly to the College of Computing, but some courses taught by other Colleges (notably gen-ed physics I and II in the College of Sciences) have been optionally taught in mixed online form for years (I took an "inverted" Physics course where the lectures were online in 2014). This allowed in-lecture time to be much more tailored to specific student questions. So there's no a priori reason to believe that online instruction is less valuable. (This isn't the same, by the way, as the opinion that university education that is completely online is as valuable as in person, there are environmental factors that are advantageous for in person experiences). There are some classes and subjects where this doesn't always work (Engineering courses often need specialized equipment for more applied course), but these aren't the majority of classes, and forcing a CS professor to lecture in person when the same course, often taught by the same professor, already exists as a MOOC is ridiculous.

mnky9800n 6y ago
It's sort of wild you talking about taking those physics courses. I was one of the research scientists supporting Mike and Ed teaching those courses. I always wondered if people liked them or not. We only ever had surveys and such I never interacted with students one on one.
glofish 6y ago
Are you seriously arguing that a professor teaching/working from home will produce the same value? And that the students should pay the same tuition as before? Why did we ever have in person classes then if the value is the same? (Later you also state that there are subjects where it cannot possibly work at all) I am not saying that online education is useless, just that it produces less value. I also believe that professors are not even remotely open to the idea that this could be reflected in their salaries.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Are you seriously arguing that a professor teaching/working from home will produce the same value? Lecturing online vs in person, yes I think there's not a huge difference. From my experience at Tech, I think of all of the parts of the environment (other students, 1:1 time with professors, research opportunities, labs, lectures, random events, extracurriculars, etc.) lectures brought some of the least academic value, and are impacted the least by the move online. Class structures as a whole are impacted, but a professor lecturing into a chalkboard on how to take eigenvalues isn't a better experience than what you can get on youtube today. The value I as a student got wasn't from the lectures, it was from everything else. And you can't provide the everything else anyway. > Later you also state that there are subjects where it cannot possibly work. Indeed, but that doesn't excuse not trying for the subjects where it can. > I am not saying that online education is useless, just that it produces less value, and I don't think that professors are even remotely open to the idea that this could be reflected in their salaries. And I'm saying that the opposite is likely true: the OMSCS program is cheaper tuition wise, but still an enormous cash cow for Georgia Tech. So if you mean value per student, maybe, but that has, again, little to do with the professor, it has to do with the other services the university environment provides. In an online education scheme, the value provided by the professor actually increases, while the value to charge the student decreases, because the student no longer has access to all of the other valuable things that the university provides that have nothing to do with the professor (everything from the concrete: a world class weightlifting studio to the more nebulous: the ability to interact and network with other students, which is for example a key reason that schools can charge more for their MBA programs, it has little to do with the classes and more to do with the people, the other students, you'll meet).
  - glofish 6y ago
    > I think of all of the parts of the environment (other students, 1:1 time with professors, research opportunities, labs, lectures, random events, extracurriculars, etc.) lectures brought some of the least academic value, But you are not getting any of these either! You seem to focus too much on lectures. The learning experience obviously includes all that above. >In an online education scheme, the value provided by the professor actually increases ok this is so wrong, I don't even know where to start or if it is even worth discussing. Most of the professors there haven't got a clue on how to design an online course. That takes years of practice, a loop of evaluation, enthusiasm and hard work (I know because I developed an online course and it took me five years to get it right). What they produce will be a tedious, unwatchable hourlong expose that will be a burden to follow. Saying that a professor produces even more value online is absurd - perhaps relatively speaking since if students don't get to be there thus compared to nothing, or course, it is a lot. My opinion firmly stands, none of these universities can even hope to pay their professors the same if they teach online. This is why the administration wants the face-to-face so badly, do you honestly think that they have not thought about how insanely badly it makes them look? They know what the letter signers don't, there is no future if students are not there.
AlexCornila 6y ago
nahhh this is the same as the opinion that online university education can be equally valuable as in person. It jus got exposed now for anyone still having doubts
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  I don't disagree with that. In fact, I said as much when I stated > This isn't the same, by the way, as the opinion that university education that is completely online is as valuable as in person, there are environmental factors that are advantageous for in person experiences But that has nothing to do with professor salaries. A professor's value to a student is about the same whether they're lecturing in person or through a screen. The rest of the system however has less value to the student. But that the university can't provide as much value doesn't impact the professor's value. So if you're looking at this from a value-driven economy, the professor's salary shouldn't change, the university should profit less from the Prof's labor because the university is providing less value-add over just the professor.

mnky9800n 6y ago

It's sort of wild you talking about taking those physics courses. I was one of the research scientists supporting Mike and Ed teaching those courses. I always wondered if people liked them or not. We only ever had surveys and such I never interacted with students one on one.

glofish 6y ago

Are you seriously arguing that a professor teaching/working from home will produce the same value? And that the students should pay the same tuition as before? Why did we ever have in person classes then if the value is the same? (Later you also state that there are subjects where it cannot possibly work at all) I am not saying that online education is useless, just that it produces less value. I also believe that professors are not even remotely open to the idea that this could be reflected in their salaries.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> Are you seriously arguing that a professor teaching/working from home will produce the same value? Lecturing online vs in person, yes I think there's not a huge difference. From my experience at Tech, I think of all of the parts of the environment (other students, 1:1 time with professors, research opportunities, labs, lectures, random events, extracurriculars, etc.) lectures brought some of the least academic value, and are impacted the least by the move online. Class structures as a whole are impacted, but a professor lecturing into a chalkboard on how to take eigenvalues isn't a better experience than what you can get on youtube today. The value I as a student got wasn't from the lectures, it was from everything else. And you can't provide the everything else anyway. > Later you also state that there are subjects where it cannot possibly work. Indeed, but that doesn't excuse not trying for the subjects where it can. > I am not saying that online education is useless, just that it produces less value, and I don't think that professors are even remotely open to the idea that this could be reflected in their salaries. And I'm saying that the opposite is likely true: the OMSCS program is cheaper tuition wise, but still an enormous cash cow for Georgia Tech. So if you mean value per student, maybe, but that has, again, little to do with the professor, it has to do with the other services the university environment provides. In an online education scheme, the value provided by the professor actually increases, while the value to charge the student decreases, because the student no longer has access to all of the other valuable things that the university provides that have nothing to do with the professor (everything from the concrete: a world class weightlifting studio to the more nebulous: the ability to interact and network with other students, which is for example a key reason that schools can charge more for their MBA programs, it has little to do with the classes and more to do with the people, the other students, you'll meet).
- glofish 6y ago
  > I think of all of the parts of the environment (other students, 1:1 time with professors, research opportunities, labs, lectures, random events, extracurriculars, etc.) lectures brought some of the least academic value, But you are not getting any of these either! You seem to focus too much on lectures. The learning experience obviously includes all that above. >In an online education scheme, the value provided by the professor actually increases ok this is so wrong, I don't even know where to start or if it is even worth discussing. Most of the professors there haven't got a clue on how to design an online course. That takes years of practice, a loop of evaluation, enthusiasm and hard work (I know because I developed an online course and it took me five years to get it right). What they produce will be a tedious, unwatchable hourlong expose that will be a burden to follow. Saying that a professor produces even more value online is absurd - perhaps relatively speaking since if students don't get to be there thus compared to nothing, or course, it is a lot. My opinion firmly stands, none of these universities can even hope to pay their professors the same if they teach online. This is why the administration wants the face-to-face so badly, do you honestly think that they have not thought about how insanely badly it makes them look? They know what the letter signers don't, there is no future if students are not there.

AlexCornila 6y ago

nahhh this is the same as the opinion that online university education can be equally valuable as in person. It jus got exposed now for anyone still having doubts

joshuamorton 6y ago
I don't disagree with that. In fact, I said as much when I stated > This isn't the same, by the way, as the opinion that university education that is completely online is as valuable as in person, there are environmental factors that are advantageous for in person experiences But that has nothing to do with professor salaries. A professor's value to a student is about the same whether they're lecturing in person or through a screen. The rest of the system however has less value to the student. But that the university can't provide as much value doesn't impact the professor's value. So if you're looking at this from a value-driven economy, the professor's salary shouldn't change, the university should profit less from the Prof's labor because the university is providing less value-add over just the professor.