5 ms·

I have not studied as an undergrad at a large institution, but I have taught at one, and I have taught as a prof at teaching-only institute. There is very littl

I have not studied as an undergrad at a large institution, but I have taught at one, and I have taught as a prof at teaching-only institute. There is very little difference in the quality of teaching. Guess what, when teaching only staff is asked to teach 6 courses in an year, they teach the same as a research prof who spends half their time in research and half their time teaching 3 courses. I think there are many things wrong with academia and with university structures, and teaching quality is one of them. But the problem is not what you think it is. The problem is capitalism, and money-optimizations being the final decision maker rather than quality of teaching or research (which is also much worse than 50 years ago). This is the same reason school education is so mediocre. You overwork school teachers, and don't pay them enough. And so even the best can't do much good. You need more money from the state to go into education. And yes, full time teaching staff [1] to conduct recitations and office hours would help a lot. Smaller classrooms would help as well. I don't agree at all with lecture recordings. As much as you want people in society learning, you also want a lot of people in society learning to teach. The long term intellectual benefits to society where people learn to teach others are enormous. It creates a culture of intellectual inquiry, which is different from attending a pre-recorded lecture or engaging in research or all the other things students/faculty at universities do. [1] I have been told in German unis these are people with Masters who are waiting to go for a PhD. But they are essentially kicked out after 2 years because the uni recognizes that long-term full-time teaching staff degrades in quality.

benrbray 6y ago
I think we are mostly on the same page then :) > Guess what, when teaching only staff is asked to teach 6 courses in an year, they teach the same as a research prof who spends half their time in research and half their time teaching 3 courses. > ... > The problem is capitalism, and money-optimizations being the final decision maker rather than quality of teaching or research (which is also much worse than 50 years ago). > ... > You need more money from the state to go into education. Absolutely, agreed on all points. Find people who are passionate about education and give them the time and resources to do it well. Build a culture of learning, mentorship, and open discussion. Let students and teaching faculty mingle as much as possible with research faculty while still keeping priorities straight. Sure, in an ideal world, every student would get one-on-one tutoring from a brilliant researcher. But this doesn't scale well, and isn't necessarily a great use of the researcher's time. Teaching-only faculty are more than good enough until the student approaches the research level. > I don't agree at all with lecture recordings. As much as you want people in society learning, you also want a lot of people in society learning to teach. Oh I agree, perhaps I misrepresented myself. I'm not suggesting we replace traditional lectures with a big movie screen that plays pre-recorded lectures. However, I think the current way of doing things -- where a professor inherits some slides she didn't create herself and reads them off in front of the class with no preparation whatsoever -- isn't the best either. This just goes back to finding passionate teachers and giving them the resources they need to be successful. I do think pre-recorded lectures have their place alongside traditional textbooks, lecture notes, etc.. One downside of traditional lectures is that lecturers get very little feedback about their teaching style, and it's difficult to diagnose how students are really doing. A handful of courses in my undergrad math program were run in an "Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL)" format. Rather than a traditional lecture, the professor breaks the class into small groups and asks a series of leading questions designed to help students discover a new concept on their own. The professor can adjust the pace and offer explanations as needed. Here's an example [1] of some class handouts from a topology class. I borrowed them from a friend who took the class, and going through all the exercises on my own brought me a sense of clarity that I was never able to achieve from the standard lecture-based topology course I took. My friend felt the same way, and according to surveys done by the department, students overwhelmingly prefer the IBL format to traditional lectures. This format benefits professors, too, who get immediate feedback about their teaching methods and how well students are doing. [1] https://benrbray.com/static/files/umich_math490_f16_sbray.pdf https://benrbray.com/static/files/umich_math490_f16_sbray.pd...
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  Funny, you link these notes. Because the prof is a full time researcher and seems to be teaching the same couple of courses over and over again [1]. Which is why you get the quality of the notes that you see. [1] http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~jchw/teaching.html http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~jchw/teaching.html
  - benrbray 6y ago
    Sure, some professors manage to do well at both research and teaching! It's great that some professors like her care about education and are experimenting with new classroom formats! My point was that traditional lectures are not always the best way of teaching. And, I did not say it is impossible or even uncommon for research faculty to be good at teaching. However, being good at research does not automatically make one good at teaching, and there are other factors like time that prevent those who do care about education from giving their students a good experience in class. In my own personal experience, and that of my classmates, the vast majority of research faculty simply do not have either the interest or the time to teach well. Out of the 30 or so math courses I took as an undergrad, I would say only about 4-5 of my professors put real effort into teaching.

benrbray 6y ago

I think we are mostly on the same page then :) > Guess what, when teaching only staff is asked to teach 6 courses in an year, they teach the same as a research prof who spends half their time in research and half their time teaching 3 courses. > ... > The problem is capitalism, and money-optimizations being the final decision maker rather than quality of teaching or research (which is also much worse than 50 years ago). > ... > You need more money from the state to go into education. Absolutely, agreed on all points. Find people who are passionate about education and give them the time and resources to do it well. Build a culture of learning, mentorship, and open discussion. Let students and teaching faculty mingle as much as possible with research faculty while still keeping priorities straight. Sure, in an ideal world, every student would get one-on-one tutoring from a brilliant researcher. But this doesn't scale well, and isn't necessarily a great use of the researcher's time. Teaching-only faculty are more than good enough until the student approaches the research level. > I don't agree at all with lecture recordings. As much as you want people in society learning, you also want a lot of people in society learning to teach. Oh I agree, perhaps I misrepresented myself. I'm not suggesting we replace traditional lectures with a big movie screen that plays pre-recorded lectures. However, I think the current way of doing things -- where a professor inherits some slides she didn't create herself and reads them off in front of the class with no preparation whatsoever -- isn't the best either. This just goes back to finding passionate teachers and giving them the resources they need to be successful. I do think pre-recorded lectures have their place alongside traditional textbooks, lecture notes, etc.. One downside of traditional lectures is that lecturers get very little feedback about their teaching style, and it's difficult to diagnose how students are really doing. A handful of courses in my undergrad math program were run in an "Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL)" format. Rather than a traditional lecture, the professor breaks the class into small groups and asks a series of leading questions designed to help students discover a new concept on their own. The professor can adjust the pace and offer explanations as needed. Here's an example [1] of some class handouts from a topology class. I borrowed them from a friend who took the class, and going through all the exercises on my own brought me a sense of clarity that I was never able to achieve from the standard lecture-based topology course I took. My friend felt the same way, and according to surveys done by the department, students overwhelmingly prefer the IBL format to traditional lectures. This format benefits professors, too, who get immediate feedback about their teaching methods and how well students are doing. [1] https://benrbray.com/static/files/umich_math490_f16_sbray.pdf https://benrbray.com/static/files/umich_math490_f16_sbray.pd...

abdullahkhalids 6y ago
Funny, you link these notes. Because the prof is a full time researcher and seems to be teaching the same couple of courses over and over again [1]. Which is why you get the quality of the notes that you see. [1] http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~jchw/teaching.html http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~jchw/teaching.html
- benrbray 6y ago
  Sure, some professors manage to do well at both research and teaching! It's great that some professors like her care about education and are experimenting with new classroom formats! My point was that traditional lectures are not always the best way of teaching. And, I did not say it is impossible or even uncommon for research faculty to be good at teaching. However, being good at research does not automatically make one good at teaching, and there are other factors like time that prevent those who do care about education from giving their students a good experience in class. In my own personal experience, and that of my classmates, the vast majority of research faculty simply do not have either the interest or the time to teach well. Out of the 30 or so math courses I took as an undergrad, I would say only about 4-5 of my professors put real effort into teaching.