4 ms·

Three things. 1) Gatekeeping. There are lots of professors in lots of disciplines in lots of universities, be they STEM, social sciences or arts and humanities

Three things. 1) Gatekeeping. There are lots of professors in lots of disciplines in lots of universities, be they STEM, social sciences or arts and humanities, who are determined to keep out any student who hasn't followed the exact progression that they believe is necessary in order to take a course. Often there is no good reason for this. They're just petty. 2) Most academics are awful teachers, even worse course designers and have no formal training in pedagogy. This is why you get stupidities like the author describes where answers aren't given to problem sets, or courses based around lectures that are literally someone standing at the front of a lecture theatre reading from a text book in a monotone for an hour. Teaching and designing courses is not a priority for most academics as it is not what they are in academia to do, and being good at this usually won't help them in their career. They are often given little or no training in either course design or teaching by the university and so tend to fall back on trying to replicate how they themselves were taught. They then panic or are dismissive when faced with a student who asks questions or requires some guidance. Remember, the job of a teacher is to teach, not just to grade. 3) Some courses, even at a fairly low level, are so specialised that it only really makes sense for a major to take them, or they are not "stand alone" as they are intended to be completed at the same time as another related course with concepts from one helping illuminate concepts from the other.

someguyiguess 5y ago
Your first point is definitely something I experienced in university a few times. Mostly in STEM classes. Your second point is very interesting because in general, the highest-tier schools tend to hire professors that are mostly academic researchers where teaching is more of a “side gig”. It seems this would directly translate to a worse learning experience. I definitely had experiences where a CS professor at the local community college was a better teacher than the equivalent professor at my university. The community college teacher worked as a software engineer in the real world. Had to onboard people, train junior devs, explain concepts to stakeholders, etc… From what I understand from reading this thread, most elite schools provide less in terms of instruction. The cheaper schools provide more “hand holding”. Just an interesting thought. Edit: clarification
- r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
  It's really interesting when you look at the UK system. Here we have former polytechnic universities that are equivalent to US community colleges and are more teaching focussed. Then you have your red brick and Russell group universities that are research focussed and where the teaching is often a bit shoddy as the academics see it as a distraction. Finally you have Oxford and Cambridge, which are very research focussed, the two most prestigious universities in the country, and also have a very intensive form of 2 or 3 to 1 tutorial teaching that is generally highly regarded, even if it does come perilously close to spoon feeding sometimes. So you can have high quality teaching at research focussed universities, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the norm. I'm more and more convinced that the research and teaching sides of a university should be separated out at this point for most subjects, at least for undergrads.
- larrik 5y ago
  The highest-tier schools are not a place to learn, but a place to pay to get their fancy name on your resume/transcript. Actually learning anything is your problem, not theirs.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Going to prestigious schools is about signaling and making connections, not receiving better instruction. One of my coworkers teaches cs at a community college, I've sat in on a class. The stuff he teaches is so much more useful than the stuff that was taught at my top 10 cs school it isn't even funny. He puts way more effort into teaching than almost any of my professors did, because to them, teaching was a nuisance. It's not what they signed up for. It's not why they're at the university. They're at the university to do research, the quality of instruction follows.
benibela 5y ago
>courses based around lectures that are literally someone standing at the front of a lecture theatre reading from a text book in a monotone for an hour Those are my favorite courses! Then I can stay at home and read the text book myself It is much better than professors who want everyone to engage in their lectures, so they do not give out lecture notes, and if you miss one class, you risk failing the exam

someguyiguess 5y ago

Your first point is definitely something I experienced in university a few times. Mostly in STEM classes. Your second point is very interesting because in general, the highest-tier schools tend to hire professors that are mostly academic researchers where teaching is more of a “side gig”. It seems this would directly translate to a worse learning experience. I definitely had experiences where a CS professor at the local community college was a better teacher than the equivalent professor at my university. The community college teacher worked as a software engineer in the real world. Had to onboard people, train junior devs, explain concepts to stakeholders, etc… From what I understand from reading this thread, most elite schools provide less in terms of instruction. The cheaper schools provide more “hand holding”. Just an interesting thought. Edit: clarification

r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
It's really interesting when you look at the UK system. Here we have former polytechnic universities that are equivalent to US community colleges and are more teaching focussed. Then you have your red brick and Russell group universities that are research focussed and where the teaching is often a bit shoddy as the academics see it as a distraction. Finally you have Oxford and Cambridge, which are very research focussed, the two most prestigious universities in the country, and also have a very intensive form of 2 or 3 to 1 tutorial teaching that is generally highly regarded, even if it does come perilously close to spoon feeding sometimes. So you can have high quality teaching at research focussed universities, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the norm. I'm more and more convinced that the research and teaching sides of a university should be separated out at this point for most subjects, at least for undergrads.
larrik 5y ago
The highest-tier schools are not a place to learn, but a place to pay to get their fancy name on your resume/transcript. Actually learning anything is your problem, not theirs.
colinmhayes 5y ago
Going to prestigious schools is about signaling and making connections, not receiving better instruction. One of my coworkers teaches cs at a community college, I've sat in on a class. The stuff he teaches is so much more useful than the stuff that was taught at my top 10 cs school it isn't even funny. He puts way more effort into teaching than almost any of my professors did, because to them, teaching was a nuisance. It's not what they signed up for. It's not why they're at the university. They're at the university to do research, the quality of instruction follows.

benibela 5y ago

>courses based around lectures that are literally someone standing at the front of a lecture theatre reading from a text book in a monotone for an hour Those are my favorite courses! Then I can stay at home and read the text book myself It is much better than professors who want everyone to engage in their lectures, so they do not give out lecture notes, and if you miss one class, you risk failing the exam