3 ms·

One thing that most people don't realize (or willingly try not to think about) is that every "higher education" level, all the way from the BSc to the last day

One thing that most people don't realize (or willingly try not to think about) is that every "higher education" level, all the way from the BSc to the last day of your PhD, is actually, first and foremost, a selection process. I have felt this ever since I got my first foot in my first BSc lecture, and the feeling has never left me. And I'm doing the exact same thing right now as an Associate Professor, both as a lecturer and as a supervisor. Most the talk and ideas we hear all the time about pedagogical skills, teaching methods, better techniques for supervision, etc. will fall to earth when push comes to shove: the truth is that the vast majority of higher education staff has no idea what they are doing when it comes to actually educating students. We do our best, we present our knowledge in the best way we can think of, and we are genuinely interested in students learning them, but the truth is that the knowledge of exactly what kind of education techniques work better or worse, is non-existent (for all practical matters). So, what happens is that, some students learn, others don't. Would they still have learned if we were using completely different teaching methods? Probably. Would they have learned even if we were not there? Maybe, but probably not. Because our real task (we as in, the staff), when you really get down to the basic core of what is happening in higher education, is to be there and give them a goal: if you want to have this certificate, if you want to be like me, and reach this milestone, you have to endure this, and pass these tests. I'll show you some things here and there in an arrangement that is probably as close to random as it is to not random, and well, you deal with it and find a way to pass the test. It doesn't really matter how you do it, how you find your motivation to keep on keeping on, what matters is that you survive this process and reach the end. And so is the selection process implemented.

seydor 4y ago
Maybe in a few american Ivy-league it's a selection process. For most of the world it's "who has the patience and perseverance to go through that ancient hierarcy". In the past 15-20 years academic success has become increasingly based on social standing , and there are many ways to hack that one
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Hasn't it sort of always been that way though? Social standing is a huge force multiplier in almost every human endeavor.
- low_tech_love 4y ago
  That is still a selection process… it’s just that the success profile is different. Even in Ivy league you can’t really say the ”smartest” ones are the most successful. Selection selects ”something”, and I don’t really know what to be honest.
flanked-evergl 4y ago
> One thing that most people don't realize (or willingly try not to think about) is that every "higher education" level, all the way from the BSc to the last day of your PhD, is actually, first and foremost, a selection process. I also have no interest in funding a selection process with my taxes (EU resident), I have an interest in funding a process which prepares people to be productive members of society, which means prepares them to contribute in a commercial for-profit setting as without this the state has no revenue with which to fund anything. I also don't think what it selects for is of particular value to industry.
- low_tech_love 4y ago
  Well, that is why we all work under the guise of "formal education"; we cannot really admit and accept that what we are doing is something else, because then people will react like this. Actually, in many ways it is education, just not in the ways we think about it. In my opinion, most of what passes for "pedagogy" or "education skills" is quite frankly bullshit. You learn things everyday, whether you're a student or not, and you teach things everyday, whether you are a teacher or not. If you really want to learn something in the Bsc/Msc/PhD trust me, you will learn, and we will teach you. The problem is that most people want education to be some kind of straightforward, almost passive process, like "hey I'm attending university, if I'm not learning it's your fault". The transfer of responsibility from student to teacher as it is done today is absurd. Learning is an active, exhilarating, and sometimes even brutal process. And, well, sorry, but it should be: knowledge is power, and to learn things is to thrive and improve yourself. How can that be such a passive process as "go to lecture, see some slides, learn"? Learning is also competitive; if you know how to do something that few people know, you are more valuable to society. By definition, that cannot be a passive, watered down process as people want it to be; if it was, then the knowledge you obtained would be borderline worthless (because everyone else would have it).
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
Well said. And most professors do not have, nor or required to get, training in teaching at all! Random is the right word and there is a large stdev at that. I remember one semester I had both, by far, the best and worst professors of my long schooling career; both in the same faculty too. Going from one class to the next was disjointing on how vastly different the experience was. The worst prof was so bad that that the students of the class banded together and complained to the dean that we were learning nothing and that this was a required class for our degrees. The best prof was so good that he was able to fill in some of what the other was missing on top of his regular curriculum and it felt effortless.
- low_tech_love 4y ago
  I understand, but it's also unfortunately unrealistic to expect that someone who is already an expert in something will also become an expert in teaching. When you are an academic, besides your teaching you need to be constantly updating your knowledge of the state of the art and pushing the boundaries to get published and stay relevant in your field. It's hard to also focus on learning teaching skills which are, sometimes, very unorthodox and not straightforward. Also, factor in that those who teach teaching are also sometimes not good teachers, and are also researchers, and will also need to stay updated with research, and will also try to push unorthodox, unvalidated teaching methods to their students... it's complicated.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    Yes, I do agree its complicated. But... while it may be unrealistic to expect them to be an expert in teaching, I think it is absolutely realistic to expect them to be competent in teaching, seeing as that is a fundamental component (along with research) of being a professor.
awesomeMilou 4y ago
> but the truth is that the knowledge of exactly what kind of education techniques work better or worse, is non-existent (for all practical matters). So Uhh what? Is this some kinda myth teachers and professors want to perpetuate in order to be lazy about teaching? Theres definetely research on what makes good education techniques "good". I agree that higher education serves as a filter, but you admitting that you and your colleagues have basicially no idea what they're doing while teaching says more about your ignorance than your teaching skills really.
- low_tech_love 4y ago
  I expressed myself incorrectly; I meant that it doesn’t exist among us (not in general). At any rate, my experience with pedagogical training is horrible at best. Those who teach the teaching are just as bad as me; why should I listen to them?

seydor 4y ago

Maybe in a few american Ivy-league it's a selection process. For most of the world it's "who has the patience and perseverance to go through that ancient hierarcy". In the past 15-20 years academic success has become increasingly based on social standing , and there are many ways to hack that one

marginalia_nu 4y ago
Hasn't it sort of always been that way though? Social standing is a huge force multiplier in almost every human endeavor.
low_tech_love 4y ago
That is still a selection process… it’s just that the success profile is different. Even in Ivy league you can’t really say the ”smartest” ones are the most successful. Selection selects ”something”, and I don’t really know what to be honest.

flanked-evergl 4y ago

> One thing that most people don't realize (or willingly try not to think about) is that every "higher education" level, all the way from the BSc to the last day of your PhD, is actually, first and foremost, a selection process. I also have no interest in funding a selection process with my taxes (EU resident), I have an interest in funding a process which prepares people to be productive members of society, which means prepares them to contribute in a commercial for-profit setting as without this the state has no revenue with which to fund anything. I also don't think what it selects for is of particular value to industry.

low_tech_love 4y ago
Well, that is why we all work under the guise of "formal education"; we cannot really admit and accept that what we are doing is something else, because then people will react like this. Actually, in many ways it is education, just not in the ways we think about it. In my opinion, most of what passes for "pedagogy" or "education skills" is quite frankly bullshit. You learn things everyday, whether you're a student or not, and you teach things everyday, whether you are a teacher or not. If you really want to learn something in the Bsc/Msc/PhD trust me, you will learn, and we will teach you. The problem is that most people want education to be some kind of straightforward, almost passive process, like "hey I'm attending university, if I'm not learning it's your fault". The transfer of responsibility from student to teacher as it is done today is absurd. Learning is an active, exhilarating, and sometimes even brutal process. And, well, sorry, but it should be: knowledge is power, and to learn things is to thrive and improve yourself. How can that be such a passive process as "go to lecture, see some slides, learn"? Learning is also competitive; if you know how to do something that few people know, you are more valuable to society. By definition, that cannot be a passive, watered down process as people want it to be; if it was, then the knowledge you obtained would be borderline worthless (because everyone else would have it).

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

Well said. And most professors do not have, nor or required to get, training in teaching at all! Random is the right word and there is a large stdev at that. I remember one semester I had both, by far, the best and worst professors of my long schooling career; both in the same faculty too. Going from one class to the next was disjointing on how vastly different the experience was. The worst prof was so bad that that the students of the class banded together and complained to the dean that we were learning nothing and that this was a required class for our degrees. The best prof was so good that he was able to fill in some of what the other was missing on top of his regular curriculum and it felt effortless.

low_tech_love 4y ago
I understand, but it's also unfortunately unrealistic to expect that someone who is already an expert in something will also become an expert in teaching. When you are an academic, besides your teaching you need to be constantly updating your knowledge of the state of the art and pushing the boundaries to get published and stay relevant in your field. It's hard to also focus on learning teaching skills which are, sometimes, very unorthodox and not straightforward. Also, factor in that those who teach teaching are also sometimes not good teachers, and are also researchers, and will also need to stay updated with research, and will also try to push unorthodox, unvalidated teaching methods to their students... it's complicated.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  Yes, I do agree its complicated. But... while it may be unrealistic to expect them to be an expert in teaching, I think it is absolutely realistic to expect them to be competent in teaching, seeing as that is a fundamental component (along with research) of being a professor.

awesomeMilou 4y ago

> but the truth is that the knowledge of exactly what kind of education techniques work better or worse, is non-existent (for all practical matters). So Uhh what? Is this some kinda myth teachers and professors want to perpetuate in order to be lazy about teaching? Theres definetely research on what makes good education techniques "good". I agree that higher education serves as a filter, but you admitting that you and your colleagues have basicially no idea what they're doing while teaching says more about your ignorance than your teaching skills really.

low_tech_love 4y ago
I expressed myself incorrectly; I meant that it doesn’t exist among us (not in general). At any rate, my experience with pedagogical training is horrible at best. Those who teach the teaching are just as bad as me; why should I listen to them?