9 ms·

Somewhat related: generally, teaching professors are considered "second class citizens" compared to research professors. This person was all about their researc

Somewhat related: generally, teaching professors are considered "second class citizens" compared to research professors. This person was all about their research and their lab, and getting tenure on that basis. Yet the bread and butter of universities are their undergraduate students, and you don't need a research lab to teach at that level. I would like to see universities prioritize undergraduate teaching. Stop abusing adjuncts and hire professors with a long-term interest in the success of the university's undergraduate programs.

svara 2y ago
There's a long-standing academic tradition of teaching researchers, and frankly that makes a lot of sense and is a really important part of scientific education. Otherwise scientific education becomes like school teaching, and you end up learning that science is the things that your book says are true. Rather, science is the living of body of knowledge based on experiment and logical thinking. It's a very subtle difference that I don't think can be taught if you're not an active researcher, it's not sufficient to state that in the abstract.
ghaff 2y ago
>Yet the bread and butter of universities are their undergraduate students, I'm not sure that's actually true. It's not financially--at least in the short term. There are more smallish teaching-oriented liberal arts colleges/universities but most of the big engineering/science schools probably regard undergrads as largely necessary annoyances if the powers that be were being honest. For better or worse, the overall trend is for a lot of the smaller liberal arts colleges to be going out of business as home economics/finishing schools really aren't especially useful any longer.
- s_dev 2y ago
  >big engineering/science schools probably regard undergrads as largely necessary annoyances I recall one definition of a school including elementary right up to University being an institution that passed knowledge from one generation to the next. The suggestion that students are considered an 'annoyance' really is quite galling in itself. It defeats the entire purpose of the institutions and questions why we justify giving them tax money.
- analog31 2y ago
  I think that if we focus on properly funded public higher education, then it could have a more openly defined mission and the private schools could go back to being mostly seminaries, or just do whatever they want.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    In the US, there is already a wide range of state schools, community colleges, and trade-oriented educational options. (And private universities largely do what they want within legal and financial limits anyway.) I suppose you can always argue that higher ed/trade-oriented training should have even less expensive options but it's mostly private ed in majors that don't really translate to job opportunities that lead to complaints about the price tag.
- the__alchemist 2y ago
  > For better or worse, the overall trend is for a lot of the smaller liberal arts colleges to be going out of business as home economics/finishing schools really aren't especially useful any longer. I doubt this. Having an undergraduate degree vice not is a major social status symbol, at least in the US. Someone with a degree from a liberal arts school is much more hirable/datable etc than someone without.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Not making a judgment. Just an observation that a lot of smaller liberal arts colleges have been closing. Whether or not hiring college grads is overall a good heuristic, it's probably just one that companies apply for a bunch of reasons--whether those reasons are generally valid or not.
    - the__alchemist 2y ago
      I'm with you, and it's interesting to hear they have been closing. I'm curious how the societal changes will shape out if this is true and continues. My observation is that a significant portion of the middle class people I know have liberal arts degrees, or otherwise schools from non-research universities. They date or are married exclusively to other people with degrees, and work at jobs that wouldn't have hired them without degrees. So, those expectations would have to change to, or something similar.
      - ghaff 2y ago
        In general, I imagine that the big state university systems are the bulk of the grads anyway though I'd have to look at the actual numbers. But, yes, a college degree is a basic heuristic in a lot of cases. There are exceptions but it's often a default.
analog31 2y ago
I agree with stop abusing adjuncts. But research is one of the purposes of a university. For instance historically a lot of important improvements to farming and public health emanated from academic research.
doctorwho42 2y ago
> "yet the bread and butter of universities are their undergraduate students..." I think this really depends on which universities you look at. Top of the field research universities.... Undergraduates are just a small piece of the overall pie, research (impact, etc) and grant writing are the primary factors in determining who gets tenure (and of course department politics). Smaller universities, or less research focused universities I can imagine your teaching starts to take on more weight... But really, it all comes down to cost-benefit analysis between the university choosing you vs someone else. Especially when it comes to tenure which is like a long term investment. And there are only so many tenure spots in each department, sometimes it's more beneficial to leave them open than to fill them... Waiting to poach or acquire the next big name. Prestige brings in research money, investment money, students (grad and undergrad). So unfortunately, it's not really the meritocracy it is held up as.
jltsiren 2y ago
It's a simple matter of incentives. The government pays you if your researchers are good, and some private entities may also contribute. Nobody is willing to pay more if your teachers are good. And then there is the reputational effect. Graduates from prestigious research universities are in high demand, while nobody cares much if your teachers are good.

svara 2y ago

There's a long-standing academic tradition of teaching researchers, and frankly that makes a lot of sense and is a really important part of scientific education. Otherwise scientific education becomes like school teaching, and you end up learning that science is the things that your book says are true. Rather, science is the living of body of knowledge based on experiment and logical thinking. It's a very subtle difference that I don't think can be taught if you're not an active researcher, it's not sufficient to state that in the abstract.

ghaff 2y ago

>Yet the bread and butter of universities are their undergraduate students, I'm not sure that's actually true. It's not financially--at least in the short term. There are more smallish teaching-oriented liberal arts colleges/universities but most of the big engineering/science schools probably regard undergrads as largely necessary annoyances if the powers that be were being honest. For better or worse, the overall trend is for a lot of the smaller liberal arts colleges to be going out of business as home economics/finishing schools really aren't especially useful any longer.

s_dev 2y ago
>big engineering/science schools probably regard undergrads as largely necessary annoyances I recall one definition of a school including elementary right up to University being an institution that passed knowledge from one generation to the next. The suggestion that students are considered an 'annoyance' really is quite galling in itself. It defeats the entire purpose of the institutions and questions why we justify giving them tax money.
analog31 2y ago
I think that if we focus on properly funded public higher education, then it could have a more openly defined mission and the private schools could go back to being mostly seminaries, or just do whatever they want.
- ghaff 2y ago
  In the US, there is already a wide range of state schools, community colleges, and trade-oriented educational options. (And private universities largely do what they want within legal and financial limits anyway.) I suppose you can always argue that higher ed/trade-oriented training should have even less expensive options but it's mostly private ed in majors that don't really translate to job opportunities that lead to complaints about the price tag.
the__alchemist 2y ago
> For better or worse, the overall trend is for a lot of the smaller liberal arts colleges to be going out of business as home economics/finishing schools really aren't especially useful any longer. I doubt this. Having an undergraduate degree vice not is a major social status symbol, at least in the US. Someone with a degree from a liberal arts school is much more hirable/datable etc than someone without.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Not making a judgment. Just an observation that a lot of smaller liberal arts colleges have been closing. Whether or not hiring college grads is overall a good heuristic, it's probably just one that companies apply for a bunch of reasons--whether those reasons are generally valid or not.
  - the__alchemist 2y ago
    I'm with you, and it's interesting to hear they have been closing. I'm curious how the societal changes will shape out if this is true and continues. My observation is that a significant portion of the middle class people I know have liberal arts degrees, or otherwise schools from non-research universities. They date or are married exclusively to other people with degrees, and work at jobs that wouldn't have hired them without degrees. So, those expectations would have to change to, or something similar.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      In general, I imagine that the big state university systems are the bulk of the grads anyway though I'd have to look at the actual numbers. But, yes, a college degree is a basic heuristic in a lot of cases. There are exceptions but it's often a default.

analog31 2y ago

I agree with stop abusing adjuncts. But research is one of the purposes of a university. For instance historically a lot of important improvements to farming and public health emanated from academic research.

doctorwho42 2y ago

> "yet the bread and butter of universities are their undergraduate students..." I think this really depends on which universities you look at. Top of the field research universities.... Undergraduates are just a small piece of the overall pie, research (impact, etc) and grant writing are the primary factors in determining who gets tenure (and of course department politics). Smaller universities, or less research focused universities I can imagine your teaching starts to take on more weight... But really, it all comes down to cost-benefit analysis between the university choosing you vs someone else. Especially when it comes to tenure which is like a long term investment. And there are only so many tenure spots in each department, sometimes it's more beneficial to leave them open than to fill them... Waiting to poach or acquire the next big name. Prestige brings in research money, investment money, students (grad and undergrad). So unfortunately, it's not really the meritocracy it is held up as.

jltsiren 2y ago

It's a simple matter of incentives. The government pays you if your researchers are good, and some private entities may also contribute. Nobody is willing to pay more if your teachers are good. And then there is the reputational effect. Graduates from prestigious research universities are in high demand, while nobody cares much if your teachers are good.