6 ms·

No, god no. This idea that researchers should be teaching is just horrible, they're not significantly overlapping skill sets. Unless I have a specific research

• GuiA 13y ago
  Your argument does not take into account the fact that a significant number of researchers, including world class ones, enjoy/love to teach, and even the basic classes. For many (myself included), it comes hand in hand. I agree that researchers who don't want to teach shouldn't be forced to, but that's the extent of it. I've been to 3 universities in 3 different countries, and the number of bad teachers I've had is much lower than good or excellent ones. (of course this post and my previous one refer to computer science/math academia, since that's what I'm familiar with)
  • fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    There is also the rare individual like Feynman, who managed to be a master at everything.
    • mkramlich 13y ago
      indeed: bongos, ladies, safecracking, QED, troubleshooting exploding space shuttles, and explaining things
      • VLM 13y ago
        Fundamentally, even the ladies and bongos were by his own description iterative application of the scientific method. In his writings it seems to boil down to the same formula for all. Including his story about spinning plates. Gets a bit repetitive once you recognize the formula.
  • elbear 13y ago
    If they love to teach, they should also get good at it, because being a good researcher doesn't necessarily mean that you're a good teacher. I'm saying this because, at least from the OP, Dijkstra doesn't strike me as a terribly great teacher.
    • GuiA 13y ago
      How do you measure "good at teaching"?
      • bennyg 13y ago
        The first key is the ability to recognize that a student or class of students is not understanding an explanation, and generalize it further or change the example to make it more clear. Do that ad infinitum (a really good teacher can get it right the first time). The second key is the ability to use examples that pupils find relevant and introduce topics that might not fit directly in the class description, but enhance overall knowledge with the intended discussion's knowledge. The third key is intangible. And that's the ability to make learning interesting, if not downright fun.
        • speleding 13y ago
          That definition would hold for the kind of teaching where the teacher transfers knowledge and skills to the pupil. Dijkstra was probably the type of professor that aims to inspire/provoke students into teaching themselves. I have a degree from a universities in Europe and one from the US and the European one had a much stronger emphasis on asking students to teach themselves (it was a Dutch university, Dijkstra was Dutch so I expect that's where he got the attitude), the US one had more "hand holding" in explaining what you needed to do. As an aside, the drop out rate at the Dutch university was over 30%, while at the American university I think maybe 2 people dropped out in my year. So while there is some consensus that teaching yourself is better than being taught it's certainly not very efficient.
          • oblique63 13y ago
• wisty 13y ago
  Really? IME, I've only had a couple of lecturers who are good researchers, and poor lecturers. They weren't that bad, they were just the guys who hated teaching and had no social skills. They were still pretty good at explaining things, even though they were dead boring and a little disorganised. The worst lecturers are the ones who don't understand the subject well enough. They become massive assholes, and say things like "If you don't get it, that's your fault." Look at Dijkstra's rules (excerpts that show he was not in any way an asshole): > If I use a word you don't recognize or a sentence you cannot attach a meaning to, it is your duty to ask for clarification. If I go too fast, it is your duty to slow me down. > Since first-class students can learn a lot from each other, I urge you to try to do the homework in little groups. (Now, I think assessments should be individual, but at least he recognises that students will cheat so why bother stopping the ones who follow the rules?) > At the end of the semester there is an oral examination for each of you, the principle being that, after having followed my thoughts for a full semester, you are entitled to two hours of my undivided attention. God he takes a lot of responsibility. He can take a lot of responsibility, because he's not an idiot who has to hide behind excuses like "it's not my job to make sure you understand the subject".
• graycat 13y ago
  > This idea that researchers should be teaching is just horrible, they're not significantly overlapping skill sets. It would seem so, but you have to be careful because too frequently the claim is badly false. Let's consider courses in your college major from junior year or later (and there can be other cases, e.g., for advanced students who get into serious material before their junior year). Reasons: (1) It's a big, often bad world out there with a lot of dumb, badly adjusted, sick, injured, confused people. One way academics filters whom they let teach is by insisting on some research accomplishments. (2) To do a good job teaching (in your major, junior level or higher) there can be challenges in understanding the material really well, that is, the details, done well, an overview, balance, judgment, synthesis, bigger picture, important connections with other parts of your major, applications, research, etc. So, for this level of understanding, it can be important for you to have the brightest, most knowledgeable prof you can get. That is, a less bright, less knowledgeable prof may not have such understanding themselves. (3) One thing, on a good day, you might get in a classroom, face to face with a good prof is an example of how he thinks. There's a lot of junk that can find its way into thinking; it can be a real surprise to see, from a really bright prof, how he manages to filter out all the junk, set aside the not very good content, and keep the best content. Once as a graduate student I heard a lecture by S. Eilenberg, and afterward a junior prof said: "He sure doesn't waste time with little ideas.". That could be a good remark to hear. You typically won't get good remarks of that kind from profs who are able to teach the material but don't bring a lot more into the classroom. (4) Actually, in some fields, starting at the junior year, you can begin to notice that "it's a small world". So, if you have a good researcher as a prof, then you can be surprisingly few connections from the best people in the world in the field; not good to miss out on that. (5) Yes, it's important to learn, but, really, from the junior year on in your major, there's often some question about just what and how much you should learn. Or, yes, in K-12 and the first two years of college, the emphasis is on the student learning. By the junior year, the lesson, quite clear somewhere in a Ph.D. program and starting to become clear in the junior year, is that no one can carry all the research library around between their ears. So, a big question is, since you will be learning only a tiny fraction of everything in the research library, what fraction should you learn? One path to a good answer is to have a prof who has, from his research, a good view of the future of the field and can use that view to help select and weight what to present in the course. That is, it's easy to waste time on junk, trivia, less important material, dead end detours, etc., and a prof who does much of that can't be good at research. (6) This stuff about bad teaching is not a small problem. Instead, it's far too easy for academics to fall into some rigid nonsense such as in some of the stories about teaching in Asia -- nose to the grindstone, shoulder to the wheel, ear to the ground, dot all the i's, cross all the t's, but still don't have even a weak little hollow hint of a tiny clue what the material is about. E.g., recently here on HN is a link to the famous Feynman description of teaching in a country in South America. It's too easy for the nonsense Feynman described to walk in and take over. The peer-review process in the better journals tends to cut out that nonsense. (7) In some majors, it can be important for you to meet people, hopefully via your coursework. A good researcher well known around the world might give you some introductions that could prove priceless. There's more: Broadly a big issue is quality, and there's no easy substitute. One response, at one time common at Courant, is "If you just want to learn the basic material, then don't bother with classes and, instead, just get some books and study." At one time the Web site of the Princeton math department said, (from memory, likely not exactly correct): "The courses given are introductions to research by world class researchers. No courses are given for preparation for the qualifying exams. Instead, students are expected to teach themselves such material.". So, by the junior year, a course should have more to offer a student than just the basic material a good student could just get from the books. Education is about the future, preparing to do well in the future. As from character Yoda in Star Wars, "Always difficult to see, the future.". Yup, he was correct. Good researchers have some advantages in seeing what is more promising for the future.
• LnxPrgr3 13y ago
  Long after my formal academic career ended, I continue to learn from people. Not all of them are the best teachers, but if I think someone has something to teach me, I put in the effort myself to learn whatever lessons they offer. Sometimes I think the biggest problem with higher education is we're encouraged to go through it long before we're really ready for the challenge. I graduated high school at 17—I was a smart kid, but still immature. Now, at 28, I'd love to spend a semester studying under someone like Dijkstra, even if he did (hopefully accidentally) inspire a horde of programmers to hate on every use of a single language construct without thinking. Chances are good someone like Dijkstra could teach me things a teaching expert with a cursory knowledge of the subject matter could never hope to. The only disadvantage is it might take more effort to learn from a subject matter expert who isn't as good at teaching, but I think that's a price worth paying.