3 ms·

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

by 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
        > So while there is some consensus that teaching yourself is better than being taught it's certainly not very efficient. So under which conditions is expecting your students to teach themselves better for them exactly? It seems to me that there's some sort of selection bias going on here if the best students are the ones that successfully teach themselves, and then reflect on the fact that they were able to teach themselves as the cause for why they were able to learn so well. I'm pretty sure that if you stuck a self-learning student in a hand-held environment he would learn equally well, but might risk learning less due to the natural time cost such a teaching style has. The logical conclusion for this are the whole 'advanced placement' classes and such, because like it or not, not all students are going to be equally well-suited to teach themselves, and thus endure poor teaching. A self-learner meanwhile, will be able to endure such poor teaching, regardless of whether they're even aware of how bad the teaching is. Teaching is not a fixed methodology, it's really an art that's quite broad in scope and requires honing in on each specific batch of students' needs. If you're going for 'mentor' style inspiration teaching, great -- but make sure you're applying it to a student that'll be receptive to it. If they're not, then maybe try to figure out how you can make them be receptive to it, but I guarantee you that it's going to require some level of hand-holding at the onset; and if you're a good teacher, you should be able to pick up on that.

by GuiA 13y ago

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
      > So while there is some consensus that teaching yourself is better than being taught it's certainly not very efficient. So under which conditions is expecting your students to teach themselves better for them exactly? It seems to me that there's some sort of selection bias going on here if the best students are the ones that successfully teach themselves, and then reflect on the fact that they were able to teach themselves as the cause for why they were able to learn so well. I'm pretty sure that if you stuck a self-learning student in a hand-held environment he would learn equally well, but might risk learning less due to the natural time cost such a teaching style has. The logical conclusion for this are the whole 'advanced placement' classes and such, because like it or not, not all students are going to be equally well-suited to teach themselves, and thus endure poor teaching. A self-learner meanwhile, will be able to endure such poor teaching, regardless of whether they're even aware of how bad the teaching is. Teaching is not a fixed methodology, it's really an art that's quite broad in scope and requires honing in on each specific batch of students' needs. If you're going for 'mentor' style inspiration teaching, great -- but make sure you're applying it to a student that'll be receptive to it. If they're not, then maybe try to figure out how you can make them be receptive to it, but I guarantee you that it's going to require some level of hand-holding at the onset; and if you're a good teacher, you should be able to pick up on that.