has the quality of professors/ideclining

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems more likely to me that the quality of teaching would improve rather than decline. Higher population equals higher competition for slots in PhD programs, which should lead to stronger graduates/future professors. This should be true in pretty much all professions.

Many schools are not hiring based on teaching skills, but on research/publication/potential grant sourcing capabilities. A lot of the work of teaching undergrads has been given to adjunct professors, who are often very good, though underpaid and overworked. The system is really broken.

But this was true 20 years ago, too, at least at most schools. Things can improve within a flawed system.

I don't know what your point is. In fact, I don't think there's any correlation with "quality of teaching" and who is doing that teaching. Tons of full profs are crappy instructors. Tons of adjuncts are excellent instructors. I also don't think this has anything to do with admission rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:topic cut off - has quality of professors/instruction in schools with declining acceptance rates improved over the last 20 years

It has probably declined overall. Research is mor important to most schools than undergrad teaching, and many academics view their careers as much more dependent on research and publising than teaching.

This is not the case at small, liberal arts colleges.

I would avoid schools that rely heavily on adjunct professors. They are treated very poorly and typically do not have offices, nor are they given support for spending time with students outside of class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:topic cut off - has quality of professors/instruction in schools with declining acceptance rates improved over the last 20 years

It has probably declined overall. Research is mor important to most schools than undergrad teaching, and many academics view their careers as much more dependent on research and publising than teaching.

How is this different from 20 years ago?

Teaching loads continue to decline.

I am not sure you know what you are talking about. Many schools cancel classes with low enrollment, because they can’t make a profit on them. Schools were hit so hard by COVID that many froze faculty salaries and stopped retirement contributions (such as Hopkins and GW, just to name two local examples).

Being a professor is not cushy and you will get new classes dumped on you with short notice and no increase in salary.

[Anonymous]

Beware of small colleges that are struggling financially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:topic cut off - has quality of professors/instruction in schools with declining acceptance rates improved over the last 20 years

It has probably declined overall. Research is mor important to most schools than undergrad teaching, and many academics view their careers as much more dependent on research and publising than teaching.

This is not the case at small, liberal arts colleges.

I would avoid schools that rely heavily on adjunct professors. They are treated very poorly and typically do not have offices, nor are they given support for spending time with students outside of class.

In theory this is true but have you been on a search committee at a SLAC? I would bet not all of your colleagues are on the same page

Agree that adjuncts are treated poorly and not given support and resources to help students outside of class. They are also not compensated for letters of recommendation and may not be at the same school year to year. That said, I also agree with the PP who said tenure status has very little to do with teaching ability, adjuncts can be great teachers, too bad they're not employed securely for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure I understand this thread. I can't see any relationship between acceptance rates and quality of instruction/experience.
It is as PP said - huge increase in number of applicants both from here and abroad. Also certain schools getting disproportionate share of applicants. TO and Common App play a big part.
It's not that the quality of the education is notably different.
All of this is slated to change as the pool of applicants is predicted to decline in a few years.
For now, this is the landscape.

There is no connection. OP sounds dumb, and if her kids are like her, they won’t be getting into T20.

let’s keep it friendly and civil folks - no need to become angry and hateful. Move on if you can’t say something with a respectful tone

[Anonymous]

Prof here. In my discipline, I would say quality of instruction has improved at a lot of Top-50 schools. Tenure requirements used to almost ignore teaching, but in my experience it is now treated as a serious consideration. In addition, some tenured/tenure track faculty have been replaced by teaching professors-- academics will lament this because it reduces a school's research, but such faculty are hired/evaluated/promoted solely on teaching, so they also take it seriously. When I started my career, there was literally no training or consideration related to teaching when we taught PhD students, and now we essentially don't let them go on the academic job market until their teaching evaluations have hit a reasonable threshold. So I think teaching has become significantly stronger over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prof here. In my discipline, I would say quality of instruction has improved at a lot of Top-50 schools. Tenure requirements used to almost ignore teaching, but in my experience it is now treated as a serious consideration. In addition, some tenured/tenure track faculty have been replaced by teaching professors-- academics will lament this because it reduces a school's research, but such faculty are hired/evaluated/promoted solely on teaching, so they also take it seriously. When I started my career, there was literally no training or consideration related to teaching when we taught PhD students, and now we essentially don't let them go on the academic job market until their teaching evaluations have hit a reasonable threshold. So I think teaching has become significantly stronger over time.

Thanks for sharing this. It makes sense. Given the significantly greater rate at which students communicate with one another these days, you can't hide dissatisfaction with teaching quality for long. It behooves colleges to do what they can to make sure their students are happy with their instructors, lest they get a reputation that will lose them some of the students they want most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prof here. In my discipline, I would say quality of instruction has improved at a lot of Top-50 schools. Tenure requirements used to almost ignore teaching, but in my experience it is now treated as a serious consideration. In addition, some tenured/tenure track faculty have been replaced by teaching professors-- academics will lament this because it reduces a school's research, but such faculty are hired/evaluated/promoted solely on teaching, so they also take it seriously. When I started my career, there was literally no training or consideration related to teaching when we taught PhD students, and now we essentially don't let them go on the academic job market until their teaching evaluations have hit a reasonable threshold. So I think teaching has become significantly stronger over time.

Thanks for sharing this. It makes sense. Given the significantly greater rate at which students communicate with one another these days, you can't hide dissatisfaction with teaching quality for long. It behooves colleges to do what they can to make sure their students are happy with their instructors, lest they get a reputation that will lose them some of the students they want most.

A lot of students are just interested in getting good grades easily. I don't think academia should be set up along a customer/service provider model. It's not like going to dinner and ordering a meal. Students do not buy a grade, they earn it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prof here. In my discipline, I would say quality of instruction has improved at a lot of Top-50 schools. Tenure requirements used to almost ignore teaching, but in my experience it is now treated as a serious consideration. In addition, some tenured/tenure track faculty have been replaced by teaching professors-- academics will lament this because it reduces a school's research, but such faculty are hired/evaluated/promoted solely on teaching, so they also take it seriously. When I started my career, there was literally no training or consideration related to teaching when we taught PhD students, and now we essentially don't let them go on the academic job market until their teaching evaluations have hit a reasonable threshold. So I think teaching has become significantly stronger over time.

Thanks for sharing this. It makes sense. Given the significantly greater rate at which students communicate with one another these days, you can't hide dissatisfaction with teaching quality for long. It behooves colleges to do what they can to make sure their students are happy with their instructors, lest they get a reputation that will lose them some of the students they want most.

A lot of students are just interested in getting good grades easily. I don't think academia should be set up along a customer/service provider model. It's not like going to dinner and ordering a meal. Students do not buy a grade, they earn it.

I'm not at all clear as to how you got the idea I was implying any of what you said. It's important for colleges to have professors who students will want to learn from--that's my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prof here. In my discipline, I would say quality of instruction has improved at a lot of Top-50 schools. Tenure requirements used to almost ignore teaching, but in my experience it is now treated as a serious consideration. In addition, some tenured/tenure track faculty have been replaced by teaching professors-- academics will lament this because it reduces a school's research, but such faculty are hired/evaluated/promoted solely on teaching, so they also take it seriously. When I started my career, there was literally no training or consideration related to teaching when we taught PhD students, and now we essentially don't let them go on the academic job market until their teaching evaluations have hit a reasonable threshold. So I think teaching has become significantly stronger over time.

Thanks for sharing this. It makes sense. Given the significantly greater rate at which students communicate with one another these days, you can't hide dissatisfaction with teaching quality for long. It behooves colleges to do what they can to make sure their students are happy with their instructors, lest they get a reputation that will lose them some of the students they want most.

A lot of students are just interested in getting good grades easily. I don't think academia should be set up along a customer/service provider model. It's not like going to dinner and ordering a meal. Students do not buy a grade, they earn it.

I'm not at all clear as to how you got the idea I was implying any of what you said. It's important for colleges to have professors who students will want to learn from--that's my point.

NP here. Consider the case of Dr. Maitland Jones, Jr, the chem professor at NYU who was fired after students created a petition protesting that his class was too difficult. This class was a “weed out” course for kids who hoped to eventually enter med school, and the professor has been interviewed saying that in recent years, students expect and demand higher grades for poorer quality work and effort than in the past; this man had published and contributed as an expert in his field and used to be tenured at Princeton for many years. In the past, the course was understood to be one that separated those capable of the rigors of med school from the rest, but now students seem to feel that because they are paying a lot of tuition money and want to go to med school, it is the prof’s fault if they aren’t given the grades they want. Universities are very much customer service oriented now, and students continue demanding what their parents demanded for them through high school, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prof here. In my discipline, I would say quality of instruction has improved at a lot of Top-50 schools. Tenure requirements used to almost ignore teaching, but in my experience it is now treated as a serious consideration. In addition, some tenured/tenure track faculty have been replaced by teaching professors-- academics will lament this because it reduces a school's research, but such faculty are hired/evaluated/promoted solely on teaching, so they also take it seriously. When I started my career, there was literally no training or consideration related to teaching when we taught PhD students, and now we essentially don't let them go on the academic job market until their teaching evaluations have hit a reasonable threshold. So I think teaching has become significantly stronger over time.

Thanks for sharing this. It makes sense. Given the significantly greater rate at which students communicate with one another these days, you can't hide dissatisfaction with teaching quality for long. It behooves colleges to do what they can to make sure their students are happy with their instructors, lest they get a reputation that will lose them some of the students they want most.

Non-tenured profs hoping to ever gain one of the elusive tenure posts need to ensure they receive positive survey feedback from students because universities now take this anonymous student feedback quite seriously. This is leading to grade inflation as professors are forced to make a choice between keeping the kids happy or risking damage to their own careers. This all occurs in the perfect storm of increased reliance on adjuncts and fewer tenure track posts in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:new to the process as a parent, and can’t believe some of these acceptance rates. I went to Georgetown back in the day when I think acceptance rate was over 40%. Vanderbilt now around 5%??? Has the quality of instruction and the overall experience changed that much over the last 20 years when acceptance rate was somewhere around 60-70%??

Oh FFS. You parents got this idea that you can micromanage your precious little snowflake’s grade school and secondary school classrooms and now you want to take that attitude to the university. Nope. Not having it. Power down the chopper.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prof here. In my discipline, I would say quality of instruction has improved at a lot of Top-50 schools. Tenure requirements used to almost ignore teaching, but in my experience it is now treated as a serious consideration. In addition, some tenured/tenure track faculty have been replaced by teaching professors-- academics will lament this because it reduces a school's research, but such faculty are hired/evaluated/promoted solely on teaching, so they also take it seriously. When I started my career, there was literally no training or consideration related to teaching when we taught PhD students, and now we essentially don't let them go on the academic job market until their teaching evaluations have hit a reasonable threshold. So I think teaching has become significantly stronger over time.

Thanks for sharing this. It makes sense. Given the significantly greater rate at which students communicate with one another these days, you can't hide dissatisfaction with teaching quality for long. It behooves colleges to do what they can to make sure their students are happy with their instructors, lest they get a reputation that will lose them some of the students they want most.

A lot of students are just interested in getting good grades easily. I don't think academia should be set up along a customer/service provider model. It's not like going to dinner and ordering a meal. Students do not buy a grade, they earn it.

I'm not at all clear as to how you got the idea I was implying any of what you said. It's important for colleges to have professors who students will want to learn from--that's my point.

NP here. Consider the case of Dr. Maitland Jones, Jr, the chem professor at NYU who was fired after students created a petition protesting that his class was too difficult. This class was a “weed out” course for kids who hoped to eventually enter med school, and the professor has been interviewed saying that in recent years, students expect and demand higher grades for poorer quality work and effort than in the past; this man had published and contributed as an expert in his field and used to be tenured at Princeton for many years. In the past, the course was understood to be one that separated those capable of the rigors of med school from the rest, but now students seem to feel that because they are paying a lot of tuition money and want to go to med school, it is the prof’s fault if they aren’t given the grades they want. Universities are very much customer service oriented now, and students continue demanding what their parents demanded for them through high school, I think.

That's a valid point, of course, but not relevant to what I'm trying to say, which is simply that colleges should be looking for instructors who genuinely love teaching and are good at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prof here. In my discipline, I would say quality of instruction has improved at a lot of Top-50 schools. Tenure requirements used to almost ignore teaching, but in my experience it is now treated as a serious consideration. In addition, some tenured/tenure track faculty have been replaced by teaching professors-- academics will lament this because it reduces a school's research, but such faculty are hired/evaluated/promoted solely on teaching, so they also take it seriously. When I started my career, there was literally no training or consideration related to teaching when we taught PhD students, and now we essentially don't let them go on the academic job market until their teaching evaluations have hit a reasonable threshold. So I think teaching has become significantly stronger over time.

Thanks for sharing this. It makes sense. Given the significantly greater rate at which students communicate with one another these days, you can't hide dissatisfaction with teaching quality for long. It behooves colleges to do what they can to make sure their students are happy with their instructors, lest they get a reputation that will lose them some of the students they want most.

A lot of students are just interested in getting good grades easily. I don't think academia should be set up along a customer/service provider model. It's not like going to dinner and ordering a meal. Students do not buy a grade, they earn it.

I'm not at all clear as to how you got the idea I was implying any of what you said. It's important for colleges to have professors who students will want to learn from--that's my point.

NP here. Consider the case of Dr. Maitland Jones, Jr, the chem professor at NYU who was fired after students created a petition protesting that his class was too difficult. This class was a “weed out” course for kids who hoped to eventually enter med school, and the professor has been interviewed saying that in recent years, students expect and demand higher grades for poorer quality work and effort than in the past; this man had published and contributed as an expert in his field and used to be tenured at Princeton for many years. In the past, the course was understood to be one that separated those capable of the rigors of med school from the rest, but now students seem to feel that because they are paying a lot of tuition money and want to go to med school, it is the prof’s fault if they aren’t given the grades they want. Universities are very much customer service oriented now, and students continue demanding what their parents demanded for them through high school, I think.

That's a valid point, of course, but not relevant to what I'm trying to say, which is simply that colleges should be looking for instructors who genuinely love teaching and are good at it.

But what YOU don't seem to be connecting is that what students want and what makes a good professor are not perfectly overlapping. In an ideal world, students would want to be challenged academically, and care more about learning than grades/recommendations/career building. But they don't always. Many think that "a good teacher" is one who doesn't give too much work and grades leniently.