Reply to Why is Johns Hopkins not mentioned much here?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Why is Johns Hopkins not mentioned much here?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote]The thing I wonder in all of this is whether profs at SLACs are generally better teachers. I guess the theory would either have to be that you learn on the job (but if and only if the administration cares about teaching). PhDs who end up at SLACs aren't trained any differently from those who end up in research universities and I didn't see that much self-selection at least at the first job stage. Basically, when the market is tight and especially when you're coordinating location with a significant other, you take your best offer.[/quote]

There is a considerable amount of self-selection in terms of who decides to teach at a SLAC.  The top more selective SLACs (Reed, Amherst, etc.) are extremely competitive jobs as well, and to land them you need to demonstrate that you have a particular interest in undergraduate education.  No, you are not trained any differently, but in most graduate programs people TA at least for a semester or two and get an idea of whether that is something they find fulfilling or not.  Most people who apply for jobs at SLACs, especially the more selective ones are people who had an interest in teaching/mentoring in the first place.  And their record of teaching (as measured by student evaluations and faculty evaluations) is taken seriously for tenure.

As far as professors at research universities go--well some of them enjoy teaching.  Some of them don't as see it as a necessary evil for their job, which is why they didn't apply to jobs at SLACs.  I have even met several professors that are too busy managing their labs, flying around the world attending conferences, writing grants, and editing journals in their field to really teach at all who essentially delegate all these duties to their graduate students.  But mostly there is no real incentive to do it well.  When it comes to tenure, your record as a scholar in terms of research articles, books, and (at least in the sciences) grant money brought in, as well as service roles play a much larger role in your tenure package than your record as an undergraduate professor.  So even if you do value teaching undergraduates, when push comes to shove, if the tenure evaluation is 75-90% productivity measured by your record as a scholar--publications and grants--and 10-25% your teaching record, then you can see what professors are going to be more focused on.  Aside from a few awards that you can list on your CV which matters far less in prestige than some great lifetime achievement award for your research, there is no real reward for doing a great job teaching...the worst thing that can happen if you do a bad job is you get a slap on the wrist.  And professor's attention is very divided between a lot of different obligations.  So people don't go above and beyond in teaching.  Overall, this is generally good for the university.  Most universities get a cut of the research grants to pay for overhead, so if you bring in a lot of money, it's good for the department and the overall financial health of the institution.  Also having top notch scholars (nobel laureates and the like) is great PR for a university.

Of course the two body problem and taking the best offer period is part of it, but fundamentally teaching at a SLAC versus a research institution is a completely different beast in terms of what is expected of you, what you need to do to get promoted, and what the overall environment is like.  And different people are drawn to it.  Perhaps this is different in the humanities, but in the sciences, the self selection factor is huge.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics