Anonymous wrote:90 K per year should buy you proper instruction by Professors who bring strong teaching skills and a lifetime of experience in the field to the classroom. A TA can do a good job teaching undergrads, but seniority in a field brings in a whole additional dimension altogether. It is appalling how little faculty at top schools teach (sometimes as little as one course a year - that is only for PhD students).
Anonymous wrote:My TAs in college (t10) were awful.
Incoherent
Unorganized
Some barely spoke English
Anonymous wrote:Because I pay $90k/year.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just because you have a Ph.D. doesn't make you a good teacher, especially at research institutions. The focus is on research and research dollars, teaching is just a requirement. They have zero training in developing or delivery curriculum - they have zero incentive to do it well. Some will but many have to ensure they are bringing in the funds for the department. For my kids I want to make sure they being taught the topic by someone who is knowledgeable and committed to education. That is easier said than done.
This has been changing--there is more emphasis on evidence that you are a decent teacher in hiring now, even at research institutions, and even at research institutions about 30-40% of your evaluation is based on your teaching.
Anonymous wrote:My son is at a LAC, has only had professors, even in lab sections. He really loves the lab instruction, and at these small schools, all those professors have been in their own labs often and recently.
I went to a large R1 university. All my math, lab and language teachers were grad students. The math ones were good. But my son is getting a much better education than I did, similar major.
Anonymous wrote:Why are you paying $85,000 a year to have a 23 year old grad student who might not even have a Masters yet teaching your child?
Not a good answer...but here is the actual answer from an interesting essay from the WSJ:
"College is one of the few products whose consumers try to get as little out of it as possible, because its market value is tied to the credential, not to the education that it is meant to represent, says Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University and author of “The Case Against Education.” He believes that 80% of the value of graduating college today is the signal it sends to employers, and that few students outside of the hard sciences learn much of real value.
Anonymous wrote:Why are you paying $85,000 a year to have a 23 year old grad student who might not even have a Masters yet teaching your child?