next »

[voxprincipalis]

katgut,

Just ignore Tolerantly. You will get nowhere trying to argue with her.

VP

[tolerantly]

How would anyone know whether your theoretical 18-year-old could teach?

One would listen to him in practice or demo.  The same way one would test anyone else.  One would hire him for the same reason one hires anyone else.

I suddenly understand that I'm talking to someone who throws fits about who walks through a door first, and whose primary concern is his little ledge in the hierarchy, rather than either getting on with his own work or being pleased when others are able to do theirs.  I recommend to you a Christmas viewing of Miracle on 34th Street.  Pay particular attention to the Macy's psychologist and see how he winds up.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I never expected this old thread to heat up so much!

The thing about adjuncts is that there is often remarkably little oversight, as well as very little real investigation into how well they know the subject or how good they are as teachers.

One purpose of an advanced degree for college-level teaching is that it is certification of a certain level of training and experience.  That does not mean that everyone with a masters or PhD really does have the right background to be teaching, but it is the standard form of certification that we have.

As I mention upthread, I taught a course (at the sophomore level!) while a 21-year-old pre-masters grad student.  There was no supervision, and my only experience was 2 semesters as a TA.  While it is not clear that the 2 further semesters it took for me to get my masters contributed much to my teaching ability, it certainly did to my qualifications, and there were several in my cohort who would not have been ready to take on a course prior to the extra year or two of graduate training.  In retrospect it was rather odd (and presumably a desperation measure) for my department to give me that class to teach. - DvF

[tolerantly]

One purpose of an advanced degree for college-level teaching is that it is certification of a certain level of training and experience.  That does not mean that everyone with a masters or PhD really does have the right background to be teaching, but it is the standard form of certification that we have.

Hi, Daniel.  Yes, I  understand that it's a certification, and a form of assurance.  However, as the IT industry knows, expertise and ability can show up on the doorstep without certifications.  Your advisors and teachers were likely aware of your abilities and depth, and felt you'd do a good job with the class, despite lack of certification. 

The main things that certification can do are a) provide an easy, crude screen if you're deluged with apps; b) stand in for probing and testing if you're seriously pressed for time; c) assure the candidate's been trained along certain standard lines, and is likely to transmit that training to the class. None of these take the place of listening and watching, and assessing the actual performance in the classroom. 

Incidentally, it's only recently that my MFA program required that applicants have bachelor's degrees, and they put in the requirement only at the insistance of the graduate college.  The program directors knew perfectly well that there was no necessary connection between degrees and ability.  Their standards were fairly high; they were the #1 program in the country in that field.  In the 90s, as a fellow, I was a first screener for applications to that program.  I don't think I ever saw the applicants' CVs, certifications, qualifications.  I think I saw only their work. 

There may be a teacher in that program now with a PhD, but I can't think who.  I don't believe the last director had more than a BA, though I might be wrong about that.  The director before him had an MA.  Somehow, despite lack of academic anointment, they were a couple of the best-connected people in their industries, and a major advantage of the program was and is the industry connections.

Back in the 80s, I was admitted to a Seven Sisters college at 15, though they knew I'd be leaving high school without a diploma.  (I chose another school instead; they didn't care either.)  I hear their standards were high, too. 

In other words, @katgut:  Buh. Loh. Ney.

[minidonut]

Maybe you could take his argument out of the forum and just do a back-and-forth via private messages?  Not to put words in others' mouths, but I'm assuming it's not terribly interesting for the general audience here.

I'm just sayin'...

[katgut5]

Maybe you could take his argument out of the forum and just do a back-and-forth via private messages?  Not to put words in others' mouths, but I'm assuming it's not terribly interesting for the general audience here.

I'm just sayin'...

Minidonut, no one is forcing you to visit this thread, and we're not arguing to entertain people.

I'll say one more thing, then I'll shut up, because, frankly, it's boring me as well and I think the topic has been covered.

I think it's in the best interest of universities not to hire unqualified people for one good reason: they do need adjuncts, and they need good relations with their pool. When conditions become too unpredictable and universities show less and less loyalty to their adjuncts, those adjuncts will eventually drift away and do something else. It's not strictly a one-sided relationship. When people who have jumped through all the academic hoops only to see others hired that have not done so, it will erode the ability of the university to find people. Maybe not this week or next term, but eventually. I can understand a person without an advanced degree being asked to teach if there is no one else able to do the job--I've been asked to teach in public schools without certification because there was no one else available. And I understand a young BA could certainly cover a science lab or something specific and technical. But if universities do it on a regular basis then I believe they are setting themselves up for problems. And I do believe that a classroom of young people will begin the term having more respect with someone they refer to as "Dr." than someone their own age.

[masenka]

I am also an adjunct at a Community College who is currently enrolled in a Master's program at a University down the street.  I love teaching at the college and have went as far as giving up my full-time job as an application developer to remain an adjunct.  I started teaching when I was 21 and two weeks after I completed my Bachelor's (I completed it a year early and started my Master's program a week later in the same department).  I am currently rounding out my second semester with the department and have just turned 22.  I found that colleges are willing to hire if you can provide proof that you are currently working on your Master's in the field.  If nothing else, it provides the young graduate who is interested in education with experience and a harsh reality.  I love the classroom and the students but I hate the politics involved with any academic institution.  If it makes a difference my Master's is in Comp Sci and deals with instructional techniques.  I believe the situation is abnormal but shouldn't be "outlawed".  If a person has the drive and does an excellent job than I believe they should be given the opportunity to get a head start and get teaching experience before they graduate.

[redding]

There are definitely fields in which this situation is appropriate.  In my experience, some creative fields, for example, provide Bachelor's-level students with enough background to teach community college or freshman and sophomores.  It sounds like CS might be the same way.

In my humanities field, though, I have never seen the Master's student who could amass the information necessary, let alone develop a philosophy to teach it.  My field is not taught in high school, and even an undergraduate major is rare (grad students usually had a major in a related field).  I do occasionally see Master's students teaching in my field, and I think it's a mistake.  No matter how bright you are, you need some time studying the field to gain the expertise even to teach an intro-level course.

I understand the desperation of departments, but they are really cheating the students when they hire someone with so little background.

[voxprincipalis]

There are definitely fields in which this situation is appropriate.  In my experience, some creative fields, for example, provide Bachelor's-level students with enough background to teach community college or freshman and sophomores.

Not mine!

VP

[polly_mer]

There are definitely fields in which this situation is appropriate.  In my experience, some creative fields, for example, provide Bachelor's-level students with enough background to teach community college or freshman and sophomores.

Not mine!

VP

I doubt this is the case for most fields in which getting a bachelor's degree is meaningful.

Sure, you can teach stained glass or pottery, but I have my doubts that even fields that are commonly taught in high school (e.g., English, mathematics, history) do a good enough job of preparation that teaching at the college level is appropriate right after finishing that BA.

[masenka]

This may come across as weird, but I think that faculty members who do not have the highest terminal degree in their field should teach special-topics or side courses.  Most of the time they're hired because of a certain expertise as opposed to an all-around body of knowledge.

[grasshopper]

I am also an adjunct at a Community College who is currently enrolled in a Master's program at a University down the street.  [....]  I started teaching when I was 21 and two weeks after I completed my Bachelor's (I completed it a year early and started my Master's program a week later in the same department). 

Well, then you don't teach at a very good school. I know this because they hired you two weeks out of your Bachelor's degree. It may very well provide the recent graduate with experience and a "harsh reality," but it's at the expense of the students.

I can't speak for all fields of study, but in the liberal arts, a Bachelor's degree tends to be pretty broad. Much too broad to give anybody the kind of expertise necessary to teach it.

The level of research ability is also limited at this level. Much too low to teach research skills to others.

Students with Bachelor's degrees also tend to have very limited understandings of the theory behind what they're teaching, which  makes them less prepared to deal with the material itself. They may know the material, but not the literature *around* the material.

Any yahoo with basic literacy can open up a book and learn "stuff." And that same yahoo could probably reiterate it back at a class. But that's not education.

As far as I'm concerned, it has nothing to do with age. It has to do with the level of sophistication of research and knowledge.

One of my old boyfriends was doing a music degree at a particular school that hired students with Bachelor's degrees (some of whom were graduates from their own program!) to teach lower level courses. He ended up leaving the program when a friend of his who,  in his THIRD year of the program, went to a workshop only to be told that he was holding his instrument improperly. In three years, he had never been shown how to hold his instrument.

This is where low standards will get you.

[masenka]

I understand exactly what you mean.  I teach a pseduo gen-ed course at the school I am currently working at.  My department head and I both agreed that while I would like to teach a higher-level course, it would be best for me to wet my feet with a "simpler" class.  I am working on a Master's in my field (Computer Science) and I worked in the industry while completing my Bachelor's requirements.  The main reason I am teaching at all is because my Master's thesis will be centered on teaching and learning methods in my field and I want to get as much hands-on experience as possible.  I would hate to write a thesis without stepping foot in front of a classroom. My students have shown strong performance thus far (last two semesters) in meeting the course objectives and i give credit to myself having one foot in the industry and the other in the classroom.  I guess this seems ood because I don't plan on becoming a TT faculty member in the future.  I am perfectly happy teaching adjunct on two days of the week and developing software three days of the week.  There are plenty of faculty members with theoretical understanding for high-level courses, I tend to stick to special topics seminars and workshops and sometime in the next year I hope to begin a special-topics course that bridges theory to application.  I know that the CSAB (Computing Sciences Accreditation Board) has been pushing for more schools to incorporate application into their curriculums and that is where I found my niche.  This would not apply to any humanities or general science major and may only apply to CS and IS.  Thank you for sharing your input, I am trying to make the best of the situation I am in and provide the students with the theoretical base they need to pursue further studies.

[masenka]

Maybe this will clear things up.  In my field a Master's or a PhD is a standard that you have excelled in an "aspect" of our field.  The field is too broad to consider a professor the master of the entire body of knowledge.  Instead of chasing after the entire body of knowledge, everyone focuses in on their speciality and hones it.  I have had professors admit that they were clueless about a certain aspect of a course because it was outside of their main research focus.  That's why it's not such a bad thing if someone without their Master's teach as long as they are working on their Master's.  Once they complete that degree, it applies them to a certain "aspect" of our field and literally defines who they are as an instructor.  I have been around enough humanities majors and professors to understand that it is NOT usually that way anywhere else.  I respect any school's decision who turns me down for an adjunct position based on my education (It has happened).  In only a year or two I will have that qualification.  Why not have a Master's degree and classroom experience if someone takes a chance on me, and my intent is to remain an adjunct?

[grasshopper]

Maybe this will clear things up.  In my field a Master's or a PhD is a standard that you have excelled in an "aspect" of our field.  The field is too broad to consider a professor the master of the entire body of knowledge.  Instead of chasing after the entire body of knowledge, everyone focuses in on their speciality and hones it.  I have had professors admit that they were clueless about a certain aspect of a course because it was outside of their main research focus.  That's why it's not such a bad thing if someone without their Master's teach as long as they are working on their Master's.  Once they complete that degree, it applies them to a certain "aspect" of our field and literally defines who they are as an instructor.  I have been around enough humanities majors and professors to understand that it is NOT usually that way anywhere else. 

Actually, that's the case in my humanities field, and is likewise the case in most humanities/social sciences disciplines. This is why advertisements for positions specify areas of specialization within disciplines. As you grow as a scholar, your base of knowledge will likewise grow (hopefully), and you might develop more than one area of specialization. But everybody has an area of specialization. That's what graduate degrees and scholarship are about.

The point I was trying to make, and maybe I wasn't very clear, is that there is more to a discipline than simply knowing "stuff." I have a very specific area of specialization, and I know the "stuff" in that area. But there's more to my education than simply learning the "stuff."

There are research skills that are honed during the MA and PhD process that a Bachelor's student doesn't possess, and is thus unqualified to teach. There are also levels of theory and methodology that are simply not part of most undergraduate programs except at a very basic level. Because a student with only an undergraduate degree hasn't gone beyond this basic level, s/he is doesn't have the breadth of knowledge to teach it. These are the kinds of things I'm talking about when I talk about the stuff around the stuff.

You can't know how much you don't know until you know that you don't know it, if you know what I mean.