next »

[wilcoxlibrary]

I must admit to my “unease” as I read Rob’s discourse.  I believe it is due to my earning a doctorate through persistence rather than substance.  The doctorate came at a price in dollars, pride, and political shadowing rather than academic endeavor.  I earned the right to be called Dr.  But I have to admit I would have been just as able and prepared to teach what I teach with the MA.  Rob is right.  I have several colleges without the doctorate and there is no way I can accomplish in the class room what they can.

But I do have concerns when I read ads posted in the Chronicle like the one below. 

"Institution of No Name seeks applicants for Part-time/Adjunct Faculty positions in the following content areas: Math, English, Psychology, Communication, Nutrition and Politics (U.S. and Nevada Constitutions). Applicants for these positions must hold a Bachelor's degree in the appropriate content area and have previous teaching experience at the post-secondary level. In addition, work in the culinary/hospitality industry is a plus."

I have students that “earned” BA’s but are incapable of holding a job other than dishwasher and reheater.  But then again,  if you are a psychology major who held a workstudy job in the university / college foodservice you meet the necessary level of expertise to become an adjunct with the Institution of No Name.  Then again I should point my students in their direction.  It can only increase the number of employed graduates in their field for the stats. 

[lotsoquestions]

There was a guy in a university where I once taught  -- "Fred" had an MA in his subject and when he became a 'faculty member', he simply recycled all of his undergrad syllabi for courses he had once taken -- and then he taught them again except that this time he was the professor instead of the student.

I guess his thinking was that if you got an A in the course then that meant you understood the material in the textbook well enough to teach it to someone else. 

What was missing was the idea of scholarship.  This guy clearly saw it in a completely different light.    That was what disturbed me -- the idea that he hadn't read a single article outside of the ones assigned in his undergrad and master's levels programs and didn't even seem aware that there was additional scholarship out there or that the field could grow or change in any significant way. ALso, he didn't have the confidence to see himself as a scholar or to be able to say "out of all the approaches to this subject, I've chosen to look at these two."  Rather, it was like he either assumed that because good old Prof A taught it this way, that was the only way to teach it.  Alternately, he may have known there were other appraoches but didn't feel comfortable enough in the field to actually 'deviate from the script.'  It kind of reminded me of No Child Left Behind for Adults.  I remember being pretty freaked out by it.

Sometimes I wonder if Fred is still there at that university, still reteaching his freshman seminar in Applied Whatever to another group of undergrads year after year after year. . .And I wonder how common this is, given the ads like the one quoted above.  That's who you get, folks, when the university advertises for barely hatched adjuncts.  You get Fred.  Good luck with that.

[juanb]

To be honest, for a great many undergrad courses, just teaching the course doesn't require a deep academic background in the field.  If the teacher is a skilled teacher and knows the subject matter sufficiently, it will probably be a good and valuable class. 

What does require the deep background is the ability to develop a new course, expand an existing one, or supervise a group of "Freds."

[dolljepopp]

Article link?

[kedves]

Here is the link:  http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2009/05/2009050601c.htm

This was in the Careers section.

I thought the column was well-written, interesting, accurate, and, thankfully, from a person who seems well-balanced.

OP, the job description you quote is for an instructional position at the Cordon Bleu culinary school in Las Vegas.  Students can earn an Associate of Occupational Science degree while being trained in cooking and baking.  That job description is not representative of most CC jobs I've seen advertised in my field--and I look.  In fact, as that columnist mentions and despite his argument, community colleges seem to be going in the opposite direction; they advertise TT jobs as master's required, Ph.D. preferred.  It's a buyer's (employer's) market in many fields.  If the Ph.D. is perceived as adding something--even if it is only in terms of prestige for the college and not effectiveness in the classroom--then CCs will prefer it.

[archman]

I also liked this article. I found it accurate and well-informed. The author clearly has spent time observing the teaching effort and quality of non-PhD instructors.

The only decent defence I have for PhD's is that they *may* bring better teaching simply due to more time in graduate school. They obviously have a better research background (which may or may not be directly relevant to teaching), but PhD earners may also bring to the table greater training in graduate coursework and graduate teaching.

That's how it is with me. I took a buttload of courses while working on my PhD, and worked in teaching labs almost constantly.

A previous poster made mention of the value of continued scholarship. That is a very cogent point, and I have noticed less attention to this with (some) non-PhD instructors. While valuable, I think that continued scholarship still takes a distinct backseat to teaching training and experience, particularly at teaching-centered institutions. In many ways being an effective teacher requires one to stay current-in-field, so scholarship doesn't have to be the icky extra duty it is often portrayed to be.

[ots1927]

A small point, but I should like to point out that (contrary to author's claim) the Latin word magister means chief, or leader, and is only used to connote teacher by analogy (as in magister ludi).  The Latin word doctor means teacher, used originally to describe one who knows the Biblical scripture (thus, a scholar) and who imparts that knowledge to others (indoctrination).  When an older MD I met at a social gathering laughed good naturedly at the fact that I was a doctor of music, a notion he thought absurd on the face of it, I explained to him the origin of the word and that it made a lot more sense for me, a professor, to be called doctor, than for him, a practicing surgeon.  Lo and behold, I taught him something.

I found this article interesting and thoughtful, but I think the author too easily dismisses a basic premise of American higher education: that teaching should come not only from those who have achieved "mastery" of a subject area, but from those who have actively participated in the ongoing creation and reshaping of knowledge in that area.  In other words, if we leave aside the personal strengths and weaknesses of any particular instructors, I maintain that education is fundamentally more valuable when it comes from scholars who are actively engaged in the field, not simply introducing students to the works of others.  Of course, this is a more relevant issue for upper-level courses and, especially, at the graduate level.  For this reason I have no problem with two-year colleges that do not expect their instructors to hold doctoral degrees.  OTOH, I applaud those two-years colleges that see the opportunity created by the current job market to fill their departments with doctored scholars (though whether or not they will be able to maintain their scholarship with a typical five-course load is another important issue).

[cgfunmathguy]

A small point, but I should like to point out that (contrary to author's claim) the Latin word magister means chief, or leader, and is only used to connote teacher by analogy (as in magister ludi).  The Latin word doctor means teacher, used originally to describe one who knows the Biblical scripture (thus, a scholar) and who imparts that knowledge to others (indoctrination).  When an older MD I met at a social gathering laughed good naturedly at the fact that I was a doctor of music, a notion he thought absurd on the face of it, I explained to him the origin of the word and that it made a lot more sense for me, a professor, to be called doctor, than for him, a practicing surgeon.  Lo and behold, I taught him something.

I found this article interesting and thoughtful, but I think the author too easily dismisses a basic premise of American higher education: that teaching should come not only from those who have achieved "mastery" of a subject area, but from those who have actively participated in the ongoing creation and reshaping of knowledge in that area.  In other words, if we leave aside the personal strengths and weaknesses of any particular instructors, I maintain that education is fundamentally more valuable when it comes from scholars who are actively engaged in the field, not simply introducing students to the works of others.  Of course, this is a more relevant issue for upper-level courses and, especially, at the graduate level.  For this reason I have no problem with two-year colleges that do not expect their instructors to hold doctoral degrees.  OTOH, I applaud those two-years colleges that see the opportunity created by the current job market to fill their departments with doctored scholars (though whether or not they will be able to maintain their scholarship with a typical five-course load is another important issue).

And that's the rub. I belong to professional organizations, and I read their journals. I try to assimilate that knowledge into what I do when I can. I have an idea for an article that is probably publishable, but I don't have time to do it until break. The part that gives in my 5/5 world is creative scholarship. Staying current is something I can usually do; creating knowledge isn't.

[ots1927]

The part that gives in my 5/5 world is creative scholarship. Staying current is something I can usually do; creating knowledge isn't.

Yes, of course.  But we can reasonably assume that with a doctorate in hand you have already contributed significantly to the creation of knowledge in your field, even if the circumstances of your current employment preclude you from making that contribution ongoing.  And this, I feel, is an important distinction.  I suppose one of the things that bothered me about the article is the notion that the master's degree is a teaching degree, and the doctoral degree is a research degree.  Not only is this sweepingly inaccurate, it assumes a sharp distinction between research and teaching that lies at the core of this discussion.  If one believes that the two are separate and even unrelated, then sure, a master's degree is sufficient training for high-level teaching.  But if you believe, as I do, that the two are inherently related and intertwined, and that the absolute best college-level teaching is borne of this relationship, then it stands to reason that the best teachers will have doctoral degrees.

Again, this philosophical viewpoint doesn't always hold up in individual cases, because instructors, no matter what degrees they possess, are people with strengths and weaknesses.  And again, I realize that the issues are somewhat different in lower-level classes and that the article purports to address only the situation at two-year colleges.  But I am dismayed by the suggestion that there is something wrong with two-year colleges pursuing faculty candidates with doctoral degrees, when they are readily available.  Even if they are unable to maintain that level of scholarship while working at a two-year institution, the doctoral degree demonstrates that they should be able to bring something to the classroom that those without the doctoral degree cannot.

[kedves]

Ots1927, what evidence do you have to support your claim (e.g., studies)--or is it a hypothesis?

[comp_queen]

I'll chime in.  I have an MA.  That's right; I don't lack a PhD--I have an MA.  People, at the CC level (and i think for a lot of those at the four-year level), none of us are teaching undergraduates anything we didn't already know after sophomore year . . . in high school.

I'll likely do a PhD program one day, but it won't make me a better teacher.  I already am the teacher I'm going to be, have been for the past several years, and will be from now until retirement, and despite another poster's bad experience with "Fred," that is due in large part to things I learned from observing my professors.

And can we please all stop pretending that MA/MS holders don't produce scholarship?  Yes, I've done more conference presentations than publications, but I'm one heck of a lot more active in scholarship than all but about 3 other folks on my campus, including those with doctoral degrees.

[ots1927]

No studies.  I made no particular claims, as such, but stated my beliefs, my convictions on this issue and the rationale behind them.  Note that the author of the original article did that same, and also did not cite any studies.

[juanb]

And can we please all stop pretending that MA/MS holders don't produce scholarship? 

This is obviously strongly related to field.  I don't imagine there are a lot of MAs in Physics presenting at national level Physics conferences.  On the other hand in a "teaching field" like composition, or my field of language education, "pros" in the field typically hold MAs and are expected to be professionally active, primarily in the form of attending and presenting at conferences.  The presentations tend to be more practical along the lines of "New approaches to teaching listening" or so-called "action research" such as "Does gender matter in high school Spanish classes?"  Many of these working pros see the sort of research being done by Ph.D.s as irrelevant to the classroom.  Sometimes I think they're right.

[ots1927]

People, at the CC level (and i think for a lot of those at the four-year level), none of us are teaching undergraduates anything we didn't already know after sophomore year . . . in high school.

If this is true, I find it despairingly sad.

I already am the teacher I'm going to be, have been for the past several years, and will be from now until retirement

I'm sorry to say it, but I find this, too, rather sad.  Do good teachers not always aspire to improve?  Can't this improvement be stimulated by ongoing creative and scholarly work in the field (along with many other possible factors, of course)?

[juanb]

People, at the CC level (and i think for a lot of those at the four-year level), none of us are teaching undergraduates anything we didn't already know after sophomore year . . . in high school.

If this is true, I find it despairingly sad.

I already am the teacher I'm going to be, have been for the past several years, and will be from now until retirement

I'm sorry to say it, but I find this, too, rather sad.  Do good teachers not always aspire to improve?  Can't this improvement be stimulated by ongoing creative and scholarly work in the field (along with many other possible factors, of course)?

There's nothing sad about teaching students what they need to know at the level they are actually at.  One might have dreams about teaching "at a higher level" but there is nothing intrinsically more noble about teaching students who came into the classroom with more extensive skill sets.

On your second point, I've been teaching for 26 years.  I'm pretty much the same basic teacher as I was during my first year.  I have a larger bag of teaching tricks now and my knowledge is more expansive, so I'm now a much better teacher (I like to think).  But I'm still fundamentally the same teacher I was all those years ago.

And no, your research into your insignificant niche in your esoteric sub-field will not make you a better, more engaging teacher.  It might save you (for a while) from burnout, but that's about it.