Export thread

Another take on educational institution diversity. This is not uncommon in the US, but the article articulates the issue and problematic solutions quite well.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0713/p09s02-coop.html

-Adam

It's always interesting to me that EVERY side thinks theirs is the open minded side and that the other is closed minded, when in fact they have the same basic methodology in attempting to further their causes and beliefs. The problem is that when someone has a different view on the same subject using the same data it is difficult to reconcile yourself to the differences. Things like statistics on abortion or the death penalty are numerous and anyone can get them, yet there is a political and social divide that will never be crossed by those on opposing sides - with neither side able to give an inch on their platform or belief.

In the end it's not how well you teach or talk but how you practice and act that gives an idea of your true ideals.

Hiring anyone because of his or her political beliefs is outrageous--it implies that someone else more qualified will be excluded for the same reason. Frankly, I tend to agree with the first professor he spoke to, albeit minus the vitriol. Students in this country have hundreds of options when it comes to schools to attend; if you don't like the ideological makeup of the institution you attend, there is nothing to stop you transferring to another one after a year or two. I would never go to Wheaton College (a local college that is famed/notorious for its uber-conservative Christian principles) and then bitch about how there were not enough liberal professors on the staff. All of the professors I've ever had have showed a high tolerance for--even an enthusiam for--opposing viewpoints and debate, so long as an atmosphere of respect was maintained in the classroom. If the University of Oregon's faculty is really that poor, nobody is making right-wing students stay.

Most of my college is pretty liberal professor wise and I usually don't mind it, my modern western civ teacher was super liberal and we debated all the time on opposing issues and it was fun as hell. But my environmental science professor my God, he was the most liberal pompous holier-than-thou "all my opinions are fact" asshole ever and I felt like punching him in the face.

Sure it would be nice to have some more conservative professors that I could relate to but I have found other ways to relate to some professors, one of my history professors is a total Led Head and has literally every single bootleg of theirs and he loves LOTR and plays LOTRO so I relate to him in those ways and not political ways...

Also, according to polling, people with post-graduate degrees are much more likely to be liberal than conservative. Professors are... surprise... all people with post-grad degrees!

should just do what I do. Get an engineering degree and have to take very few humanities.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Also, according to polling, people with post-graduate degrees are much more likely to be liberal than conservative. Professors are... surprise... all people with post-grad degrees!

Click to expand...

Are you sure that's cause and not correlation?

In other words, couldn't the argument be that since there exists a large population of liberal professors, then liberal students would naturally be better supported and find more in common with the existing professors, and thus feel more comfortable pursuing higher education, regardless of the field?

-Adam

I didn't have a college experience where political leanings were worn so clearly on one's sleeve.

stienman said:

Another take on educational institution diversity. This is not uncommon in the US, but the article articulates the issue and problematic solutions quite well.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0713/p09s02-coop.html

-Adam

Click to expand...

Because more intelligent people usually swing on the liberal side of the fence...

Oh and from my own personal university experiences, it's always the republican or conservative groups that try to stir shit up at LIBERAL academic institutions. Case in point, this article. I can't tell you how many republican students at my undergrad university bitched about the democratic 'hippie' professors. There were several republican profs there too. No one ever gave them shit.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Also, according to polling, people with post-graduate degrees are much more likely to be liberal than conservative. Professors are... surprise... all people with post-grad degrees!

Click to expand...

Yep, the longer you are sheltered by Academia, the less you have to deal with the real world, the more your mind turns to the left.

"Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities and we didn't have to produce anything. You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect RESULTS!" - Dr. Ray Stantz

stienman said:

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Also, according to polling, people with post-graduate degrees are much more likely to be liberal than conservative. Professors are... surprise... all people with post-grad degrees!

Click to expand...

Are you sure that's cause and not correlation?

In other words, couldn't the argument be that since there exists a large population of liberal professors, then liberal students would naturally be better supported and find more in common with the existing professors, and thus feel more comfortable pursuing higher education, regardless of the field?

-Adam

Click to expand...

I think it's a combination of this, and that at least at a national movemement level, American conservatism has spent decades demonizing academia as a sham political tactic.

I find it hard to give credence to most of the "OMG LIBERAL PROFESSORS!!1" complaints, because I think it depends massively on what school you go to, where that school is, that school's relationship with its outside community, and the history of scholarship across individual departments. You can have a very conservative econ department in a very liberal humanities school (I did, and no one cared).

GasBandit said:

Yep, the longer you are sheltered by Academia, the less you have to deal with the real world, the more your mind turns to the left.

Click to expand...

Tell us more about how learning things is bad.

stienman said:

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Also, according to polling, people with post-graduate degrees are much more likely to be liberal than conservative. Professors are... surprise... all people with post-grad degrees!

Click to expand...

Are you sure that's cause and not correlation?

In other words, couldn't the argument be that since there exists a large population of liberal professors, then liberal students would naturally be better supported and find more in common with the existing professors, and thus feel more comfortable pursuing higher education, regardless of the field?

-Adam

Click to expand...

No.

-- Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:04 pm --

Kissinger said:

GasBandit said:

Yep, the longer you are sheltered by Academia, the less you have to deal with the real world, the more your mind turns to the left.

Click to expand...

Tell us more about how learning things is bad.

Click to expand...

I love how he quotes a FICTIONAL Ph.D. as an example of us higher 'larned' types are sheltered from the real world.

Chazwozel said:

stienman said:

couldn't the argument be that since there exists a large population of liberal professors, then liberal students would naturally be better supported and find more in common with the existing professors, and thus feel more comfortable pursuing higher education, regardless of the field?

Click to expand...

No.

Click to expand...

Poor argument that can never be made. I weep for your loss.

:tear:

-Adam

Hey, what's in...


Awww, fuck no.


[walks out]

We could all be like GB and QUOTE GHOSTBUSTERS TO PROVE HIS POINT!!

Kissinger said:

GasBandit said:

Yep, the longer you are sheltered by Academia, the less you have to deal with the real world, the more your mind turns to the left.

Click to expand...

Tell us more about how learning things is bad.

Click to expand...

Learning is great. But at some point you have to get out of the ivory tower. Well, most have to anyway. But post doctorate work in biochemistry makes you a political genius how? An expert on government? Even health care administration (tertiarily related to the field)? No, it makes you an expert on biochemistry... and an ardent supporter of the government system that made you such.

Chazwozel said:

I love how he quotes a FICTIONAL Ph.D. as an example of us higher 'larned' types are sheltered from the real world.

Click to expand...

Because it's funny, pop culture, the game recently came out, and topical?

-- Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:16 pm --

Edrondol said:

We could all be like GB and QUOTE GHOSTBUSTERS TO PROVE HIS POINT!!

Click to expand...

That movie quote is funny because, like all great comedy, it builds on something ridiculous but true.

stienman said:

Chazwozel said:

stienman said:

couldn't the argument be that since there exists a large population of liberal professors, then liberal students would naturally be better supported and find more in common with the existing professors, and thus feel more comfortable pursuing higher education, regardless of the field?

Click to expand...

No.

Click to expand...

Poor argument that can never be made. I weep for your loss.

:tear:

-Adam

Click to expand...

People that strive for a higher education do so because they want to and have a drive to do so, not because they get pampered by professors. Even if that was the case, in science at least, your professors could give a shit about your political motivations and focus more on your scientific determination. Your conclusion is complete and utter bullshit.

Furthermore, If you prance around science professors (as an example) telling them how Darwin's Black Box was the greatest book ever written, and loudly state how Princeton's bio deptartment is immoral for stem cell research you're not going to make many colleague connections. No one likes a jack ass.

On the same note, it is usually hardcore republican kids that have the loudest voices on liberal college campuses. I've often wondered why they don't join a seminary rather than go to a liberal university, where all those crazy 'hippies' are able to study all subjects without religious or 1950's conventional conservative bias. Oh wait, a seminary won't get you into law school...

-- Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:21 pm --

GasBandit said:

No, it makes you an expert on biochemistry... and an ardent supporter of the government system that made you such.

Chazwozel said:

I love how he quotes a FICTIONAL Ph.D. as an example of us higher 'larned' types are sheltered from the real world.

Click to expand...

Because it's funny, pop culture, the game recently came out, and topical?

Click to expand...

Topical to what? That the Ghostbusters were comfortable in their funded positions in a movie? A fictional account of some lazy post-docs? A more relevant point would be the discussion of how tenure allows a professor to teach however the hell he/she wants without political worry. That's really the essence of a liberal university education, and that's why so many conservative kids end up going to liberal schools.

"It's true, this man has no dick." - Bill Ghostbuster, PhD.

Back off man, I'm a scientist. - Ray Ghostbuster, Ph.D.

Chazwozel said:

A more relevant point would be the discussion of how tenure allows a professor to teach however the hell he/she wants without political worry. That's really the essence of a liberal university education, and that's why so many conservative kids end up going to liberal schools.

Click to expand...

That as well. I sure with the I.T. industry offered tenure. Then I could REALLY slack off.

"I don't have to take this abuse from you, I've got hundreds of people dying to abuse me." - [strike:2lfby66t]GasBandit[/strike:2lfby66t] Dr. Peter Venkman PhD

GasBandit said:

Chazwozel said:

A more relevant point would be the discussion of how tenure allows a professor to teach however the * he/she wants without political worry. That's really the essence of a liberal university education, and that's why so many conservative kids end up going to liberal schools.

Click to expand...

That as well. I sure with the I.T. industry offered tenure. Then I could REALLY slack off.

Click to expand...

Well it's not a matter of slacking off (don't worry I'm not naive, I know tenured profs are lazy fucks), but rather a system which tries to remove political stigma in the face of academics. Tenure ain't going no where.

Oh you know what else I learned from Ghostbusters? The E.P.A. is EVIL!

I want to know why 50% of all Fortune 500 CEO's are not bleeding heart liberals? I mean come on, the Republican Party is keeping all the Million Dollar a year jobs for themselves...

Chazwozel said:

GasBandit said:

Chazwozel said:

A more relevant point would be the discussion of how tenure allows a professor to teach however the * he/she wants without political worry. That's really the essence of a liberal university education, and that's why so many conservative kids end up going to liberal schools.

Click to expand...

That as well. I sure with the I.T. industry offered tenure. Then I could REALLY slack off.

Click to expand...

Well it's not a matter of slacking off (don't worry I'm not naive, I know tenured profs are lazy fucks), but rather a system which tries to remove political stigma in the face of academics. Tenure ain't going no where.

Oh you know what else I learned from Ghostbusters? The E.P.A. is EVIL!

Click to expand...

Of course Tenure ain't going nowhere. The inmates run the asylum, and nobody wants to stop the gravy train. Kinda reminds me of the U.S. House of Representatives, actually.

Chazwozel said:

Tenure ain't going no where

Click to expand...

Think that's part of the problem. aranoid:

My tenured teachers have been a 50/50 split between really awesome and horribly shitty people who are only teaching because they can't do just research. I don't think I've had a middle.

Covar said:

Chazwozel said:

Tenure ain't going no where

Click to expand...

Think that's part of the problem. aranoid:

My tenured teachers have been a 50/50 split between really awesome and horribly shitty people who are only teaching because they can't do just research. I don't think I've had a middle.

Click to expand...

Tenure track liberal arts professor is what I want to do in like 20 years. That way I don't have to do shit when I'm 60 except show up to work and pop open a nice bottle of Jack.

GasBandit said:

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Also, according to polling, people with post-graduate degrees are much more likely to be liberal than conservative. Professors are... surprise... all people with post-grad degrees!

Click to expand...

Yep, the longer you are sheltered by Academia, the less you have to deal with the real world, the more your mind turns to the left.

"Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities and we didn't have to produce anything. You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect RESULTS!" - Dr. Ray Stantz

Click to expand...

Yeah, we're totally sheltered. Your evidence for this "sheltering" is....?

Maybe it's because we don't have to compete and scramble to win like a private busine...oh wait. Nope scratch that one. I have to write grants, prove myself to conservatives and liberals alike, and generally justify my existence on a daily basis the way your average corporate grunt sure doesn't have to.

No one has ever "sheltered" me or given me anything for free! I don't get to keep my job just for performing adequately unlike people in the quote-unquote real world. Tell me. If you go through the next three years doing only what your job description says you have to do, will you be able to keep your job at the end of those 3 years? I wouldn't be able to. I have to be better. You know, like the rhetoric Republicans masturbate to. Do you have to come up with your own business plan, work out the finances, pay yourself somewhere in all that, all while writing the NEXT business plan because each one lasts only a year or two? All while running a third business of teaching a bunch of unappreciative (which is incredibly soul-sapping) students who make it their jobs to search for errors in what you're doing? It's like I'm starting one of those small businesses conservatives lap up all by myself every 1-3 years, while maintaining a "real" job of teaching. And no one catches me if I fall. If I miss a grant in one of these highly competitive (another buzzword you guys like) funding programs, no one says, "Aww, shucks, Jack. Here's a check anyway." No, they cover their eyes and say, "Sorry, better luck next time. Better go find some consulting work to feed your kids this summer!"

I don't live at the school or even in a neighborhood surrounded by academics. I, like all professors, live in the real world. I deal with the consequences of my actions just like anyone else. I don't know where this haven-like "shelter" is. If you find it, let me know. It ain't an easy job. It's a fun job, but it's a lot of competitive, stressful, performance-oriented work.

What else could I be sheltered from? Political issues? Hell, everyone wears those on their sleeves here. More than most workplaces.

All that aside, I don't think I agree with the original point anyway. I know just as many reds as blues here. The last freakin' college luncheon we had erupted into a heated debate about Obama with plenty of supporters on either side. I think there are a lot of outspoken, unafraid liberals at universities, but I don't know if I agree anecdotally that there's a huge imbalance.

Stantz is a fictional character. He'd be out of a job like Venkman at the end of his tenure-track period if he didn't produce results.

Summary:

So the article says, "There's lots more liberals here (at a given university) than conservatives, which could be a problem."

And the defenders of the status quo are saying:
"It's because you have to be intelligent to go to grad school, and intelligent people are liberal."
"It's not really a problem."
"If you don't like it, go to a university with a conservative bias."

Oh well. Better luck next debate!

-Adam

I didn't even read the article, tbh

EDIT: Oh, it's an op-ed by a journalism student. Hm.

EDIT2: I'm not even really seeing what his argument is. It seems to boil down to, "Having more diverse opinions is better," and he doesn't even really support that concept.

Kissinger said:

I didn't even read the article, tbh

Click to expand...

Oh, don't bother. It's the same thing you read in the college newspaper every 6 months.

"Oh noes! Liberals are in charge of our edumacation!"

It is an interesting topic to discuss, though. Lots of people are very quick to defend either side vigorously, with very few actually having an objective perspective.

-Adam

Or it could be you found a subject here that most forumers don't feel like debating.

Now, ask who would win in a fight, Superman or the Hulk, and you'll get 20 pages in 3 days.

stienman said:

Summary:

So the article says, "There's lots more liberals here (at a given university) than conservatives, which could be a problem."

And the defenders of the status quo are saying:
"It's because you have to be intelligent to go to grad school, and intelligent people are liberal."
"It's not really a problem."
"If you don't like it, go to a university with a conservative bias."

Oh well. Better luck next debate!

-Adam

Click to expand...

I didn't even argue with the article. I argued with GasBandit telling me what my job was like. If it effects your student's education and you can prove it, do something about it. Isn't that the Republican tact anyway: you do it, not "we" do it? Forcing a balance sounds ironically like what conservatives accuse liberals of all the time.

Regardless, in my entire career as a student, I cannot once recall a professor bringing his or her views of any sort other than scientific to the classroom. If he or she did, someone would complain, and tenure or not, the professor would be quickly dealt with--regardless of which side was taken.

(Since when is "not really a problem" not a valid point in an argument?)

fade said:

Maybe it's because we don't have to compete and scramble to win like a private busine...oh wait. Nope scratch that one. I have to write grants, prove myself to conservatives and liberals alike, and generally justify my existence on a daily basis the way your average corporate grunt sure doesn't have to.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those grants, boy I'll tell ya. They're just the very model of sink or swim free market economics. :eyeroll:

No one has ever "sheltered" me or given me anything for free! I don't get to keep my job just for performing adequately unlike people in the quote-unquote real world. Tell me. If you go through the next three years doing only what your job description says you have to do, will you be able to keep your job at the end of those 3 years?

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I sure as hell wouldn't get a raise.

I wouldn't be able to. I have to be better. You know, like the rhetoric Republicans masturbate to. Do you have to come up with your own business plan, work out the finances, pay yourself somewhere in all that, all while writing the NEXT business plan because each one lasts only a year or two?

Click to expand...

In the real world we have to do that 4 times a year and call them quarterly budgets.

All while running a third business of teaching a bunch of unappreciative (which is incredibly soul-sapping) students who make it their jobs to search for errors in what you're doing?

Click to expand...

Yeah, damn tough time for professors, actually having to TEACH and all.

It's like I'm starting one of those small businesses conservatives lap up all by myself every 1-3 years, while maintaining a "real" job of teaching. And no one catches me if I fall. If I miss a grant in one of these highly competitive (another buzzword you guys like) funding programs, no one says, "Aww, shucks, Jack. Here's a check anyway." No, they cover their eyes and say, "Sorry, better luck next time. Better go find some consulting work to feed your kids this summer!"

Click to expand...

So what you're telling me is that you don't get a salary from the university, you entirely subsist on grant programs?

You really think everybody outside academia just coasts to payday? Some perhaps, but they're being paid hourly, don't get raises, and often don't break the 30k/year barrier. In the real world, true financial success means 80 hour work weeks, personal financial risk, and no grants. Either people buy your product or you go under. And there's never any tenure.

All your professors being Democrats or Republicans or even Libertarians is only a problem if you make it a problem. 99% of what is being taught has no basis in political beliefs and so is independant of that fact. Sure, there will be the occassional professor who tries to inject their views into what they are teaching, but that is wrong and should be delt with by the university.

Conducting a poll about what your professors believe has nothing to do with what they are teaching. Demanding that an equal number of professors be conservative would only be to the detriment of your and your classmate's educations. The university has gone out and hired the best professors they could find. If a conservative-thinking professor was the better choice, then they'd already be teaching the class.

GasBandit said:

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Also, according to polling, people with post-graduate degrees are much more likely to be liberal than conservative. Professors are... surprise... all people with post-grad degrees!

Click to expand...

Yep, the longer you are sheltered by Academia, the less you have to deal with the real world, the more your mind turns to the left.

"Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities and we didn't have to produce anything. You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect RESULTS!" - Dr. Ray Stantz

Click to expand...

As someone who worked in the REAL private sector for 10 years and is returning to the halls of academia, I can safely say that you're full of shit.

GasBandit said:

fade said:

Maybe it's because we don't have to compete and scramble to win like a private busine...oh wait. Nope scratch that one. I have to write grants, prove myself to conservatives and liberals alike, and generally justify my existence on a daily basis the way your average corporate grunt sure doesn't have to.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those grants, boy I'll tell ya. They're just the very model of sink or swim free market economics. :eyeroll:

No one has ever "sheltered" me or given me anything for free! I don't get to keep my job just for performing adequately unlike people in the quote-unquote real world. Tell me. If you go through the next three years doing only what your job description says you have to do, will you be able to keep your job at the end of those 3 years?

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I sure as * wouldn't get a raise.

[quote:3f82gpbm]I wouldn't be able to. I have to be better. You know, like the rhetoric Republicans * to. Do you have to come up with your own business plan, work out the finances, pay yourself somewhere in all that, all while writing the NEXT business plan because each one lasts only a year or two?

Click to expand...

In the real world we have to do that 4 times a year and call them quarterly budgets.

And you can seriously fuck

All while running a third business of teaching a bunch of unappreciative (which is incredibly soul-sapping) students who make it their jobs to search for errors in what you're doing?

Click to expand...

Yeah, damn tough time for professors, actually having to TEACH and all.

It's like I'm starting one of those small businesses conservatives lap up all by myself every 1-3 years, while maintaining a "real" job of teaching. And no one catches me if I fall. If I miss a grant in one of these highly competitive (another buzzword you guys like) funding programs, no one says, "Aww, shucks, Jack. Here's a check anyway." No, they cover their eyes and say, "Sorry, better luck next time. Better go find some consulting work to feed your kids this summer!"

Click to expand...

So what you're telling me is that you don't get a salary from the university, you entirely subsist on grant programs?

You really think everybody outside academia just coasts to payday? Some perhaps, but they're being paid hourly, don't get raises, and often don't break the 30k/year barrier. In the real world, true financial success means 80 hour work weeks, personal financial risk, and no grants. Either people buy your product or you go under. And there's never any tenure.[/quote:3f82gpbm]


And so begins the grand pissing contest. How bout you hear it from someone who's experienced both sides of the coin, Gas? I'm in industry now, and it's a hell of a lot less stressful than academic research. I salute Fade for putting up with it, but like he said, it's a fun experience too. And you can seriously fuck off with the grant comment. It just proves how little you do know about academics. Writing and actually getting a fully funded NIH grant for 2-5 years would make your little head pop off.

General Specific said:

All your professors being Democrats or Republicans or even Libertarians is only a problem if you make it a problem. 99% of what is being taught has no basis in political beliefs and so is independant of that fact. Sure, there will be the occassional professor who tries to inject their views into what they are teaching, but that is wrong and should be delt with by the university.

Conducting a poll about what your professors believe has nothing to do with what they are teaching. Demanding that an equal number of professors be conservative would only be to the detriment of your and your classmate's educations. The university has gone out and hired the best professors they could find. If a conservative-thinking professor was the better choice, then they'd already be teaching the class.

Click to expand...

Since some others in the thread have gone the personal experience route, I'll share a story too... I attended a much more reputedly conservative university, and one of my favorite classes there was "History of Naval Warfare." One day that stands out in my mind very much was the day we had a very interesting lecture with discussion afterwards on the status of gays in the military, with the professor positing that historical precedent showed it to be standard, if not outright beneficial. Much as it may surprise our dear forumites, there were no lynchings that day.

GasBandit, I'd sure like to know where you get your information about professors.

I think you're stretching your point a lot. I don't think your 80/hr a week point applies to the vast majority of people. Yes, I do think (and I'm pretty sure I can find plenty of support to back me up) that most people in general coast through life in work or otherwise. Otherwise, everyone would be a financially successful wizard. And don't even try to bring in raises, work week hours, and personal financial risk. I didn't bring those things up because I knew they were common to both. Seriously, where are these magic professors you're citing working? I want to go to that university, and not the three I've worked at.

I call you on "quarterly reports", too. That's hardly the same thing. Balancing a budget is NOT the same thing as creating one completely anew every time you start a completely new project.

I, like most professors, only get a nine-month salary. For three months, I entirely subsist on grants. Yes. And if I don't bring in what's called "overhead" to the university with those grants you apparently think are given to me, I can look forward to not getting those raises you apparently don't think we have to compete for or tenure.

For the record, I never COMPLAINED about having to teach. I love teaching. But it is yet another job. You're demonstrating a pretty common misunderstanding of a professor's role. My job is primarily research. I was told that when I was hired. It's in the faculty handbook. I even have a percentage chart that shows me that I should be devoting at least 60-70% of my time to research. I wasn't hired as a teacher. I was hired as a researcher who teaches. Just like most professors.

YES. Grants are sink or swim. Try writing one sometime, then meet me back here. Give me something besides an eye-rolling smiley to back that up. I can sure tell you it is. Most government grants are on a quarterly review cycle where you HAVE TO SHOW RESULTS to a panel of people who actually know what you're talking about. This is the real world, not some movie where you can make up research and expect to float. I have had TWO DoD grants pulled from the principal investigators I have worked for--and not because my work wasn't valid, but because there was something the panel felt deserved the money more than our idea. That's not a few fickle customers gone. That was our entire budget. I had to get a new job (in private industry, by the way, where I had the easiest time of my life, getting raises, and coasting from paycheck to paycheck--fatter checks than I ever had in academia, and without all those side problems to worry about). DoD isn't the only grant agency following this model.

Finally, I call you on the tenure thing. Maybe in the 1950s that was a magic shield. But it's not anymore (see the Chronicle of Higher Education for any number of articles on how the have re-worked tenure or found ways around it). There are requirements to maintain tenure. And unless you want to remain at the same level of salary until you retire, you still have to perform for raises. Also, it's not like seniority doesn't at least carry some weight in industry. I have to work my fingers to the bone for 7 years to even be considered for tenure, by the way. That's AFTER having a 3 year post-doc just to qualify for consideration to the professor job in the first place. Sure, you can get a job without one if you want to work at a small school or at a community college. So that's 10 years before tenure.

Also, don't forget I had to prove myself to get this job in the first place. I had to devote 10 years to school, plus 3 years to a post-doc. The freedom and flexibility I get didn't come for free. Isn't "working for rewards" something you conservatives love too? Oh, and after that, me the 100s of other eligible geology/geophysics Ph.D. in the country competed for the same 10 professor openings. I won, after making rounds of cuts and finally being subjected to 3-day-long interviews at every school I made it into the finals for.

GasBandit said:

General Specific said:

All your professors being Democrats or Republicans or even Libertarians is only a problem if you make it a problem. 99% of what is being taught has no basis in political beliefs and so is independant of that fact. Sure, there will be the occassional professor who tries to inject their views into what they are teaching, but that is wrong and should be delt with by the university.

Conducting a poll about what your professors believe has nothing to do with what they are teaching. Demanding that an equal number of professors be conservative would only be to the detriment of your and your classmate's educations. The university has gone out and hired the best professors they could find. If a conservative-thinking professor was the better choice, then they'd already be teaching the class.

Click to expand...

Since some others in the thread have gone the personal experience route, I'll share a story too... I attended a much more reputedly conservative university, and one of my favorite classes there was "History of Naval Warfare." One day that stands out in my mind very much was the day we had a very interesting lecture with discussion afterwards on the status of gays in the military, with the professor positing that historical precedent showed it to be standard, if not outright beneficial. Much as it may surprise our dear forumites, there were no lynchings that day.

Click to expand...

...right before the 'only good gay is a dead gay', 'of course it's beneficial, they're useful machine gun meat shields' jokes....amiright?!??! :smug:

Seriously, you'd expect a group of politically like minded individuals to erupt on each other? What planet are you from?

Chazwozel said:

Seriously, you'd expect a group of politically like minded individuals to erupt on each other? What planet are you from?

Click to expand...

No, you misunderstand. The position put forward by the professor was that it was historically normal and beneficial for homosexuality to be open and practiced in the military. Something that probably wouldn't have sat well with a few people, especially at a "conservative" university. But the debate was civil, there were never any protests, and nobody called for his resignation.

fade said:

Also, don't forget I had to prove myself to get this job in the first place. I had to devote 10 years to school, plus 3 years to a post-doc. The freedom and flexibility I get didn't come for free. Isn't "working for rewards" something you conservatives love too? Oh, and after that, me the 100s of other eligible geology/geophysics Ph.D. in the country competed for the same 10 professor openings. I won, after making rounds of cuts and finally being subjected to 3-day-long interviews at every school I made it into the finals for.

Click to expand...

So what happened to the other 90 PhDs? Did they and their families die and decay in the gutter?

fade said:

I think you're stretching your point a lot. I don't think your 80/hr a week point applies to the vast majority of people.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of people aren't successful. They make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck and running up ten thousand dollar credit card bills.

fade said:

For the record, I never COMPLAINED about having to teach. I love teaching. But it is yet another job. You're demonstrating a pretty common misunderstanding of a professor's role. My job is primarily research. I was told that when I was hired. It's in the faculty handbook. I even have a percentage chart that shows me that I should be devoting at least 60-70% of my time to research. I wasn't hired as a teacher. I was hired as a researcher who teaches. Just like most professors.

Click to expand...

That it part of a related problem, that this is the SOP. If you're hired to research, WHY must you also teach? This is not me being rhetorical here, just for clarification... I want to know your thoughts on why someone hired to research must also teach. To me it just seems like the equivalent of saying the engineer you hire to design the plane must also personally train the pilots to fly them.

GasBandit said:

So what happened to the other 90 PhDs? Did they and their families die and decay in the gutter?

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's not nice to remind him of the trail of death and destruction that lie in his wake.

:tongue:

-Adam

I love how gasbandit is equating being an achieving worker in the private sector to a professor who underachieves. It's kind of undermining his argument.

Adam, are you really surprised? Really? This thread pretty much where I expected it to.

Politics shouldn't matter, and I would venture to say that to most professors, no matter the side of the aisle they are on, it doesn't. The ones who end up preaching rather than teaching are pretty well known and as long as you can avoid their classes (assuming you want to actually learn, not just be proselytized to) I don't see the fuss.
The problem here though isn't that. It's that you have to respect those with whom you disagree, even if you are a "oh so great and lofty teacher" (for the record, I'm an adjunct professor, so I say that tongue in cheek) you don't get to act like the professors this writer encountered. To me thats where there starts to be a problem.

GasBandit said:

fade said:

For the record, I never COMPLAINED about having to teach. I love teaching. But it is yet another job. You're demonstrating a pretty common misunderstanding of a professor's role. My job is primarily research. I was told that when I was hired. It's in the faculty handbook. I even have a percentage chart that shows me that I should be devoting at least 60-70% of my time to research. I wasn't hired as a teacher. I was hired as a researcher who teaches. Just like most professors.

Click to expand...

That it part of a related problem, that this is the SOP. If you're hired to research, WHY must you also teach? This is not me being rhetorical here, just for clarification... I want to know your thoughts on why someone hired to research must also teach. To me it just seems like the equivalent of saying the engineer you hire to design the plane must also personally train the pilots to fly them.

Click to expand...

Because the students want the best, most recent, most cutting edge knowledge to be imparted to them. Hence, the people doing the research should be the ones to then teach what they've learnt.

GasBandit said:

You really think everybody outside academia just coasts to payday? Some perhaps, but they're being paid hourly, don't get raises, and often don't break the 30k/year barrier. In the real world, true financial success means 80 hour work weeks, personal financial risk, and no grants. Either people buy your product or you go under. And there's never any tenure.

Click to expand...

Seems like the smarter thing to do would be for conservatives to try and get a college teaching job.

Le Quack said:

GasBandit said:

You really think everybody outside academia just coasts to payday? Some perhaps, but they're being paid hourly, don't get raises, and often don't break the 30k/year barrier. In the real world, true financial success means 80 hour work weeks, personal financial risk, and no grants. Either people buy your product or you go under. And there's never any tenure.

Click to expand...

Seems like the smarter thing to do would be for conservatives to try and get a college teaching job.

Click to expand...

But it is difficult to become fabulously wealthy while teaching College courses.

sixpackshaker said:

Le Quack said:

GasBandit said:

You really think everybody outside academia just coasts to payday? Some perhaps, but they're being paid hourly, don't get raises, and often don't break the 30k/year barrier. In the real world, true financial success means 80 hour work weeks, personal financial risk, and no grants. Either people buy your product or you go under. And there's never any tenure.

Click to expand...

Seems like the smarter thing to do would be for conservatives to try and get a college teaching job.

Click to expand...

But it is difficult to become fabulously wealthy while teaching College courses.

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean college professors are paid less than CEOs of big companys?

Who woulda thunk it.

I don't know if there are more liberal professors or not. In my experience though, the only political views spoken in the class room were liberal views. I live in a red state. I think the student population is mostly conservative, but the faculty seems to be mostly liberal.

I don't care if a prof is liberal/conservative. What I don't like is a professor using his/her position to discuss politics/religion/sex. I've had a number of professors bring up politics without anyone prompting them to do it (by asking questions). I'm a microbiologist, so these were biochemisty, organic chemistry, microbiology classes. There isn't any reason to discuss/lecture that in class. If I am paying for a course in Inorganic Chemistry, then, there should be nothing else mentioned beyond the periodic table. That's my beef. I want what I paid for. I have agreed with some profs, and disagreed with others, but I don't like it either way. It's inappropriate.

I don't want to see a clamping down on free speech, but I also don't want to hear political talk in a science class.

Sure, there are political topics: stem-cell research, global warming, evolution, etc., but that discussion is best for a debate/humanities-type course, and not a theory course.

The absolute worst was an Organic Chem prof (from Berkeley) that ranted about Reagan a couple of days after his death. He went on and on for at least 10 minutes, before I raised my hand and asked if he was going to talk about chemistry or politics. He glared at me, and said something sarcastic, and proceeded with the chemistry. What a dick.

drawn_inward said:

The absolute worst was an Organic Chem prof (from Berkeley) that ranted about Reagan a couple of days after his death. He went on and on for at least 10 minutes, before I raised my hand and asked, "Is this going to be on the test?"

Click to expand...

ftfy.

-Adam

Mr_Chaz said:

GasBandit said:

fade said:

For the record, I never COMPLAINED about having to teach. I love teaching. But it is yet another job. You're demonstrating a pretty common misunderstanding of a professor's role. My job is primarily research. I was told that when I was hired. It's in the faculty handbook. I even have a percentage chart that shows me that I should be devoting at least 60-70% of my time to research. I wasn't hired as a teacher. I was hired as a researcher who teaches. Just like most professors.

Click to expand...

That it part of a related problem, that this is the SOP. If you're hired to research, WHY must you also teach? This is not me being rhetorical here, just for clarification... I want to know your thoughts on why someone hired to research must also teach. To me it just seems like the equivalent of saying the engineer you hire to design the plane must also personally train the pilots to fly them.

Click to expand...

Because the students want the best, most recent, most cutting edge knowledge to be imparted to them. Hence, the people doing the research should be the ones to then teach what they've learnt.

Click to expand...

I can add to this. I went to a research intensive grad school. Who else is supposed to teach at such a school? There were no undergrad students. Science works on the basis of apprenticeship and mentoring. You can't teach the critical thinking required for graduate level research in a classroom like in undergrad. There are no book chapters to read, there are no easy scan-tron answers to exam questions. Honestly, I can't think of a better "real world situation" than having researchers teach the students.

-- Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:27 pm --

drawn_inward said:

The absolute worst was an Organic Chem prof (from Berkeley) that ranted about Reagan a couple of days after his death. He went on and on for at least 10 minutes, before I raised my hand and asked if he was going to talk about chemistry or politics. He glared at me, and said something sarcastic, and proceeded with the chemistry. What a *.

Click to expand...

No way?!?! My Organic Chem prof was die hard conservative (from Georgia U, had a huge rebel flag in his office). The guy would rant on and on about global warming...

Rumor was he drank his morning OJ mixed with Vodka every morning class. The guy was also a total dick. Two years after I had taken his course (was a senior by this time), I saw him at a bar. He takes his drinking buddy over and starts talking with me and my friends. He was being vulgar and rude to the girls we were with, and we told him to fuck off, at which point he threatened our grades. I never laughed so hard in my life.

You know whats sad? My old English professor at the current college I am attending. He was a huge democratic supporter.
After Obama won last years contested presidential election he made us watch that speech he gave. He took class time
out from our basic level English course to re watch the speech. We got out of class early but it was moronic how he
pressed his political views on the class.

Its just idiotic how professors thrusts their views and opinions on gullible college students.

One interesting point to make out was my roommate who is a staunch Republic got extremely drunk that night
and was ejected from the Union building for the evening for being extremely loud and obnoxious.

I like opinionated professors because being in college means it's adult time now and it's time to start dealing with people having opinions you might not agree with :3

Kissinger said:

I like opinionated professors because being in college means it's adult time now and it's time to start dealing with people having opinions you might not agree with :3

Click to expand...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0jyKabLHVc:26660v3w][/youtube:26660v3w]

Hm. I think the major influences I got from my teachers at English Philology and Cultural History departments are these:
1.) History is an interpretation based on evidence.
2.) Language is not only a means of communication, but an expression of cultural, regional etc. identity.
3.) There's no proper Finnish translation for black bread and sourmilk (our translation teacher was a New York Jew - and funny as hell )

Kissinger said:

I like opinionated professors because being in college means it's adult time now and it's time to start dealing with people having opinions you might not agree with :3

Click to expand...

Also very true. If you can't deal with having a lecturer spouting their political opinion at you, perhaps you're not really happy with your own opinions? Otherwise you would just either a) Discuss (Argue) back, or b) Ignore what they're saying. Like we do with Gas. If you're really worried by what they're saying, perhaps you should pay more attention and consider their opinion, since it seems you're in need of more information.

Really, by the time you get to college you should be able to listen to what someone says and form your own opinion. So your lecturers are all left wing? Deal with it. As long as it doesn't directly effect your education (which it could possibly only do if you study Politics, Sociology or Economics) then what's the problem?

I'm a little surprised that so many people have had politically overt teachers.

Don't get me wrong, I've had teachers who I've talked politics with (my two favorite teachers are a Goldwater style conservative English teacher and a Liberally minded ethics teacher). Maybe I was lucky in that they were both retired teachers who still taught because they loved it?

I should add that the Ethics class had lot of politics involved. Even though the teacher appeared liberal, it wasn't until about the 8th week I got a hint of that. The only time he really stopped the religious zealot in the class was when he tried telling the teacher, a man from Nigeria in his 80's, that Nigerians were better off with the global corporations than before them.

Chazwozel said:

Mr_Chaz said:

GasBandit said:

fade said:

For the record, I never COMPLAINED about having to teach. I love teaching. But it is yet another job. You're demonstrating a pretty common misunderstanding of a professor's role. My job is primarily research. I was told that when I was hired. It's in the faculty handbook. I even have a percentage chart that shows me that I should be devoting at least 60-70% of my time to research. I wasn't hired as a teacher. I was hired as a researcher who teaches. Just like most professors.

Click to expand...

That it part of a related problem, that this is the SOP. If you're hired to research, WHY must you also teach? This is not me being rhetorical here, just for clarification... I want to know your thoughts on why someone hired to research must also teach. To me it just seems like the equivalent of saying the engineer you hire to design the plane must also personally train the pilots to fly them.

Click to expand...

Because the students want the best, most recent, most cutting edge knowledge to be imparted to them. Hence, the people doing the research should be the ones to then teach what they've learnt.

Click to expand...

I can add to this. I went to a research intensive grad school. Who else is supposed to teach at such a school? There were no undergrad students. Science works on the basis of apprenticeship and mentoring. You can't teach the critical thinking required for graduate level research in a classroom like in undergrad. There are no book chapters to read, there are no easy scan-tron answers to exam questions. Honestly, I can't think of a better "real world situation" than having researchers teach the students.

Click to expand...

But, as has been noted, so many "research" professors turn out to be horrible "teaching" professors (we've all had a couple of those). I can see how in some situations it may be greatly beneficial for post grad work, but I'm not sure those were the soul-deadened apathetic students Fade was referring to. I think he was referring to undergrads, and I know I for one had a few "research" professors who were absolutely horrible. Why subject these people to each other when it really benefits neither?

BlackCat said:

You know whats sad? My old English professor at the current college I am attending. He was a huge democratic supporter.
After Obama won last years contested presidential election he made us watch that speech he gave. He took class time
out from our basic level English course to re watch the speech. We got out of class early but it was moronic how he
pressed his political views on the class.

Its just idiotic how professors thrusts their views and opinions on gullible college students.

One interesting point to make out was my roommate who is a staunch Republic got extremely drunk that night
and was ejected from the Union building for the evening for being extremely loud and obnoxious.

Click to expand...

What about the presidential election was contested?

Bowielee said:

BlackCat said:

You know whats sad? My old English professor at the current college I am attending. He was a huge democratic supporter.
After Obama won last years contested presidential election he made us watch that speech he gave. He took class time
out from our basic level English course to re watch the speech. We got out of class early but it was moronic how he
pressed his political views on the class.

Its just idiotic how professors thrusts their views and opinions on gullible college students.

One interesting point to make out was my roommate who is a staunch Republic got extremely drunk that night
and was ejected from the Union building for the evening for being extremely loud and obnoxious.

Click to expand...

What about the presidential election was contested?

Click to expand...

Beats me. As far as I can tell, the only ones "contesting" it are the Birthers, and they're about as sane as the 9/11 conspiracy people.

GasBandit said:

Chazwozel said:

Mr_Chaz said:

GasBandit said:

That it part of a related problem, that this is the SOP. If you're hired to research, WHY must you also teach? This is not me being rhetorical here, just for clarification... I want to know your thoughts on why someone hired to research must also teach. To me it just seems like the equivalent of saying the engineer you hire to design the plane must also personally train the pilots to fly them.

Click to expand...

Because the students want the best, most recent, most cutting edge knowledge to be imparted to them. Hence, the people doing the research should be the ones to then teach what they've learnt.

Click to expand...

I can add to this. I went to a research intensive grad school. Who else is supposed to teach at such a school? There were no undergrad students. Science works on the basis of apprenticeship and mentoring. You can't teach the critical thinking required for graduate level research in a classroom like in undergrad. There are no book chapters to read, there are no easy scan-tron answers to exam questions. Honestly, I can't think of a better "real world situation" than having researchers teach the students.

Click to expand...

But, as has been noted, so many "research" professors turn out to be horrible "teaching" professors (we've all had a couple of those). I can see how in some situations it may be greatly beneficial for post grad work, but I'm not sure those were the soul-deadened apathetic students Fade was referring to. I think he was referring to undergrads, and I know I for one had a few "research" professors who were absolutely horrible. Why subject these people to each other when it really benefits neither?

Click to expand...

The point of grad school is to develop your own learning skills and do it all yourself. My eye opening experience: One exam I had messed up the answer to a question (it had to do with the positioning of a promoter region around a DNA, i.e. the trick to the question was knowing the rotation space distance around the DNA helix). I went to the prof complaining that he never taught it in class. He said, tough potatoes, you should have deduced that you'd need to know that sort of stuff from the material I gave.

Grad school isn't about catering to your 'teaching needs' like undergrad. Undergrad profs will spoon feed you until you get it. Research profs will guide you to the door but you have to do everything else yourself. Most primary research institutes don't have undergrads, and those that do usually utilize graduate students to teach courses.

BlackCat said:

You know whats sad? My old English professor at the current college I am attending. He was a huge democratic supporter.
After Obama won last years contested presidential election he made us watch that speech he gave. He took class time
out from our basic level English course to re watch the speech. We got out of class early but it was moronic how he
pressed his political views on the class.

Its just idiotic how professors thrusts their views and opinions on gullible college students.

Click to expand...

Maybe he was just really, really happy that we have a President that acknowledges, and follows the rules of the English language?

^My professors canceled class on Inauguration Day. My psyc professor put it best, I think in the email he sent out. It went along the lines of:

Like him or hate him, this is our first black president, and I'd like to watch the new president's speech as it happens. Watch it or don't.

And he assigned a chapter to read, so it was also a "study" day.

That's nothing CajunGal, my entire university shut down on Inauguration Day. It was a snow day.

Chazwozel said:

GasBandit said:

Chazwozel said:

Mr_Chaz said:

Because the students want the best, most recent, most cutting edge knowledge to be imparted to them. Hence, the people doing the research should be the ones to then teach what they've learnt.

Click to expand...

I can add to this. I went to a research intensive grad school. Who else is supposed to teach at such a school? There were no undergrad students. Science works on the basis of apprenticeship and mentoring. You can't teach the critical thinking required for graduate level research in a classroom like in undergrad. There are no book chapters to read, there are no easy scan-tron answers to exam questions. Honestly, I can't think of a better "real world situation" than having researchers teach the students.

Click to expand...

But, as has been noted, so many "research" professors turn out to be horrible "teaching" professors (we've all had a couple of those). I can see how in some situations it may be greatly beneficial for post grad work, but I'm not sure those were the soul-deadened apathetic students Fade was referring to. I think he was referring to undergrads, and I know I for one had a few "research" professors who were absolutely horrible. Why subject these people to each other when it really benefits neither?

Click to expand...

The point of grad school is to develop your own learning skills and do it all yourself. My eye opening experience: One exam I had messed up the answer to a question (it had to do with the positioning of a promoter region around a DNA, i.e. the trick to the question was knowing the rotation space distance around the DNA helix). I went to the prof complaining that he never taught it in class. He said, tough potatoes, you should have deduced that you'd need to know that sort of stuff from the material I gave.

Grad school isn't about catering to your 'teaching needs' like undergrad. Undergrad profs will spoon feed you until you get it. Research profs will guide you to the door but you have to do everything else yourself. Most primary research institutes don't have undergrads, and those that do usually utilize graduate students to teach courses.

Click to expand...

But that's not what I was asking about. Research profs and grad students I can see as making some sense. I was asking, why make research profs teach undergrad level 100 or level 200 courses when they aren't good teachers and the majority of students in the class are there because it's required core curriculum and couldn't care less about the actual subject matter?

GasBandit said:

But that's not what I was asking about. Research profs and grad students I can see as making some sense. I was asking, why make research profs teach undergrad level 100 or level 200 courses when they aren't good teachers and the majority of students in the class are there because it's required core curriculum and couldn't care less about the actual subject matter?

Click to expand...

You're making sweeping generalizations that make your question impossible to answer (the bolded part). If you really wanted answers, you wouldn't use biased language like you did.

Krisken said:

GasBandit said:

But that's not what I was asking about. Research profs and grad students I can see as making some sense. I was asking, why make research profs teach undergrad level 100 or level 200 courses when they aren't good teachers and the majority of students in the class are there because it's required core curriculum and couldn't care less about the actual subject matter?

Click to expand...

You're making sweeping generalizations that make your question impossible to answer (the bolded part). If you really wanted answers, you wouldn't use biased language like you did.

Click to expand...

No. I'm asking a question about a practice that is in effect. Research profs aren't limited to teaching exclusively graduate students. Chaz's answer was "Research profs don't have to be good teachers because grad students are supposed to figure it out on their own." So it's already been accepted by both sides that many research profs aren't cut out for teaching.

GasBandit said:

Krisken said:

GasBandit said:

But that's not what I was asking about. Research profs and grad students I can see as making some sense. I was asking, why make research profs teach undergrad level 100 or level 200 courses when they aren't good teachers and the majority of students in the class are there because it's required core curriculum and couldn't care less about the actual subject matter?

Click to expand...

You're making sweeping generalizations that make your question impossible to answer (the bolded part). If you really wanted answers, you wouldn't use biased language like you did.

Click to expand...

No. I'm asking a question about a practice that is in effect. Research profs aren't limited to teaching exclusively graduate students. Chaz's answer was "Research profs don't have to be good teachers because grad students are supposed to figure it out on their own." So it's already been accepted by both sides that many research profs aren't cut out for teaching.

Click to expand...

To say all research profs are bad teachers is really stupid, first of all. I only gave you that example of my professor as a way to show you why it could be misunderstood that they're bad teachers.

Secondly, I don't know of many primary research profs that teach undergrad.

-- Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:01 pm --

GasBandit said:

Chazwozel said:

GasBandit said:

Chazwozel said:

I can add to this. I went to a research intensive grad school. Who else is supposed to teach at such a school? There were no undergrad students. Science works on the basis of apprenticeship and mentoring. You can't teach the critical thinking required for graduate level research in a classroom like in undergrad. There are no book chapters to read, there are no easy scan-tron answers to exam questions. Honestly, I can't think of a better "real world situation" than having researchers teach the students.

Click to expand...

But, as has been noted, so many "research" professors turn out to be horrible "teaching" professors (we've all had a couple of those). I can see how in some situations it may be greatly beneficial for post grad work, but I'm not sure those were the soul-deadened apathetic students Fade was referring to. I think he was referring to undergrads, and I know I for one had a few "research" professors who were absolutely horrible. Why subject these people to each other when it really benefits neither?

Click to expand...

The point of grad school is to develop your own learning skills and do it all yourself. My eye opening experience: One exam I had messed up the answer to a question (it had to do with the positioning of a promoter region around a DNA, i.e. the trick to the question was knowing the rotation space distance around the DNA helix). I went to the prof complaining that he never taught it in class. He said, tough potatoes, you should have deduced that you'd need to know that sort of stuff from the material I gave.

Grad school isn't about catering to your 'teaching needs' like undergrad. Undergrad profs will spoon feed you until you get it. Research profs will guide you to the door but you have to do everything else yourself. Most primary research institutes don't have undergrads, and those that do usually utilize graduate students to teach courses.

Click to expand...

But that's not what I was asking about. Research profs and grad students I can see as making some sense. I was asking, why make research profs teach undergrad level 100 or level 200 courses when they aren't good teachers and the majority of students in the class are there because it's required core curriculum and couldn't care less about the actual subject matter?

Click to expand...

THEY USUALLY DON'T!

Like I've been saying over and over again, most primary investigators at research intensive institutions DON'T have undergraduate students to teach!

At a place like Penn State Main for instance, yeah, you have research profs that teach undergrad. This is usually part of their job, i.e. they're paid to teach and do research. Fade is NOT paid to teach. His funding and salary is based in whole on his research. Someone who is paid to do both teaching and research is not expected to pump out journal articles on a yearly basis, or they usually have graduate students that take up their teaching load/ research load.

IT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE, which is why I think you're having such a hard time understanding the whole concept.

GasBandit said:

Krisken said:

GasBandit said:

But that's not what I was asking about. Research profs and grad students I can see as making some sense. I was asking, why make research profs teach undergrad level 100 or level 200 courses when they aren't good teachers and the majority of students in the class are there because it's required core curriculum and couldn't care less about the actual subject matter?

Click to expand...

You're making sweeping generalizations that make your question impossible to answer (the bolded part). If you really wanted answers, you wouldn't use biased language like you did.

Click to expand...

No. I'm asking a question about a practice that is in effect. Research profs aren't limited to teaching exclusively graduate students. Chaz's answer was "Research profs don't have to be good teachers because grad students are supposed to figure it out on their own." So it's already been accepted by both sides that many research profs aren't cut out for teaching.

Click to expand...

Just because two people had bad experiences, doesn't count as definitive proof.

You know that though. :tongue:

Krisken said:

GasBandit said:

Krisken said:

GasBandit said:

But that's not what I was asking about. Research profs and grad students I can see as making some sense. I was asking, why make research profs teach undergrad level 100 or level 200 courses when they aren't good teachers and the majority of students in the class are there because it's required core curriculum and couldn't care less about the actual subject matter?

Click to expand...

You're making sweeping generalizations that make your question impossible to answer (the bolded part). If you really wanted answers, you wouldn't use biased language like you did.

Click to expand...

No. I'm asking a question about a practice that is in effect. Research profs aren't limited to teaching exclusively graduate students. Chaz's answer was "Research profs don't have to be good teachers because grad students are supposed to figure it out on their own." So it's already been accepted by both sides that many research profs aren't cut out for teaching.

Click to expand...

Just because two people had bad experiences, doesn't count as definitive proof.

You know that though. :tongue:

Click to expand...

Oh it wasn't a bad experience on my part at all.

And I think I had only one graduate class where I didn't like the professors (Immunology) but that was because the course was really disorganized with a new person teaching a new section almost every day. Every other class I've had the profs were great and LOVED to talk about science and help you get to the bottom of questions. They just don't spoon feed you answers like undergrad ones do.

Chazwozel said:

GasBandit said:

Krisken said:

GasBandit said:

But that's not what I was asking about. Research profs and grad students I can see as making some sense. I was asking, why make research profs teach undergrad level 100 or level 200 courses when they aren't good teachers and the majority of students in the class are there because it's required core curriculum and couldn't care less about the actual subject matter?

Click to expand...

You're making sweeping generalizations that make your question impossible to answer (the bolded part). If you really wanted answers, you wouldn't use biased language like you did.

Click to expand...

No. I'm asking a question about a practice that is in effect. Research profs aren't limited to teaching exclusively graduate students. Chaz's answer was "Research profs don't have to be good teachers because grad students are supposed to figure it out on their own." So it's already been accepted by both sides that many research profs aren't cut out for teaching.

Click to expand...

To say all research profs are bad teachers is really stupid, first of all. I only gave you that example of my professor as a way to show you why it could be misunderstood that they're bad teachers.

Click to expand...

Which is why I used the word "many" instead of "all."

Secondly, I don't know of many primary research profs that teach undergrad.

Click to expand...

Heck, I got 2 my freshman year alone. My calculus prof was verbally absolutely unintelligible and wrote equations with one hand while erasing them with his other... taking notes was like trying to read tickertape being directly fed into a shredder.

Also, this discussion got me interested in looking up other things about it, and I found this paper debating the merits of institutional research on undergraduate teaching, referencing studies that show that while it sounds good in theory, it doesn't happen to be beneficial much in practice (but that doesn't stop them from trying it).

I dont even think it would even be "many." Seem to me more like "a few" or "some"

Words like "many" are used to support arguments that have no basis in fact. It's so subjective, there's really no value in it.

both of my Discrete Math teachers were primarily research based. One was absolutely horrible as a teacher, the other was fantastic. I'd also be willing to bet that a good majority of my teachers who had English as a second language were brought on for research. Well I hope so anyway.

The problem is, most schools don't grade their professors on their teaching abilities because it all hinges on student performance. Say a professor is a shitty teacher but his (and I'm using the male form as a frame of reference not a sexist term) class does well grade-wise. This could be because he's an easy grader or because the students learned in spite of his actual teaching ability. The university merely sees the final GPA and goes by that and the professor's research.

Passing students with good grades in *most* universities looks better for the school and thus the professor.

Edrondol said:

The problem is, most schools don't grade their professors on their teaching abilities because it all hinges on student performance. Say a professor is a shitty teacher but his (and I'm using the male form as a frame of reference not a sexist term) class does well grade-wise. This could be because he's an easy grader or because the students learned in spite of his actual teaching ability. The university merely sees the final GPA and goes by that and the professor's research.

Passing students with good grades in *most* universities looks better for the school and thus the professor.

Click to expand...

I disagree. In both undergrad and grad, we evaluated our profs and the university took it pretty seriously.

My economics professor wrote a book called "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" yet he managed to keep his politics checked at the door. That said, economics isn't exactly a liberal-leaning philosophy.

Adammon said:

My economics professor wrote a book called "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" yet he managed to keep his politics checked at the door. That said, economics isn't exactly a liberal-leaning philosophy.

Click to expand...

:uhhuh: Yup, Economics and Ethics will always be at war.

Edrondol said:

It's always interesting to me that EVERY side thinks theirs is the open minded side and that the other is closed minded, when in fact they have the same basic methodology in attempting to further their causes and beliefs. The problem is that when someone has a different view on the same subject using the same data it is difficult to reconcile yourself to the differences. Things like statistics on abortion or the death penalty are numerous and anyone can get them, yet there is a political and social divide that will never be crossed by those on opposing sides - with neither side able to give an inch on their platform or belief.

In the end it's not how well you teach or talk but how you practice and act that gives an idea of your true ideals.

Click to expand...

This.

To be a teacher one must only teach, direct the debate and never give his own opinion, not only to allow students to form their opinions on their own, but because its impossible to give an unbiased view.

Heck, Im a centrist, every damn test of political siding shoves me squat in the middle, yet Im damn biased towards many things, imagine someone on the left and right.