Nearly all my professors are Democrats.Isn't that a problem?

[Bowielee]

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!

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

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.

 

[Chazwozel]

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.

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?

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?

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?

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!"

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.

 

[GasBandit]

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.

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.

 

[fade]

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.

 

[Chazwozel]

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.

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.

...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?

 

[GasBandit]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[strawman]

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

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

:tongue:

-Adam

 

[Bowielee]

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.

 

[Espy]

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.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Le Quack]

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.

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

 

[sixpackshaker]

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.

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

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

 

[Le Quack]

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.

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

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

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

Who woulda thunk it.

 

[drawn_inward]

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.

 

[strawman]

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?"

ftfy.

-Adam

 

[Chazwozel]

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.

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.

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.

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 --

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 *.

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.

 

[Alucard]

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.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

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

 

[Chippy]

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

 

[Le Quack]

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

 

[North_Ranger]

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 )

 

[Mr_Chaz]

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

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?

 

[Krisken]

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.

 

[GasBandit]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Bowielee]

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.

What about the presidential election was contested?

 

[Krisken]

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.

What about the presidential election was contested?

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.

 

[Chazwozel]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Singularity.EXE]

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.

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

 

[Cajungal]

^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.

 

[Covar]

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

 

[GasBandit]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

 

[Krisken]

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?

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.

 

[GasBandit]

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?

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.

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.

 

[Chazwozel]

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?

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.

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.

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 --

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

 

[Krisken]

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?

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.

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.

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

You know that though. :tongue: