Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6754543" data-attributes="member: 177">I agree it is an important part of modern education.&nbsp; But, being a good researcher doesn't give you, or otherwise imply you have, the skills or temperament necessary to handle the educational aspect.&nbsp; In my own experience, across several universities, considering both faculty and staff, every one who gets through or teaches the programs is knowledgeable and capable in the field - they know the science, and they know how to do research properly.&nbsp; However, only about a third of these people should be teaching.&nbsp; While you are correct that the standard Masters or Doctoral program in the hard sciences doesn't include a lot of training in teaching, even if you gave my classmates the proper training, most of them weren't ever going to be particularly good teachers.That's okay.&nbsp; It is also my observation that the really best teachers were not the best researchers - they were okay at it, could do it properly, as I said,&nbsp; but honestly weren't going to be major grant winners, much less movers and shakers at the cutting edge.&nbsp; There are some who are really stunning at both, but those are rare gems, and we should not use them as the model for the system as a whole.&nbsp; We shouldn't be making competent scientists teach if that's not their proclivity, and we shouldn't be making good teachers &quot;publish or perish&quot;.&nbsp; Quite honestly, the 40%, 40%, 20% division you mention above is inefficient and wasteful of talent.&nbsp; The folks who are really good at teaching should have that has their main focus, and should have reduced research burdens, and vice versa.&nbsp; I agree, but having a responsibility for doing original research is also not going to keep them abreast of recent developments, except within their narrow area of research.&nbsp; Real continuing education is a separate activity from either teaching or research, IMHO.I am hoping recent trends will force a revision of the current, administration-heavy model for universities that seems to be largest driver of cost increases.&nbsp; Specifically, the fact that college and university enrollment seems to have peaked n 2011.&nbsp; Reduced revenues will require the universities to rethink their staffing.&nbsp; And, well, the faculty produce the product, and the administration does not.&nbsp; Eventually, they'll need to stop squeezing the productive workforce, and start cutting the admin side.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6754543, member: 177"] I agree it is an important part of modern education. But, being a good researcher doesn't give you, or otherwise imply you have, the skills or temperament necessary to handle the educational aspect. In my own experience, across several universities, considering both faculty and staff, every one who gets through or teaches the programs is knowledgeable and capable in the field - they know the science, and they know how to do research properly. However, only about a third of these people should be teaching. While you are correct that the standard Masters or Doctoral program in the hard sciences doesn't include a lot of training in teaching, even if you gave my classmates the proper training, most of them weren't ever going to be particularly good teachers. That's okay. It is also my observation that the really best teachers were not the best researchers - they were okay at it, could do it properly, as I said, but honestly weren't going to be major grant winners, much less movers and shakers at the cutting edge. There are some who are really stunning at both, but those are rare gems, and we should not use them as the model for the system as a whole. We shouldn't be making competent scientists teach if that's not their proclivity, and we shouldn't be making good teachers "publish or perish". Quite honestly, the 40%, 40%, 20% division you mention above is inefficient and wasteful of talent. The folks who are really good at teaching should have that has their main focus, and should have reduced research burdens, and vice versa. I agree, but having a responsibility for doing original research is also not going to keep them abreast of recent developments, except within their narrow area of research. Real continuing education is a separate activity from either teaching or research, IMHO. I am hoping recent trends will force a revision of the current, administration-heavy model for universities that seems to be largest driver of cost increases. Specifically, the fact that college and university enrollment seems to have peaked n 2011. Reduced revenues will require the universities to rethink their staffing. And, well, the faculty produce the product, and the administration does not. Eventually, they'll need to stop squeezing the productive workforce, and start cutting the admin side. [/QUOTE]

Verification