Professors in Poverty

[laughing dog]

Good for administrators, probably bad for students and faculty.

Why do you say that?

Are computers bad for the students? The faculty?

Access to online databases?

Jon

No, but those are not the reasons for that reduction.

 

[laughing dog]

If you cannot agree on what constitutes value nor even measure it, then those questions seem rather misplaced and rather hypocritical since the very same questions are not asked about the criminal justice system or prisons. From what I can tell, a significant portion of this movement is driven by butthurt ignoramuses who are bothered by people on "their payroll" who question their beliefs and payrolls. At least these jokers should be honest and simply say we are not going to fund education because we don't want to and leave it at that instead of asking for time, effort and resources to be wasted on generating pointless measures that will be ignored anyways.

Especially now that Sanders wants government to spend money all over the place.

Yeah, this ignorance first movement is all Sanders' fault.

I think it is a legitimate to question whether we need to spend $12,000 per child per year on public education or $5,000 like we used to and what additional value is being obtained by spending the $12k vs. $5k.

If you are saying we don't know what additional value is being obtained, there is no way to measure it, then why is $12k the right amount and not $5k?

When did "we" spend $5,000 per child and when did "we" spend $12,000 per child? I believe your numbers are not adjusted for inflation and are not applicable to higher ed - which is the focus of the discussion.

 

[JonA]

Why do you say that?

Are computers bad for the students? The faculty?

Access to online databases?

Jon

No, but those are not the reasons for that reduction.

Are you sure?

If you are, I assume you have some figures to back up your certainty.

So let's have 'em.

 

[Toni]

No, but those are not the reasons for that reduction.

Are you sure?

If you are, I assume you have some figures to back up your certainty.

So let's have 'em.

How about YOU do a little checking and see what portion of a university budget goes for administration today compared with 20 or 30 years ago?

How about YOU do a little checking and see how much of public university education is now paid for by taxpayers vs stundents?

How about YOU do a little checking into how much money goes for computers and other technology. Computers, student fitness centers and (sometimes) updated dorms are bright, shiny little things to dangle in front of student's/parents' eyes and make them think they are getting a first rate bargain when faculty compensation as a portion of the budget, has fallen dramatically and continues to do so.

How about you back up your assertions. I'd love to see that.

Or didn't you learn to use google?

 

[bilby]

Good for administrators, probably bad for students and faculty.

Why do you say that?

Are computers bad for the students? The faculty?

Access to online databases?

Jon

Would buying dirt cheap computers that were obsolete in 1995 be bad for the students and the faculty?

Think how much money would be saved if they bought slower and less powerful computers. Administration could use the savings to pay admin staff higher wages - which they are clearly worth, as they just saved a chunk of cash, and a dollar saved is a dollar earned.

Of course, saving money by buying lower quality computers is a dumb idea. But for some reason, saving money by buying lower quality teachers isn't.

 

[fromderinside]

Why do you say that?

Are computers bad for the students? The faculty?

Access to online databases?

Jon

Would buying dirt cheap computers that were obsolete in 1995 be bad for the students and the faculty?

Think how much money would be saved if they bought slower and less powerful computers. Administration could use the savings to pay admin staff higher wages - which they are clearly worth, as they just saved a chunk of cash, and a dollar saved is a dollar earned.

Of course, saving money by buying lower quality computers is a dumb idea. But for some reason, saving money by buying lower quality teachers isn't.

A notion persists that salary and teacher quality aren't necessarily connected. It has to do with 'good' teachers being good performers whether or not they are well versed in disciplines they teach. My best teacher was a mousy, soft spoken, barely audible actually, teacher who flapped her arms like a goose taking off whenever she presented relevant material. She was good because she presented relevant material in a complete understandable, if barely audible level, manner, performed remediation, analysis, and suggestions for insight with references and examples. She almost lost here job when student ratings began in the late fifties.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why do you say that?

Are computers bad for the students? The faculty?

Access to online databases?

Jon

Would buying dirt cheap computers that were obsolete in 1995 be bad for the students and the faculty?

Think how much money would be saved if they bought slower and less powerful computers. Administration could use the savings to pay admin staff higher wages - which they are clearly worth, as they just saved a chunk of cash, and a dollar saved is a dollar earned.

Of course, saving money by buying lower quality computers is a dumb idea. But for some reason, saving money by buying lower quality teachers isn't.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Tenure professors are based on other things besides on how well they teach, aka how many papers they write or what type of research they do. Are there objective standards by which the difference is measured? And yes, we could easily be spending too much on IT in schools.

 

[bilby]

Would buying dirt cheap computers that were obsolete in 1995 be bad for the students and the faculty?

Think how much money would be saved if they bought slower and less powerful computers. Administration could use the savings to pay admin staff higher wages - which they are clearly worth, as they just saved a chunk of cash, and a dollar saved is a dollar earned.

Of course, saving money by buying lower quality computers is a dumb idea. But for some reason, saving money by buying lower quality teachers isn't.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Tenure professors are based on other things besides on how well they teach, aka how many papers they write or what type of research they do. Are there objective standards by which the difference is measured? And yes, we could easily be spending too much on IT in schools.

If you need a performance indicator to tell you whether someone who is involved in the latest research is better able to teach at the highest level than someone who hopefully might possibly have read and understood some fairly recent research, then there is no hope for you.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That doesn't necessarily follow. Tenure professors are based on other things besides on how well they teach, aka how many papers they write or what type of research they do. Are there objective standards by which the difference is measured? And yes, we could easily be spending too much on IT in schools.

If you need a performance indicator to tell you whether someone who is involved in the latest research is better able to teach at the highest level than someone who hopefully might possibly have read and understood some fairly recent research, then there is no hope for you.

They are not the same skill. Being able to teach and figure out how to cure cancer aren't the same. And for 95% of the classes at the undergrad level you don't even need that.

 

[bilby]

If you need a performance indicator to tell you whether someone who is involved in the latest research is better able to teach at the highest level than someone who hopefully might possibly have read and understood some fairly recent research, then there is no hope for you.

They are not the same skill. Being able to teach and figure out how to cure cancer aren't the same. And for 95% of the classes at the undergrad level you don't even need that.

Despite your claim, I remain confident that knowing about something is a vital skill if you are going to teach that thing.

Of course, if you think that the only value students get from learning is the degree certificate, and that they therefore need only to learn the things that are on the exam, then I can understand your confusion; and can only repeat that there is no hope for you.


HINT: The top researchers in any field likely took an interest in more than just the minimum requirements of the syllabus while undergraduates; and only because they had access to people with cutting edge knowledge in their field were they enabled to become top researchers, rather than taking their degree to the wider employment market and becoming overqualified cubicle drones, selected by HR departments that insisted on a degree just to keep the number of applications down to a manageable level.

 

[fromderinside]

If you need a performance indicator to tell you whether someone who is involved in the latest research is better able to teach at the highest level than someone who hopefully might possibly have read and understood some fairly recent research, then there is no hope for you.

Performance indicator of what. My entire career was conducting research at the cutting edge in human performance. Think of Flight Status Monitor or Global Operator Simulator if you need examples. I can't teach for shit. Those whom I taught how to do research became fine teachers if not star researchers. Two different categories of performance and capability.

 

[coloradoatheist]

They are not the same skill. Being able to teach and figure out how to cure cancer aren't the same. And for 95% of the classes at the undergrad level you don't even need that.

Despite your claim, I remain confident that knowing about something is a vital skill if you are going to teach that thing.

Of course, if you think that the only value students get from learning is the degree certificate, and that they therefore need only to learn the things that are on the exam, then I can understand your confusion; and can only repeat that there is no hope for you.


HINT: The top researchers in any field likely took an interest in more than just the minimum requirements of the syllabus while undergraduates; and only because they had access to people with cutting edge knowledge in their field were they enabled to become top researchers, rather than taking their degree to the wider employment market and becoming overqualified cubicle drones, selected by HR departments that insisted on a degree just to keep the number of applications down to a manageable level.

Huh? You can be the smartest person in your field but be boring as hell in front of people. Like any profession, there are some good professors who can teach and some that can't. There are adjunct professors who can teach and some who can't. I think the difference is that we are trying to find the ones who can teach, not who can write the best book in the field.

 

[Toni]

If you need a performance indicator to tell you whether someone who is involved in the latest research is better able to teach at the highest level than someone who hopefully might possibly have read and understood some fairly recent research, then there is no hope for you.

Performance indicator of what. My entire career was conducting research at the cutting edge in human performance. Think of Flight Status Monitor or Global Operator Simulator if you need examples. I can't teach for shit. Those whom I taught how to do research became fine teachers if not star researchers. Two different categories of performance and capability.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that ALL good or even competent researchers are good instructors. They are not. But being an excellent teacher is not very useful beyond the elementary levels of any subject unless you can back up your ability to convey knowledge and teach skills with actually knowing something very, very well and deeply, not just at a skim the edges level.

 

[beero1000]

How did this thread get derailed to the point where defending paying a couple of thousand dollars per course is seen as "getting the best teachers"?

 

[fromderinside]

If you need a performance indicator to tell you whether someone who is involved in the latest research is better able to teach at the highest level than someone who hopefully might possibly have read and understood some fairly recent research, then there is no hope for you.

I spent my entire career leading research and realization of latest human performance technology. Think Flight Status Monitor and Global Operator Simulator Models if you need examples. Can't teach for shit. Well, most of those who I taught to conduct good research became good teachers of research. These are two different capabilities and skills.

 

[coloradoatheist]

How did this thread get derailed to the point where defending paying a couple of thousand dollars per course is seen as "getting the best teachers"?

The point that I and Axulus brought up. If we get the same result paying $X compared to $Y then we should only be paying $X. But universities have shied away from providing a standard to be able to judge. It's especially true know with online courses and MOOC where those will be the things that drive down the costs of education.

 

[beero1000]

How did this thread get derailed to the point where defending paying a couple of thousand dollars per course is seen as "getting the best teachers"?

The point that I and Axulus brought up. If we get the same result paying $X compared to $Y then we should only be paying $X. But universities have shied away from providing a standard to be able to judge. It's especially true know with online courses and MOOC where those will be the things that drive down the costs of education.

No one is arguing with:

1. The best researchers may not necessarily be the best teachers (although they often are)
2. We should hire the best teachers to teach classes.

On the other hand, your conclusion seems to be that hiring adjuncts at below poverty wages is the best way to go about getting great teachers.

Want to fill in some of the blanks here? Because it seems like you're arguing for a system that preferentially hires the worst teachers it can afford to get away with...

 

[laughing dog]

No, but those are not the reasons for that reduction.

Are you sure?

If you are, I assume you have some figures to back up your certainty.

I don't need any figures. The library funding has been constant in nominal dollars, so its share of costs has actually fallen. Computers (and computer support) for students comes from their fees, which are not included in the data. I don't have the exact figures here. So you can either believe it or not.

 

[laughing dog]

If you need a performance indicator to tell you whether someone who is involved in the latest research is better able to teach at the highest level than someone who hopefully might possibly have read and understood some fairly recent research, then there is no hope for you.

They are not the same skill. Being able to teach and figure out how to cure cancer aren't the same. And for 95% of the classes at the undergrad level you don't even need that.

I certainly hope you have nothing whatsoever to do with running of an university.

How did this thread get derailed to the point where defending paying a couple of thousand dollars per course is seen as "getting the best teachers"?

The point that I and Axulus brought up. If we get the same result paying $X compared to $Y then we should only be paying $X. But universities have shied away from providing a standard to be able to judge.

There is no standard because no one can show how to measure the value of an education.

It's especially true know with online courses and MOOC where those will be the things that drive down the costs of education.

They have driven down the costs of delivering material. The quality of education from those methods is debatable.

 

[bilby]

Despite your claim, I remain confident that knowing about something is a vital skill if you are going to teach that thing.

Of course, if you think that the only value students get from learning is the degree certificate, and that they therefore need only to learn the things that are on the exam, then I can understand your confusion; and can only repeat that there is no hope for you.


HINT: The top researchers in any field likely took an interest in more than just the minimum requirements of the syllabus while undergraduates; and only because they had access to people with cutting edge knowledge in their field were they enabled to become top researchers, rather than taking their degree to the wider employment market and becoming overqualified cubicle drones, selected by HR departments that insisted on a degree just to keep the number of applications down to a manageable level.

Huh? You can be the smartest person in your field but be boring as hell in front of people. Like any profession, there are some good professors who can teach and some that can't. There are adjunct professors who can teach and some who can't. I think the difference is that we are trying to find the ones who can teach, not who can write the best book in the field.

You can be the best teacher in the whole damn world, but you still can't teach people things you don't know yourself.