How to explain the difference between college/high school...professor/teacher

[marshwiggle]

Surely college is qualitatively different experience? Why am I a college professor who is qualified to teach in higher education but not in school?

I think the difference is in context. Two factors needed for teaching are subject knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy/ cognitive development, etc. As you go higher in education, content knowledge takes precedence.

• primary/elementary school; any educated adult should have sufficient subject knowledge. Total focus is on knowledge of child development and pedagogy.
• High school; requires above average subject knowledge. Still strong focus is on knowledge of child development and pedagogy.
• *Undergraduate studies; requires "professional level" subject knowledge. Secondary focus is on knowledge of pedagogy.
• Graduate studies; Total focus on "expert level" subject knowledge. No focus is on knowledge of pedagogy.

*Fields like education and cognitive development are obviously special cases here, since "content knowledge" is synonymous with pedagogy.
 

So, the change from high school to post-secondary is where content knowledge becomes more important than knowledge of pedagogy. The overlap is due to the fact that the best "teacher" or "professor" will be someone with a great knowledge of both the subject matter and how to teach it.

As an illustration, suppose you're choosing between two candidates:

• Candidate A has a Bachelor's degree in the subject, but has a reputation as a great teacher.
• Candidate B has a Master's degree in the subject, but has a reputation as an OK  teacher.

Most likely, A would be hired for high school, B would be hired as an adjunct.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Even my friends and family (including those with college education and, in some cases, advanced degrees) don't entirely understand the difference between a college professor and a high school teacher.  I just tell them that I make more money and teach fewer classes.

[mahagonny]

Even my friends and family (including those with college education and, in some cases, advanced degrees) don't entirely understand the difference between a college professor and a high school teacher.  I just tell them that I make more money and teach fewer classes.

In college you get to require them to learn almost as much as they would have at a good high school, except now you all get to be part of a cool, groovy new field.

[Mercudenton]

I think the difference is in context. Two factors needed for teaching are subject knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy/ cognitive development, etc. As you go higher in education, content knowledge takes precedence.

Marshwiggle - I like this schematization although I have a couple of questions.

First, in some critiques of pedagogy it is assumed that high school focuses mostly on content -- i.e. teaches to the test defined by the core standards -- and that higher ed ought to be teaching more critical skills of some kind. Thus high school is too focused on content and college might be the place to back off "mere content" and encourage broader critical skills

Second,  while I in one way resonate with your analysis, I worry that it seems to make the difference rooted purely around adding more of something (i.e. content) at the expense of something else (i.e. pedagogy)  I think that this maybe true in some subjects, but it seems to me to mis-represent what I see as more of a lateral move from High school to college -- i.e. it is not simply a bigger dose of something you got in a small part at high school, but a qualitatively different paradigm.

[Mercudenton]

The variety of different kinds of high schools and different kinds of colleges means that the goal of "the difference" is unachievable. Especially if you look at it in international context.

The answers you get will just refect the personal hobby horses of indivual posters.

Well I won't argue with you about how personal hobby horses get involved in these kind of discussions, but I'm not sure that means we give up, does it? It seems to me an abnegation of our professional duty to do so. If a parent asked me "why college?" would I just say -- "there's so many answers to that I can't really tell you?"

[Mercudenton]

Even my friends and family (including those with college education and, in some cases, advanced degrees) don't entirely understand the difference between a college professor and a high school teacher.  I just tell them that I make more money and teach fewer classes.

Yes, I think this is odd, and I think it is reflected by the fact that even among faculty that we struggle to pin this down, and I sense a surprising unwillingness to even discuss it. I think this is a problem. As I said in the OP, it seems a common response to this is "well we're all teachers" or "who knows?" I understand where this response comes from, but if this is the case (a) why would the public school system not hire professors and (b) why would most colleges not hire teachers (outside of teacher ed)? Is this just some quaint old-fashioned profession policing that we actually think ought to disappear? Did we all just get PhDs so that we could have fewer classes and not do the discipline of teaching, or  do we  somehow think that having gone to grad school, and continuing to participate in professional conversations, makes us different kinds of teachers?

[downer]

The variety of different kinds of high schools and different kinds of colleges means that the goal of "the difference" is unachievable. Especially if you look at it in international context.

The answers you get will just refect the personal hobby horses of indivual posters.

Well I won't argue with you about how personal hobby horses get involved in these kind of discussions, but I'm not sure that means we give up, does it? It seems to me an abnegation of our professional duty to do so. If a parent asked me "why college?" would I just say -- "there's so many answers to that I can't really tell you?"

It means that there are different purposes of high school and college. Quite often college end up teaching what was meant to be taught in high school. I learned advanced calculus in my high school which does not get taught to some math majors. Different universites and colleges have very different purposes.
You can spell out the differences between particular high schools and particular colleges. But there is no Platonic ideal of either category to be found.
Faculty at different colleges have vastly different experiences.
You can make some better generalizations so long as you narrow down the field you are talking about. We might be able to generalize about Ivy League schools, for example.

Of course, you can give up a descriptive project and make it prescriptive: what should be the difference between high school and college? But you will need to ground that in some kind of theory about the purpose of higher ed versus high school.

Or you could have a wishlist for what you would like the experience of being a college faculty member should be.

If a particular parent asks you about their kid, you tell them about the colleges that their kid might be able to go to.

[mahagonny]

Or you could have a wishlist for what you would like the experience of being a college faculty member should be.

Like, one could say something really irrelevant and disrespectful like 'teaching in college should not be a a poor life decision.'

[lightning]

Even my friends and family (including those with college education and, in some cases, advanced degrees) don't entirely understand the difference between a college professor and a high school teacher.  I just tell them that I make more money and teach fewer classes.

Yes, I think this is odd, and I think it is reflected by the fact that even among faculty that we struggle to pin this down, and I sense a surprising unwillingness to even discuss it. I think this is a problem. As I said in the OP, it seems a common response to this is "well we're all teachers" or "who knows?" I understand where this response comes from, but if this is the case (a) why would the public school system not hire professors and (b) why would most colleges not hire teachers (outside of teacher ed)? Is this just some quaint old-fashioned profession policing that we actually think ought to disappear? Did we all just get PhDs so that we could have fewer classes and not do the discipline of teaching, or  do we  somehow think that having gone to grad school, and continuing to participate in professional conversations, makes us different kinds of teachers?

College faculty refrain from making distinctions between "professor" and high school "teacher," because it is very difficult to explain the distinction without p*ssing off a high school teacher.

Research and control of curriculum and the linking of research and curriculum/teaching in the everyday job of a professor--that's the main difference. Oh, and maybe what remains of governance.

Yeah, you can mention the obvious stuff like more respect, more social standing, more independence, more control of your time, much more control of your classroom, and more $ (in the cases of FT TT or even FT NTT) but, then again, that just p*sses off high school teachers.

Yeah, professors aren't allowed to teach high school full-time without an education degree and a teaching license, and high school teachers can't teach in college full-time (CC excepted) without a terminal degree and an established research trajectory. That still makes sense. When professors teach, their primary goal is teaching subject content. When high school teachers teach, they are teaching children, using the subject content as the vehicle for teaching children. This distinction maintains a dignified space for the differing types of teaching-related professions, and the differing credentials and barriers to entry for each profession, respects and delineates the boundary between the two.

<cue up Kurt Weill>

[marshwiggle]

I think the difference is in context. Two factors needed for teaching are subject knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy/ cognitive development, etc. As you go higher in education, content knowledge takes precedence.

Marshwiggle - I like this schematization although I have a couple of questions.

First, in some critiques of pedagogy it is assumed that high school focuses mostly on content -- i.e. teaches to the test defined by the core standards -- and that higher ed ought to be teaching more critical skills of some kind. Thus high school is too focused on content and college might be the place to back off "mere content" and encourage broader critical skills

One point to start: Since the distinction between high school and post-secondary education goes back centuries, it's not helpful to compare based on fads at either level. So "teaching to the test" and so on aren't really fundamental to the question.

Content is indeed covered at much greated depth (or is intended to be) at university. (I'm going to say "university" instead of PSE because I'm not really familiar with the CC situation in the US, and what I know of it seems to suggest it's kind of intended to blur the lines between high school and university. )  For instance, high school physics typically isn't calculus-based, and what gets covered in a year of high school is covered in one semester (and calculus-based) in first year university.

Second,  while I in one way resonate with your analysis, I worry that it seems to make the difference rooted purely around adding more of something (i.e. content) at the expense of something else (i.e. pedagogy)  I think that this maybe true in some subjects, but it seems to me to mis-represent what I see as more of a lateral move from High school to college -- i.e. it is not simply a bigger dose of something you got in a small part at high school, but a qualitatively different paradigm.

It shouldn't be a lateral move; there should be a significant step up in expectations. High school is mandatory, so the idea is that high school covers its subjects (especially the compulsory ones) at a level which everyone should be capable of. University is voluntary, and requires students to choose a specific discipline to study, so that even in "introductory" course in a discipline, the students have basically

• chosen to further their education beyond what is required
• chosen to focus on this discipline, or one which relies on it; (for example, physics students in first year calculus)

For this reason I'm not sure of the value of "general education" requirements in the US; they defy both of these principles, and from discussion on here, often seem to be at a level which is much similar to high school.

In Ontario, there used to be a Grade 13; students who did not intend to go to university would graduate after Grade 12, but students going on to university would graduate after Grade 13. This highlighted the distinction between expectations of ordinary high school graduates and those intending to go on to university. I didn't go through that system, but from people who did I understand the atmosphere in Grade 13 classes was different from Grade 12 classes.

[Caracal]

For this reason I'm not sure of the value of "general education" requirements in the US; they defy both of these principles, and from discussion on here, often seem to be at a level which is much similar to high school.

In my field, I would say the difference between a college survey and a high school survey should be that the college survey should be an introduction to the discipline and the field, rather than about giving students a base of knowledge. I want students to be able to think about how to understand the Louisiana Purchase-I don't just want them to know what it was.

In practice, of course, there's plenty of overlap. You can't think about the Louisiana Purchase in a larger historical context if you don't know what it was. There's also lots of overlap on the other side. On the other side, good high school teachers do more than just drill facts into their students' heads. They help them understand why they should care.

[the_geneticist]

Surely college is qualitatively different experience? Why am I a college professor who is qualified to teach in higher education but not in school?

I think the difference is in context. Two factors needed for teaching are subject knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy/ cognitive development, etc. As you go higher in education, content knowledge takes precedence.

• primary/elementary school; any educated adult should have sufficient subject knowledge. Total focus is on knowledge of child development and pedagogy.
• High school; requires above average subject knowledge. Still strong focus is on knowledge of child development and pedagogy.
• *Undergraduate studies; requires "professional level" subject knowledge. Secondary focus is on knowledge of pedagogy.
• Graduate studies; Total focus on "expert level" subject knowledge. No focus is on knowledge of pedagogy.

*Fields like education and cognitive development are obviously special cases here, since "content knowledge" is synonymous with pedagogy.
 

So, the change from high school to post-secondary is where content knowledge becomes more important than knowledge of pedagogy. The overlap is due to the fact that the best "teacher" or "professor" will be someone with a great knowledge of both the subject matter and how to teach it.

As an illustration, suppose you're choosing between two candidates:

• Candidate A has a Bachelor's degree in the subject, but has a reputation as a great teacher.
• Candidate B has a Master's degree in the subject, but has a reputation as an OK  teacher.

Most likely, A would be hired for high school, B would be hired as an adjunct.

I think that Marshwiggle has the best description of the major difference in training: pedagogy & psychology or content knowledge & training as a scientist/scholar.
Also, K12 instructors are part of a legally-mandated education system.  They have to interact with parents, school boards, community members, national testing, etc. in ways that a college instructor can mostly bypass. 
College instructors are also supposed to be able to train students to become scholars in an advanced field.  That requires both the context knowledge and working as a discoverer of new knowledge. 

[Wahoo Redux]

I sometimes call myself "teacher" to my students.  I introduce myself as "Hello, I'm Wahoo and I'll be your instructor for the semester."  I then ask students to call me by my first name, and most are uncomfortable doing so.

Honestly, I've never had to explain the difference.  I think most students understand within the context of going off to higher ed.  And I think the professor persona is so well melded from popular culture most students have the sense already when they get to college that you are different from their teachers, even if this is not true.

Anyone remember the scene from Breaking Bad when Walter White is at a party and he explains why he is no longer a member of "Gray Matter," his former partner's highly lucrative laboratory, and he says, "I went into education," and the other party goer says, "Oh!  What university?" and Walt just blanches and turns away because he does not want to admit that he only teaches high school?

That for me is the essence of how we feel about secondary ed "teachers" in popular consciousness and how we view "professors."   My experience has been that students have absorbed this attitude already---most, I wager, have seen Breaking Bad if nothing else, or Good Will Hunting, or one of the many movie portrayals of the dry, unapproachable, possibly lecherous, always egg-header professors (seen My Name is Earl when Earl dates the professor or when Ross Geller dates his student?)

On the couple of occasions when the subject of high school tangentially came up I've told my students that

• they are adults and I expect them to be able to work as such (knowing that this is not always the case)
• that what we do in college will probably be more difficult than what they did in high school (knowing that sometimes, in some rare instances, h.s. teachers held very standards) which seems to be the case----I have had many students complain that they got "A"s in h.s. but were now getting "B"s
• and that the students and I, their instructor, should be like co-workers working toward a common cause

And what downer said.[/list]

[apl68]

I do point out to my college students, early on, that they no longer need to ask to use the bathroom, which seems to be a hard transition for them.

Does this happen often--students needing to go use the bathroom in the middle of class?  I remember it being quite rare when I was in middle school, and nearly unheard of in high school and college.  I don't believe I ever had to excuse a student for that purpose when I was a teaching assistant.  Maybe I'm naive, but I just sort of assumed that adolescents could schedule their bathroom breaks and control their bladders well enough to keep "going" in class from becoming an issue, bar the occasional emergency.

[apl68]

The biggest difference I see is the existence of majors versus gen ed.

Gen ed is very much like high school.  Individual courses belong to each teacher and add up to a nebulous 'liberals arts' intro.

That was the difference that seemed to stand out the most in my conversations with my mother about teaching.  Like avidreader, she taught high school for some years, before switching to teaching at a SLAC.  In high school she taught basic foreign language courses.  In college she taught literature and culture in the relevant language, guided a number of majors who went on to become professionals in the field, and studied overseas in three different countries in her summers, in the process building an overseas study program for her students.

She was much more impressed with the caliber of the students in college overall.  Which is not surprising, given that she went from teaching public high school in a less than affluent region to teaching at a moderately selective SLAC.  You could pretty much guarantee that her SLAC students had at least a modicum of preparation going in, where her public school students didn't always come from backgrounds that valued learning.