Doctoral programs and mature students?

[kaysixteen]

Ok, but 'failed' implies that someone tried to do job X, and washed out, rather than that someone lost out due to the numbers game.   Most Americans think that anyone  with a PhD would be more or less guaranteed employment in their field, and have a very hard time accepting that this is not true.

What does this mean: "One reason that some schools might not be enthusiastic about PhDs is that some have a tendency to see teaching as a field that requires its own skills beyond just knowing the subject material."?

[ciao_yall]

Ok, but 'failed' implies that someone tried to do job X, and washed out, rather than that someone lost out due to the numbers game.   Most Americans think that anyone  with a PhD would be more or less guaranteed employment in their field, and have a very hard time accepting that this is not true.

What does this mean: "One reason that some schools might not be enthusiastic about PhDs is that some have a tendency to see teaching as a field that requires its own skills beyond just knowing the subject material."?

Because teaching is one skill.

And subject matter expertise is another, completely different skill.

A brilliant SME with terrible communication skills will not make an effective teacher.

[marshwiggle]

Ok, but 'failed' implies that someone tried to do job X, and washed out, rather than that someone lost out due to the numbers game.   Most Americans think that anyone  with a PhD would be more or less guaranteed employment in their field, and have a very hard time accepting that this is not true.

What does this mean: "One reason that some schools might not be enthusiastic about PhDs is that some have a tendency to see teaching as a field that requires its own skills beyond just knowing the subject material."?

Because teaching is one skill.

And subject matter expertise is another, completely different skill.

A brilliant SME with terrible communication skills will not make an effective teacher.

This is one reason that universities have teaching awards. Since, arguably, everyone teaching at a university is a subject matter expert, then if that were synonymous with good teaching then every faculty member would be a great teacher. Clearly this is far from true.

[jerseyjay]

Many PhDs tend to see being a good teacher as coming naturally with being an expert in a field. But as anybody who has been a student knows, there are people who are very knowledgeable about a subject but cannot teach to save their life.  At research universities, being a poor teacher is offset by being a good researcher. (And the fact that much of the teaching gets down by TAs, adjuncts, and others.)

At a high school, being a subject matter expert does not balance out being a poor teacher. Not to mention that many PhDs are subject matter experts in a very narrow field. Classes at high schools are often more general than at college, and professors have to teach more classes, way beyond their specialty.

A PhD in history might be a very good high school history teacher. But it is a different skill set than being a professor, albeit one that overlaps. And I say this having taught both high school and university. I think a PhD who understands this and makes efforts to become a good teacher--not just a subject expert--can do well as a teacher. But a PhD who assumes to be an expert teacher merely because they have a PhD despite not having teaching experience outside of some university courses will be seen as arrogant.

[mleok]

Many PhDs tend to see being a good teacher as coming naturally with being an expert in a field. But as anybody who has been a student knows, there are people who are very knowledgeable about a subject but cannot teach to save their life.  At research universities, being a poor teacher is offset by being a good researcher. (And the fact that much of the teaching gets down by TAs, adjuncts, and others.)

At a high school, being a subject matter expert does not balance out being a poor teacher. Not to mention that many PhDs are subject matter experts in a very narrow field. Classes at high schools are often more general than at college, and professors have to teach more classes, way beyond their specialty.

A PhD in history might be a very good high school history teacher. But it is a different skill set than being a professor, albeit one that overlaps. And I say this having taught both high school and university. I think a PhD who understands this and makes efforts to become a good teacher--not just a subject expert--can do well as a teacher. But a PhD who assumes to be an expert teacher merely because they have a PhD despite not having teaching experience outside of some university courses will be seen as arrogant.

One thing which has always struck me about hiring in history and some other areas of the humanities (like literature) is how incredibly specific the job ads are. This is not to say that ads in my field, mathematics, aren't also pretty specific, but we tend not to make the argument that the level of specificity is due to our teaching needs (which history and literature departments seem to do), but rather based on our research needs. In particular, I had a department chair in my department make the argument that any mathematics professor should be able to teach any undergraduate course, which might be a bit of a stretch, but not too far of one. For example, we require all our graduate students to demonstrate a basic mastery of a broad swath of mathematics in their qualifying examinations. I'm curious whether subjects like history and literature have a similar kind of broad scope qualifying examination, or are they much more specialized?

[marshwiggle]

One thing which has always struck me about hiring in history and some other areas of the humanities (like literature) is how incredibly specific the job ads are. This is not to say that ads in my field, mathematics, aren't also pretty specific, but we tend not to make the argument that the level of specificity is due to our teaching needs (which history and literature departments seem to do), but rather based on our research needs. In particular, I had a department chair in my department make the argument that any mathematics professor should be able to teach any undergraduate course, which might be a bit of a stretch, but not too far of one. For example, we require all our graduate students to demonstrate a basic mastery of a broad swath of mathematics in their qualifying examinations. I'm curious whether subjects like history and literature have a similar kind of broad scope qualifying examination, or are they much more specialized?

I would think that in any STEM discipline, anyone witha PhD should at least be able to handle any course in the first couple of years of the discipline, maybe even third year. Regarding humanities, one thing that surprised me when my daughter was studying humanities was how un-"pyramidal" it was; most upper year courses had no specific prerequisites, they just required being past first year. That's incomprehensible in many (most?) STEM disciplines.

[mamselle]

Having some experience/exposure to working with both, STEM is like adding bricks on bricks to form a structure--you can't add the upper bricks without the lower ones being there because, gravity. If it's reasonably constructed, it will keep standing, and you can keep adding to it, once you have the hang of it, because the ground layers are there, and they're solid.

If the bricks and mortar don't interlock correctly, or (as with Legos) don't maintain their connections, the whole thing will fall over and it won't be pretty. The structure depends on grounding, attention to gravitational forces, and skill in working against them, usually in all the same ways.

-=-=-=-

Humanities is like plowing and planting a field. It could have been plowed or planted many times before, or it might be a totally unplanted meadow or forest, but the same tools and skills can be applied however many times it's been worked on, or not, and the result--field, garden, empty lot--will regrow soon and need re-working no matter what you do.

The results will be different each time--different colors, different plants, maybe--and some of the basics, like soil type, etc., will affect what you do, but you have more leeway in planning and working out the plan. You could re-do it many different ways and get many different, pleasant results .

-=-=-=-

Teaching people to build the STEM building, or plant the humanities garden, are essentially different teaching tasks. In each case, yes, there are basic ground rules and methodologies, and areas where creativity are possible. But one has this inexorable, materially interlocking component that has to be used with a fair degree of precision and directed intentionality. The other also benefits from intentional care and attention to the physical (or metaphysical) nature of the building plane, but the nurture of interactive elements is more fluid (and thus, sometimes harder, not easier, for all that).

OK, there's my hat on the fence.

Let the pot-shots begin.

(But the point is, there are intrinsic differences between the two projects, which is why we keep needing to specify disciplines whenever we start talking about norms in education)

M.   

[mleok]

One thing which has always struck me about hiring in history and some other areas of the humanities (like literature) is how incredibly specific the job ads are. This is not to say that ads in my field, mathematics, aren't also pretty specific, but we tend not to make the argument that the level of specificity is due to our teaching needs (which history and literature departments seem to do), but rather based on our research needs. In particular, I had a department chair in my department make the argument that any mathematics professor should be able to teach any undergraduate course, which might be a bit of a stretch, but not too far of one. For example, we require all our graduate students to demonstrate a basic mastery of a broad swath of mathematics in their qualifying examinations. I'm curious whether subjects like history and literature have a similar kind of broad scope qualifying examination, or are they much more specialized?

I would think that in any STEM discipline, anyone witha PhD should at least be able to handle any course in the first couple of years of the discipline, maybe even third year. Regarding humanities, one thing that surprised me when my daughter was studying humanities was how un-"pyramidal" it was; most upper year courses had no specific prerequisites, they just required being past first year. That's incomprehensible in many (most?) STEM disciplines.

That is indeed fascinating, I looked at the course catalog for the history, literature, and philosophy departments at my institution, and as you say, there are very few specific prerequisites for the upper division courses, nor does there really seem to be the notion of year long course sequences. As you say, that does come across as bizarre from a STEM perspective.

[Ruralguy]

Very typical, and certainly true at my school as well.

I would say that in my dept., 80%-100% of us can teach any given course, though some are fairly specialized and some are general, even at the highest levels. So, yes, STEM tends to be less specialized for teaching anyway, especially in Physics for some reason.

[Aster]

Without subject matter expertise in the course that you are teaching, you really should not be teaching that course. And to a limited extent, the regional accrediting bodies will not permit it.

Some universities are more strict about qualifications than others. And a lot depends on the overall education level of the faculty, the type of institution, how personnel and/or cash-strapped the institution is, etc...

Nobody at Big Urban College can teach a course unless they meet specific graduate credits in that field. That's one end of the spectrum for many/most community colleges. This level of specificity is only really possible because community colleges offer very limited types of courses, and nearly all of those are generic-type courses accepted anywhere. Those institutions can and do have the ability to individually itemize the specific teaching qualifications for each and every course type.

While at another university where I have close colleagues working (a smaller 4-year university), any warm body with an online master's degree and/or an EdD can be assigned to just about any course. That's the other extreme.

If left up to academic departments to properly lead themselves, course assignments are usually handled responsibly, but also relatively informally. If you're not a botanist, you're not ever asked to teach any botany courses. If you're not a geneticist, you're not ever asked to teach genetics courses. If you're not an organic chemist, you're not asked to ever teach organic chemistry courses. Unless there's an emergency... then any warm body might be temporarily stuffed into the classroom.

[Hibush]

It is really interesting to compare notes on some of these issues.

One phenomenon I have seen recently at my hardcore R1 in an applied science field is that some of our most accomplished and respected faculty have developed brand-new never-been-done-before intro and non-majors courses that are super popular. First, they are excellent teachers (one just got the school's big teaching award, and the department is in a tizzy of glee and pride). But they also see the bigger picture and realize that in an applied science, connecting the science with the wider world is really interesting to a lot of students, and the students also appreciate the layers of nuance underlying a lot of things they have seen and thought simple.

That doesn't seem to be the dynamic at a lot of places. It takes a special combination of engaged students and imaginative mature faculty (even in their dotage) who have had strong tenure protection.

[Ruralguy]

We certainly have similar courses at my SLAC, but they are usually taught by younger faculty. 

[kaysixteen]

Random observations:

1) When I teach history, I do do it the way that has been noted here, namely, unless the course would be a general overview type class, it is not really necessary to know much about 4th c. Spain, in order to study the Hellenistic kingdoms.   Neither is it very necessary to know much 'general, basic history' of the type given in freshmen survey courses, to study those specific period- and region-intense advanced courses (which is why classics depts., for instance, generally do not have prereqs for 'Roman History'-type classes.   OTOH, when I teach Latin, a mastery approach is needed, similar to mathematics.   One needs to learn the grammar, and then gradually progress to more difficult reading material, and lacunae (good Latin geek word) in one's grammar knowledge will rapidly be shown to be disastrous.

2) As I reread the passage I asked for explanation on, I get the point.  There is no question that many PhDs, regardless of discipline, do feel, or at least act like they feel, like their PhD must mean they are a great teacher by nature, which is obviously an incorrect assumption.   And it is also true that teaching undergrads is a different skill even from teaching 14yos (I suspect maybe also than teaching hs seniors, though having taught both hs and college, one of the observations I have long held is that most hss do little if anything to prep their seniors for college, something I try to do).  This means, of course, that the PhD who has never taught hs may be assumed to not have these skills, and thus not be hired, and even if he is hired, he will need to learn these skills pdq, if he does not have them, but it is also true that a) having the PhD gives the school, and thus the students, the great advantage of having the great accumulated knowledge that PhD has granted him, esp since b) that BA in ed, with a speciality in subject x, well, even if his k12 teaching skills, at least initially, may exceed the PhD's, simply cannot match, or come close to matching, the PhD's subject knowledge, and, indeed, many such BA's have very very limited subject knowledge.

[marshwiggle]

Humanities is like plowing and planting a field. It could have been plowed or planted many times before, or it might be a totally unplanted meadow or forest, but the same tools and skills can be applied however many times it's been worked on, or not, and the result--field, garden, empty lot--will regrow soon and need re-working no matter what you do.

However, given the interaction of crops and the soil, what has previously been grown affects the soil and thus influences whatever is planted next.

Surely in the humanities the context in which a course is taught influences how it is taught. For instance, a course on the American civil war could be very different if it required a previous course on the American revolution. Similarly, a political science course on the American constitution would gain a lot of scope if it had a required prerequisite on the British parliamentary system. While individual departments in different institutions with their own courses may have courses in different sequences, it still seems that having no required sequence in an institution will handicap all kinds of courses by having any context needing to be explicitly included in each course. (That could also produce a lot of redundancy as the same material may need to be brought up to some degree in several different courses.)

Even in courses in STEM like the one I teach which combines several different topics that don't necessarily need to be in the same course, the order in which I teach them changes how I teach them. Changing to teaching remotely for covid, with remote labs, has required revamping a lot of material where logistics have required a change to the order of some topics.

[jerseyjay]

Some random thoughts:

1. When I taught at a private high school, subject matter expertise was not denigrated. Many of my colleagues had master's degrees from some of the best universities in the world. But subject expertise was not the be all and end all. Knowing how to teach (which includes: classroom management, pedagogical techniques such as collaborative learning, coming up with assignments and projects appropriate to the grade level) as well as other things like dealing with parents, helping out in extra curricular activities, etc., were also valued. In my time teaching there, I had to learn to shift my approach and learn new skills. I could see many PhDs being too resistant to doing this. Subject matter expertise was also seen differently. I was a trained historian in US history; I taught one advanced course in US history. (The school was outside of the US.) But I also taught other "social studies" courses, including European history, basic economics, geography, and business studies. In these cases knowing how to teach a group of freshman at 7 in the morning was as important as whatever I had picked up in grad school.

2. In regards to course sequencing in history. In general, most history programs strongly suggest that students take intro-level courses in U.S., European, or World history. This helps give a context to courses that follow. This doesn't always work, but it is the theory. At the same time, there is an anarchic way that students essentially take whatever courses they want when they want. Our graduation requirements are that a student take X intro level courses and Y regional courses and Z upper-level courses. The order is partially sent by the departmental schedule. There is one course on German history, and the students take it when it is offered. If they don't want to take German history, they can take English history, but again, when it is offered. This does create lacunae (to use the word) in students' knowledge. However, unlike maths or grammar, I do not think that most departments have a definite list of what content a student is supposed to know at graduation.