Teaching and universities/colleges

[Melalvai]

I'm going to rant for a moment.

As a grad student, I had a fellowship and then a training grant, neither of which had a teaching requirement. One semester I was on a TA, so I taught 2 discussion sections of a Cell Bio class. My advisor apologized that I'd have to teach that semester, but he thought I should have some teaching experience, it was a necessary evil.

Does that clue you in to what he thinks about the importance of teaching ability?

My postdoc mentors have had similar attitudes. They tell me, "No one looks at your teaching experience. They only care about your research."

I thought, sure, at a Research I institution (such as the one I'm at, I don't recall the exact definition but it means research-heavy) that is probably, though sadly, true. But, I reasoned, such logic is short-sighted. What if I don't get a job at a Research I institution? What if I'm "reduced" to accepting a job at a primarily teaching institution? A --gasp-- college?? That happened to a friend of mine from college, the one who I got notes from when I skipped class. So I set out to enhance the teaching component of my resume.

As a postdoc funded from grant dollars, the logistics of teaching are insurmountable. The TA stipend is not sufficient to cover the matching % of my salary, but the grant won't pay for me to teach. I was able to audit a course called College Science Teaching. One of the assignments is a curriculum project, for a two-week section of the class of our choice.

That is when I conceived of this class "Science Controversies for Voters". It's what I consider the bare minimum that every citizen ought to know about science, simply because they vote. (Eventually I found a place to teach the class, to adult learners, as discussed elsewhere.)

I am applying for some jobs, although where I'm at in my research makes me not a competitive candidate until next year when I'll have, I hope, one or two publications. To my surprise, I made the short list for one job, at a Research I institution, and got a phone interview. During the interview, we never talked about teaching, confirming what my advisor and mentors had told me: Research I institutions don't care about your teaching ability.

This is so wrong. When you look for a school for a child, a parent wants one that the kid will be happy at, and be trained or taught sufficiently to do well on standardized tests to get scholarships or admittance to college. When deciding on a college, price is a big factor, beyond that, no one cares about reputability so long as future employers respect the school. Why is the reputation tied in to research? Does anyone know or care how many Nobel laureates teach at your state university? Don't you think eventually future employers are going to start saying "Gee, he went to XU, but the last 5 kids we've gotten from there didn't know the first thing about chemistry, and the 3 kids from that private college really know their stuff, so let's hire her instead."

It's really starting to irritate me to hear "Don't worry about your lack of teaching experience, no one gives a darn about your teaching ability."

I want to do research. If I have to choose between research and teaching, I'll choose research. If I'm going to do both, I want to do a good job at both.

[Crankin]

Well, this is why I am a PhD drop out.
Twenty six years ago I quit my public school teaching job to enter a 2 year full time doctoral program. I wanted to be a special ed administrator, but I didn't want to major in Ed Leadership. The department where I got my masters was just starting a program and I was asked to apply. The entire program was focused on research and becoming a professor (though not explicitly stated), even though those were not my goals. I wanted to use my knowledge and apply it in a real world job. I could minor in Ed. Leadership to get the coursework I needed.
Needless to say, I didn't feel like my goals were valued. The other students all had less real world experience than me (teaching experience) so I quit after a year, went back to teaching in a high school, and had 2 kids.
I think you have very admirable goals. We have all had college teachers who sucked and it makes you feel like you are wasting a lot of $. Knowledge in your field is very important, but if you are ever going to be passing it along to the next generation, you had better know some teaching strategies.

[Grog]

** gentle hug **

Sorry Melalvai you're having to feel that way. As a Ph.D. student who actually studies Ph.D. students (I know, I know, it's weird) I'm afraid I know exactly what you mean.

Smart of you to consider other options than research intensive universities. I don't think they should be second choices. They are different, but certainly not necessarily worse. In any case, whether your colleagues reward it or not, your students will really appreciate your teaching skills.

You might find some interest in this article: Smith-Doerr, L. (2006). Stuck in the Middle: Doctoral Education Ranking and Career Outcomes for Life Scientists. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(3), 243-255.

Take care...

[mimitabby]

that's where both my sons are heading. Both would be great teachers, but if teaching at a university is not valued, why would they ever do it?

[Geonz]

Sympathies extended. That just bites.

Teaching is something people who aren't "good" enough to do real research do. AFter all, stuffing knowledge into the unintelligent masses... welp, it is a necessary evil (which unfortunately isn't happening because it's so undervalued). If only the elite and intelligent could be free to ... hmmm... lie about their findings so that pharmaceutical executives could make more money?

Our system's a wee bit busted... far enough to be out of "self-correcting" mode.

I, too, didn't even look at a PhD because I wanted to work in the field, with students. A PhD would only add stress... not things I needed to know.

[Possegal]

PhD here, and in a biological science where this is quite true. Though I will say that my program was very interested in turning out good teachers as well. But I don't think that is the norm by any means. I remember prior to going to grad school I was working as a research tech at a major university. I had a genetics class, took the first test, got a score a good 20 pts above every other person in the class and was asked to come see the prof. I remember wondering if he thought I had cheated. Instead, his first comment was "why aren't you in grad school?". The meeting went on and on, ending in him writing me a recommendation for grad school, but also with a lengthy discussion about how he was a dinosaur in his dept, as he was someone that valued the teaching. He joked that he was lucky he had tenure as they would love to lose the teacher and get a grant writer. I was so very lucky to have had him, but I fear there will be less and less students as lucky. I even emailed him years later and although I doubt he remembered me, I know it pleased him that I had gone on and got the degree and was happily toiling away in my own lab, however not as an academic. I would love to have gone that route, as I do think I'm a very good teacher. But I'm glad I went the way I did, seems to have worked out OK for me so far.

Good luck and sorry you are discouraged by it all. Keep up trying to gain that teaching experience and know that you will influence many people because of it. Maybe one will email you out to the blue one day and thank you for what you did for their career.

[Bad JuJu]

+1 PhD dropout here for basically the same reason. I couldn't agree and sympathize more.

I'm happily teaching at a small state university, in a department that has a few lines for masters-prepared faculty, though I'll never be a full prof because I didn't get that PhD block checked. It means I'm not tenure-track, but it also means that when I publish something, it's gravy instead of just something I'm required to do. So I can spend more time doing what I love--teaching. I've done some other things to make myself more valuable to the department, but mainly, I'm all about the students. I'll never get the pay the full profs get, but hey, I get summers off.

I totally relate to what all of you are saying. And it sucks. But to some degree it does depend on the institution and its philosophy and mission statement. In the best of all worlds, research and teaching would enhance each other and faculty would be encouraged to maintain a balance between them. Sadly, that's not how it usually works out. Guess the best you can do is try to end up at a school whose philosophy closely matches your own. I know--easier said than done.

[Mr. Bloom]

melalvai = mischiefuh huh

You know, I'm actually impressed that you care. But, my initial response (which is just IMHO...):

• I'd encourage you to reflect on the methods of your favorite professors and mimic them
• Ponder that serious students rise above mediocre teaching...and serious students tend to be drawn to research institutions

Don't be too hard on yourself...I bet your better than you expect...

Are we taking you and hubby to dinner next weekend when we're in Columbia?

[Aquila]

I teach at a comprehensive state u (not an R1), and while we require research, teaching definitely comes first for us.

My sense is that science folks really need to do something extra to prepare for teaching because there are so many grad student ways to earn basic money that don't involve teaching. (I'm in English; grad students pretty much support themselves in most programs teaching lots of comp and discussion sections for intro classes.) So if you value teaching and can find ways to enhance yours, you'll be very attractive to places like mine.

On the other hand, I went to a state R1, and I had really excellent teachers for the most part (with perhaps two or three exceptions?), and I was a bio major.

Good luck. Teaching is rewarding and challenging in totally different ways than research; and if you're going to do it, it's very worthwhile to do it well and trying to enjoy it. (Now if only I could find a way to avoid grading!)

[uk elephant]

another science phd student here, with lots of teaching experience. The program I am in actually required a minimum of one semester teaching, but most of the students in the programme were supported by teaching assistantships and I taught every semester. This was at a big R1 university but although research comes first, most profs in the programme understand that teaching is an important part of the job. I guess this is the exception in science. Maybe a reflection of the low level of grants available in ecology as opposed to other science fields. Must admit I really enjoyed teaching as well as research and would like a job that involves both. Unfortunately those seem to be hard to find now that I'm graduating and looking for work.

[Triskeliongirl]

I am a professor of Biochemistry at a major research university. I am expected to peform research and teach, both at a high level. I think you are misunderstanding your professors. Its not that they don't think teaching is important, the idea is that it is only by aquireing deep knowledge through your research, that you will have the knowledge base to be a really good teacher (and by teaching I mean not just in the classroom but in mentoring future PhD students), and to do this you need to be totally immersed and focussed in your research, and not distracted by a teaching assignment. Cuz teaching well is also serious business that takes total immersion until you get the hang of it, but that is something you can do later after you aquire your research skills. Also, all those exercises where you present your research, IS training in how to teach, even if it doesn't seem like it now. It was in learning how to communicate my work effectively, that I learned how to effectively lecture students.

With all this being said, I had a friend who felt as you did. So, she took a temporary position replaceing a colleague on sabbatical at a teaching college for a year between her post-doc and taking a tenure track position at a research university. But, she had a plan to continue her research through this period, primarially through a summer collaboration. And I have to tell you that it was a risky move, although for her it worked out.

[Triskeliongirl]

One more point, while it is true that formal teaching experience doesn't matter when making a faculty hire at a research university, evidence of strong teaching skills does. For example, the quality of the research seminar and one on one interactions with faculty is used as a predicter of teaching suceess. And, its not that teaching ability isn't important, its that its an expectation rather than a discriminator. Since there is more variation in research ability, that is selected for first, if you don't have a strong research record you will be less competitive, but amongst the group of candidates with strong research records, the ability to teach well will also be expected, and considered strongly. Its just that practical training as a teacher takes place after practical training as a researcher (with the exception of all the skills that one aquires from presenting and defending ones work along the way). We generally let our junior faculty ease into their teaching assignments (as they also start to develop their research programs) with a lot of guidance as needed.

[Melalvai]

Are we taking you and hubby to dinner next weekend when we're in Columbia?

Well, you're eating with us someplace. I just emailed you.

[shootingstar]

It's really starting to irritate me to hear "Don't worry about your lack of teaching experience, no one gives a darn about your teaching ability."

I want to do research. If I have to choose between research and teaching, I'll choose research. If I'm going to do both, I want to do a good job at both.

It is intriguing that your heart tells you want to focus 100% on research, yet your self-expression and your course idea on Scientific Contro. for Voters, was a creative teaching idea reflection of you. You seem to have natural drive and enthusiasm to teach.. then maybe you might teach on the side in life later on, something which has absolutely nothing to do with science/your degree.

While it is undoubtedly helpful that person is well -versed on their subject matter to even begin to teach on within that subject area, I am not in total agreement that in-depth PhD level knowledge confers a person with a high probability of good teaching skills/potential.

The rest test would be : could all PhD graduates teach science full-time to senior high school students and maintain most of the students' attention?

[Triskeliongirl]

Well, I am not saying this is the best way to do it, I was just trying to explain how PhD students with an interest in an academic research/teaching career are trained in the US. I will add though, that opportunities are out there for students that really want to explore their passion for teaching. When I was a PhD student, I taught a summer course for rising medical students that was part of a diversity initiative, so that students who were less well prepared due to lack of opportunity could still be admitted to medical school and brought up to speed before starting the more rigorous standard curriculum with their full class.