the top researchers are always the good teachers because of their knowledge and passion-- but it is very much secondary. trust me. the model of university education since the first world war and the scientification of everything has been to turn universities from 'seats of learning' into 'research powerhouses'. all of the world top universities attract academics because of career options and job offers that will focus primarily on
research. that's the main lucrative appeal of a top tenured university job for a top professor: they get to spend as much time researching as possible, and as little time as possible doing the donkeywork - marking terribad undergrad essays, having stressed freshers crying in their office, having to teach asinine 101 introduction courses. as i said, that gets given to doctoral candidates and visiting readers (i.e. fresh post-docs), who are decidedly
not good teachers. you just repeated me on that point as well, so thanks. there is no way a stressed-out 23-24yo doctoral candidate makes a 'good' teacher, i'm sorry. i had several of these during my undergraduate years: candidates who were celebrated as being rising stars in their field - but they get next to no 'teacher training', per se, and are just thrust into the role to sink or swim.
the entire university career model is 'publish or perish'. that is the ONLY way to advance in a career. frequent research assessment exercises and a stress on every department to produce 'world leading', or at least 'internationally recognized' research, means that top departments tend to agglomerate top research-academics, and any open positions tend to advertise for people with impressive publishing records in all the impressive top journals, rather than someone that is 'really good at communicating a passion for history'. that's not to say that pedagogy is a dying art... but giving lectures to large rooms, where the style is very much 'take it or leave it, noob', and then going back off to your own research... is very different from teaching kids and being wholly focussed on instruction, for 6-7 hours a day. every single professor in every single top university will try to
minimize their teaching hours as much as possible. this is just a fact, created by the pressures and evaluations set-up in the current university-as-research-powerhouse model. no university will reach a high ranking in the world table with 'good undergraduate teaching' - in america, these are called liberal arts colleges, and they rank pretty much in nowheresville on an international scale, despite being nationally extremely selective and prestigious. where do all the bright young elite from liberal arts colleges go afterwards? large research unis, where they will be taught by sub-standard, stressed-out doctoral candidates. nobody who takes up a PhD wants to teach, it's a necessary evil that distracts from you from finishing your own thesis in as good a time as possible (normally its the faustian-pact you have to sign in order to even be able to
afford to take the PhD; teaching provides your daily bread). nobody who is in the post-doctoral career path wants to teach, because they are pushed to publish as many original articles of their own in a year - this is the only concrete figure that will help their career advancement. so yes, i am right in saying that 'teaching is secondary'.
fyi large universities are always more research focussed, and less on teaching. the smaller colleges/universities tend to have higher staff:student ratios, and because of their smaller size/funding/endowment/possible research output, they hone in on the teaching experience, instead. i went to a 'top teaching university'; there are indeed separate league tables for 'teaching quality', for undergraduates who are (rightfully) interested in the quality of the teaching, rather than the academic-superstar rapsheets of their professors. but you are madly deluded if you think the current university system promotes or values anything anywhere near as much as hard, good research. the number of departmental posts or tenure-track jobs now that will offer a greater teaching:research ratio are minute, rare, and often lesser-paid. academia is intensely competitive and intensely pressured now: there are far too many post-docs for far too few jobs. the whole rubric and assessment is set up to consider candidates based on their research; teaching just doesn't float any careers anymore.
so yeah, the 'full package' is great. often times top academics are great teachers simply because of their incredible knowledge and communicable passion. but then other times a genius academic is a lousy teacher. other times a star academic will have no time for teaching. mostly every academic with common sense and self-interest will try to minimize their pesky teaching obligations and try to get as much time as possible for their own writings - sink or swim, friend. your statement that "all the best teachers are at the universities anyway" is complete bullshit. i was turned onto english by a teacher at about age 14 who blew away every single (world leading) professor i have ever had. teaching full-time to rooms full of adolescent brats is the true crucible for how much you love your subject, not standing in front of a lecture hall for 10 hours a week, or presiding over a few seminars or tutorials. people who want to teach, go into school. a person with a love for teaching i assume would not love the extreme focus on research that universities are now centred around. having to publish 4-5 times a year would be an onerous task, if all you want to do is command the classroom, no? stop making such stupid comments. you're a fresh-eyed undergrad... what would you know about the actual inner workings of a department, and academia as a career?
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-10-21 04:41:25)
