Adjuncts

Ironically, the instructors who are often among the most liked by students are college teachers that will never be college teachers, the great underclass of academia known as adjuncts. Some of these adjuncts are professionals who like to dabble in the classroom, often as an ego thing ("Hey, I'm a college professor," or "I'm a successful professional who has pearls of wisdom to impart to the leaders of tomorrow."). Some adjuncts need the job (easy to spot, they call themselves "consultants."). Others have never been able to get a full-time teaching position, usually because they don't have their doctorates or sometimes because they are in an especially competitive field, so they make their meager living going from college to college (they are sometimes called "gypsies") teaching a class or two for $3000 apiece. And there are many that don't need the money or the ego stroke, they just like to teach and are usually good at it. But the over-riding theme is that adjuncts are a cheap source of labor (often exploited) for colleges and often carry a hefty portion of the teaching load at reduced dollars, one of academia's dirty little secrets. While adjuncts and teaching assistants may be the norm at research schools, particularly for introductory and lower-level classes, teaching schools are increasingly relying on adjuncts for economic reasons. But the question for this discussion is whether these adjuncts are good teachers.

While obviously a generalization, the answer is a qualified yes. Adjuncts usually are highly motivated and dedicated to doing a good job. They don't have to worry about scholarship or service (though those with "day jobs" often face time pressures), and usually enjoy teaching, despite being treated as second-class citizens by administrators. Further, adjuncts often receive higher student evaluations than full-time faculty. And therein lies the rub. Students tend to like adjuncts due to their "real-world" perspective (translation: they tell good stories), easier requirements and grading (adjuncts don't want to rock the boat nor receive low evaluations), and in many cases a greater devotion to teaching (it's not the money bringing them in to teach that night class). Full-time faculty tend to view adjuncts as a necessary evil, those that fill needs but are less qualified to do so (most don't have doctorates) and unable to provide depth to their subject (know the whats but not the whys, i.e., lack schooling in underlying theory and its application). Also, there tends to be a greater percentage of "rookies" that are adjuncts (no tenure, greater numbers, greater turnover), so a student is more likely to encounter an adjunct who has little teaching experience generally and for that class particularly. But adjuncts are there to teach classes that full-timers won't, and generally adjuncts do a creditable job.

Personally, I think that too many adjuncts lower the quality of a program in making it less rigorous and more vocational in nature. Yet I like our school to use a small number of adjuncts, as they bring a different and practical perspective to the programs, and adjuncts often bring a passion to teaching that energizes students.

"Teaching" Schools

Somewhere along the way some professors find that he/she enjoys/values teaching, and these professors often find their way, by choice or not, to "teaching schools." Yet even these motivated-to-teach-well instructors also rarely receive training, with the only guidance typically coming from observations made by others who have no training, or discussions with those without training. Nevertheless, many of those professors somehow become proficient teachers. Unfortunately, even at teaching schools, teaching is being devalued. What evidence is there of this, particularly when there is a positive if embryonic trend of "teaching programs" for new professors and "teaching centers" for existing professors, as well as the now well-ensconced, well-motivated but poorly conceived "assurance of learning" movement? The evidence is called the "teacher/scholar" model.

"Teacher-scholar" is a term used by administrators at teaching schools to try to get teachers to do more research, which results in more prestige and money for the institution. Of course, the party line is that involvement with one's discipline will improve one's teaching, and this is almost certainly true, but the involvement that is truly valued is "PRJs" (Peer-Reviewed Journals), grants, and innovative outputs (patents, etc.) that bring in money and prestige for the institution. Under this philosophy, while teaching remains the "sine quo non" of the institution, professors will not be rewarded or promoted unless they are "productive." In other words, good teaching is expected, service demands are increasingly thrust upon professors which have almost no extrinsic value whatsoever, and "productivity" is becoming the real and almost sole standard for reward and promotion. So at a teaching school, you are likely to encounter better teachers, but there is now significant pressure for them to be less so.

There is some promise here, though, as the rage that is assurance of learning reflects the desire to have good teachers and valuable learning. Sadly, assessment of learning has become, in many cases, a well-intentioned effort derailed by political considerations and ineffective conceptualization and implementation driven by sticks instead of carrots. There is a glimmer of hope here, though, as despite the resistance and indignation among most faculty members, the spirit of learning assurance may be taking root. Yet such hope is swamped by the publish or perish that has crept into the classroom.

Are the best schools the best?

For decades, for reasons not necessary to elaborate here, there has been an attempt to make colleges more "rigorous," which resulted in an increased emphasis on credentials and research. This is certainly a good thing, as better educated, better trained, better engaged (with one's discipline) professors are likely to result in better college teachers and better college teaching. Unfortunately, instead of investigating and emphasizing how doctoral education, teaching training, and professional development would better college teaching, colleges used the emphasis on rigor as a competitive mechanism to create perceptions of excellence and prestige.

One easy way to measure that was to increase the number of faculty with doctorates, and this remains a measure of quality of an institution in the sense that it separates the bad schools from the not bad schools. But percentage with doctorates in field no longer differentiates good schools, as most good colleges have long had virtually all of their full-time faculty with doctorates. This degree is now necessary but not sufficient, as it is a sine quo non ticket for admission rather than a symbol of quality. But rather than attempt to measure contributions to learning, which is hard to do well, the easiest, most measurable way to attain the perception of quality became the number and quality of publications (and its offshoot, quality of graduate schools). Schools could measure and compete on this dimension, and the desire for prestige became the chase for research publications. This measure of quality has become very sophisticated, with peer-reviewed journals (PRJs) the gold-standard, replete with different tiers of journal quality, rules for quality of author position (meaning first author more valued than second author, etc.), currency of topic, number of publications, level of quantitative rigor, amount of citations generated, etc., the discriminators of professor and institution quality.* In some disciplines, grants are an important currency, and in some cases, innovative outputs such as patents matter, each with their own hierarchies of value.

Thus were born research schools, which tend to generate more income from grants, endowments, the ability to charge higher tuitions, donations, etc., which in turn allow these schools to offer higher salaries. In offering these higher salaries, these schools then have the ability to attract those faculty attracted to salary and prestige. To perpetuate and increase prestige and resources, the faculty with the greatest potential for "productivity" are hired, and those most "productive" rewarded (tenure, resources, etc.).

Faculty at research schools quickly learn that teaching is low on the extrinsic reward totem pole (and intrinsically often those motivated to be prolific researchers are not also motivated to be excellent teachers), so the motivation to teach well is naturally diminished. Couple this with the institution's desire to support research over teaching (reduced teaching loads, large lecture classes, use of teaching assistants, research release time, use of adjuncts, etc.), and it is small wonder that the prestigious research schools typically pay little more than lip service to quality teaching.

In fairness, some of the most prestigious universities are returning to basics in an attempt to reinvigorate long-lost ideals of quality teaching in devoting resources to teaching training and rewards, whether due to changing accreditation standards, assurance of learning demands, or the conscientious reformation of mission. But the moral typically remains that if you are at a "prestigious" school (and probably paying a very high tuition for the privilege), you are highly likely to graduate with a more prestigious degree but have received an inferior education.

* In some instances, the creation of perceptions of quality by academic scholarship may be circumvented by the success of athletic teams, i.e., the Notre Dame model, which ironically may then lead to the generation of superior scholarship via the increased direct (tickets, media, merchandise, etc.) and indirect (donations, endowments, alumni, tuitions, etc.) income generated by the successful athletic program, which allows the school to buy higher quality (more productive) faculty. In essence, a strong athletic team may (but not necessarily- see UNLV basketball) lead to a strong academic reputation.

Rate my professor

As the new school year draws near, I'll share this little known but perhaps widely suspected point: almost none of the professors you will have in college have received any training at all in how to teach.

Probably all the teachers you've had from K-12 have been credentialed, meaning that they've been trained and certified to be teachers. Yet remarkably, college professors outside of the school of education are typically trained in their discipline only, and how to do research as well, but have no training in how to teach. And not only haven't professors been trained how to teach, only a few (probably those that have been a "TA," i.e., teaching assistant, to help pay the bills while in school) have any experience at teaching before they hit the college classroom. To top it off, if you're at a "research school," the odds are that the professor also doesn't really want to teach, as research productivity is what is rewarded.

Yet there are efforts to make this better. Some doctoral programs are including modules/courses in how to teach. Some schools hold seminars to train new professors in how to teach. Many colleges are now establishing "teaching centers." Even some "publish or perish" institutions are making attempts to better instruction. Accrediting bodies and governing bodies are now vitally interested in "assurance of learning." Schools routinely evaluate teaching via the observations of students, peers, and administrators. Further, there are many professors that are genuinely motivated to be good teachers as a way to make a contribution to the world.

Hopefully you understand that a good teacher is not one who is easy, entertaining, and has a hot pepper. Hopefully, college teaching is improving for many, and hopefully you will encounter those who may touch your lives in ways you may not yet understand.

Old School

The chairman of the Board of Trustees at the University of Illinois resigned recently amid increasingly incendiary accusations that he encouraged an academic version of “pay to play” politics to flourish, allowing students to be admitted based largely on personal and political connections.

What is it with those guys in Illinois, from the Governor on down? Aren't they supposed to find God or something when they get caught? But at least in Illinois, some are getting caught.

This isn't just about colleges brazenly disregarding academic standards to further athletic programs (as with Memphis in the last couple of years). It is the "average student," who not uncommonly and especially at private colleges, may be accepted on criteria other than merit. As you might guess, those criteria usually involve money. Surprisingly to some, the ability to pay is often an influential factor in acceptance, as a private college that presents a freshman with a $40,000 bill might prefer to accept a student with the ability to pay that bill (leading to more money for the college), especially if outside loan money is less forthcoming. Less known by the general population is that private schools may also favor "legacy" students, i.e., applicants that have a parent or family history of graduates (and especially alumni donors) from that college (alumni who would be pleased to see the family applicant accepted, thereby leading to more money for the colleges). And then, there is the old fashioned who-do-you-know, as disclosed in Illinois (Mayor Daley would have approved- assuming he got a "taste").

The ivory tower may not be so white.