‘The Center for College Affordability and Productivity has recently come out with a study on Texas showing that, at the public universities, 20 percent of the professors are doing 80 percent of the work. And a lot of the professors aren’t doing any of the work,” Naomi Schaefer Riley points out in an interview with National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez.
Where is your college tuition money going? And is your college-age child getting the best education he could be? Riley is author of The Faculty Lounges: And Other Reasons Why You Won’t Get The College Education You Pay For. She talks about the perniciousness of tenure and what’s best for quality higher education, families, and conservative professors. She even includes a top five check-list for high-school students and their parents currently on the college search.
Advertisement
Kathryn Jean Lopez: My smart but naïve daughter is going off to college in the fall. Will I be terrified by your book?
Naomi Schaefer Riley: Terrified, no. But hopefully somewhat more enlightened about higher education. The most important thing to understand, I think, in picking a college, is that professors can do many different things with their time. Some of those will benefit your education, some of them will be irrelevant. You need to find a place where the faculty’s interests and incentives are aligned with your own.
Lopez: You write: “Many schools would have parents and students believe that the value of an education relies entirely upon how much the student makes of the opportunities that universities and colleges provide. This type of rhetoric is sprinkled throughout university brochures, but the idea that we should expect 17-year-olds to figure out how to get a proper education — how to spend their time and money wisely in the vast maze of academe — is worse than ridiculous. It’s a con game made to suit the interests of the tenured faculty who would prefer to write obscure tomes rather than teach broad introductory classes to freshmen.” But isn’t all of life about making the best of opportunities? Surely schools with expensive libraries and equipment and master teachers have some opportunities to offer to paying customers?
Riley:The thing about college students is that, to borrow a phrase, they don’t know what they don’t know. So asking them to craft the foundations of their own education doesn’t seem to me to be fair to them. In one semester you might randomly pick an introduction to animal behavior, a course on women in Victorian literature, and a history of the Ming dynasty. Is it any wonder that students have no idea what they’re doing in college? A liberal education was supposed to be giving students a broad introduction to important subjects. Too much specialization early on makes it all incoherent.
There are all sorts of things that will bring a college prestige (and thereby customers), but a lot of them have nothing to do with education.
Lopez: Why does tenure matter so much to students?
Riley: Tenure matters for three reasons. First, it encourages professors to spend their time doing research instead of teaching. A 2005 study showed that for each additional hour a professor spends in the classroom, he will get paid less. It also matters because it encourages intellectual uniformity. Studies show that professors simply vote clones of themselves into their department and give them permanent positions. Third, it puts all the control over universities into the hands of faculty. Every battle in higher education now, whether it’s over the curriculum or the money or the politics, is a battle of attrition, and the faculty, thanks to tenure, will always win. They will outlast any president, any governor, any trustee, any regent, any parent, and any student. And they are why reform is not possible.
Lopez:What can be done about it?
Riley:Not much for the professors who already have it, alas. There’s a contract in place, and it would be near impossible to get rid of. State legislatures can get rid of it going forward. Utah debated such a bill, though unfortunately it didn’t make it out of committee. At private universities it will have to be more of an issue brought up by parents, students, and trustees. Some private universities are realizing on their own that teaching has been undervalued. Duke, for instance, has hired a number of professors of practice, whose job is to teach, not do research. They are hired on multi-year renewable contracts, with evaluation based on their teaching. I think this is the ideal.
Having been in the academic world for almost 30 years, I am not at all convinced that faculty who spend most of their time teaching instead of doing research are better teachers. I know several colleagues at small schools that make them teach four courses per term, and they are so harried by all the teaching and grading that they can't keep up. Professors at major schools who teach one or two courses typically put a lot more time in per course. And, frankly, everyone knows faculty at small "teaching" schools are not the most talented scientists: almost no one I know who is really sharp would choose to give up research to teach nonstop.
What many people miss is that graduate student education is much like the old individual apprentice system. The greatest impact I have on education is the daily interaction I have with the grad students in my lab, but I don't get any credit for "teaching" for that. These grad students then go and teach undergrads, yes, but are hardly unqualified if they are grad students accepted at a major science university and tutored daily by a well known scientist. An effective organization has tiers of training, and doesn't have the CEO personally train every new employee.
The reason many senior faculty teach less is that they buy out their time-- they bring in so many research dollars that they can effectively pay themselves. At my school, the income from research dollars exceeds the income from tuition. Why is this bad? Don't conservatives believe in the personal freedom that money brings?
Last, industry these days does no fundamental research, for many reasons: closing of tax "loopholes" that used to encourage companies to support research, short-term thinking, and the difficulty of protecting patents. For better or worse universities are where the action is in science research. What is wrong with having an adjunct famous research lab next to your school, even if those researchers don't teach your children? At the very least, it provides an opportunity to get cool summer jobs-- at my school hundreds of undergrads work in science labs led by those so-called deadbeat faculty who only teach a few courses per year.
DWS, I feel you miss the point completely. First, you are theoretically providing a service to undergraduate students. This service is education.
Unfortunately, your response is almost whole-heartedly providing excuses that center around things other than your primary customer: the student. Only in a world as protected as academia could this simple concept be so absent.
Your 'harried' friends might benefit from learning some basic time management skills, to which I would suggest David Allen's book: Getting Things Done. Four classes means 14 hours in the classroom, and a handful or less office hours weekly.
If they worked in the corporate world and had any ambition, after teaching they would still have 30-40 hours free to grade papers and do some side research they are passionate about (based on a 50-60 hour work week). If they treated their profession as an entrepreneur does, they would have 70-80 hours to grade papers and do research weekly... again, harried is all relative.
If it seems unfair to compare them to a business person, let's look at your basic high school AP teacher, who stand in front of students 25 hours weekly compared to a teaching professor's 14, and still has piles of papers to grade, probably is asked yearly to run a club or coach a sport, endless parent-teacher meetings, etc. The teacher also doesn't have a TA to help them grade papers...
Your apprentice system sounds great, except your customer pays to be taught by a PhD. Break-out sessions with TAs to help with homework, recover tough subjects, or just review tests are fine, but your customer enters into the agreement with the understanding that the professors you brag about will actually be teaching them.
This brings us to your last point, which is that businesses don't do research so professors need to... I disagree again. If a professor is simply doing research, then they are called a researcher... who may find the time to teach a class or two per year.
I assume you are replying from the perspective of someone whose perspective has been twisted by being part of the system for too long. You cannot be objective, because you are too deep in the muck. That is the issue with asking professors if they are liberal when all they hang out with is liberals... the answer is 'no', but how would they know since their friends range from left of center to fully blown socialist... the left of center person seems 'so conservative' on many issues.
If a university is research-based, then break apart your faculty into researchers and professors... this way the people who are involved in educating our students can do exactly that... focus on their customer: the student.
If a reply has anything other than the student as focus, I would contend the person replying just doesn't get it. You are replying to a student focused article... Your customer is the student... Your university/college is the students (and alumni)... simple trend...
I think Ms Riley is incredibly naive to believe that administrators are capable of or interested in fixing the problems with higher education. The number of administrators grow each year with no real effect on the quality of education. If professors don't teach, the vice president for diversity certainly doesn't and gets a much higher paycheck for the 'work'.
Professors who spend more time doing research then teaching are better teachers. Period. I don't know why it is trendy for conservative media right now to claim otherwise. Getting a bachelor's in astrophysics is not the same as watching a space exploration special at the local IMAX. Astrophysics (biochemistry, electrical engineering, etc.) is hard stuff! And such fields are constantly evolving and progressing. A student is much better served by a professor who knows his stuff because he has to in order to get his research projects working, than a professor who has perfected the art of setting up the projector but can only regurgitate what he learned when he was in college.
Commenters so far seem to bring their critiques from experience in scientific academia. Perhaps their criticisms are valid as to their field but do not translate into the humanities/liberal arts. Perhaps not. While not necessarily a good thing, most students will not be going into scientific and technical fields. Even if valid to only liberal arts, Riley's perspective and suggestions could be very helpful to the vast majority of students and their parents.
I am a chemistry PhD candidate dating a creative writing Masters candidate, and both of us not only aim to be college professors but are also the children of educators (all levels represented: elementary, junior high, high school teaching and administration, undergraduate and graduate education). I often get to debate these sorts of topics with students and teachers of various fields. Many of us seem to agree that we can divide qualities of a "good" teacher (on any level) into two basic categories: being able to convey new concepts to a classroom full of students, and being intimately knowledgeable in the area of focus. The ideal teacher, then, would be one who excels in both of those categories.. someone who understands his field both broadly and deeply yet who can coherently and successfully explain those concepts to people who have not yet learned them. This ideal case, however, is not always achieved.
I often see upper level science professors who are astoundingly intelligent but who seem to have forgotten what it was like the first time they sat down to learn the material. Being able to integrate multiple variable equations in one's head or synthesize a metal-based catalyst with a 99% yield or draw the mechanisms of all 10 steps of glycolysis from memory does NOT necessarily make someone a good teacher. It might make them highly qualified to teach Differential Equations, Inorganic Chemistry, or Biochemistry, but in order to be an effective teacher he would have to be able to communicate that information to his students in such way that they grasp the concepts, to utilize methods which fairly and accurately evaluate students' learning, and to assign student grades which reflect their true achievement in the course. Being a great researcher helps the university win acclaim and draw in money, which is wonderful, but the results in the classroom are sometimes less impressive.
In reference to some of the comments posted earlier, I do like the analogy to the apprentice system, but that system sometimes benefits the graduate student over the undergrad. Having to teach a concept does help to understand it better yourself, and grad students should be among the most up-to-date experts-to-be in their fields (and thus highly qualified to teach newcomers), but not all graduate students are actually interested in being good teachers. I have friends on both sides of that fence, and while those of us who look to be educators in the near future might use these teaching assignments as preparation, my colleagues who will go into industry feel it is a waste of their time.
While I can see the problems ahead of me, I'm afraid I don't have any real insights on improving the tenure system, or even on balancing the research/teaching assignments for professors. The best I can do is support that the most important focus of colleges and universities should be the education of its students.
Well, it is good to see that academia hasn't changed. Same problem, same conditions for a hundred years. You'd think that they would be inclined to try something new but you'd be wrong. Well, at least, anything new that might spark innovation in the delivery of their supposed primary service.
Here is an article from 1923 on The Ban on Teaching, lamenting the very same problems of teaching being bad for a professor's career. Things being controlled by the "research men" and all.
And this one I found interesting regarding whether the universities were overpopulated (1923). I like the premise that the undergraduate college, whose task is to educated students to the point of being able to learn, should be separated from the graduate and professional schools, which are more apprentice/training programs.
This article is an essay on exactly what the purpose of college (undergraduate). It would be nice if the schools really had truth in advertising instead of hinting at preparing students for high paying jobs. But then, the cash cow might dry up since being educated, learning to live, are admirable accomplishments but hardly worth $30, 40, 100 thousand dollars of lifelong debt.
I just remember this gem from a few months ago. I'm sure it is good to know Harvard doesn't consider undergraduate education to be one of their primary products. But if education isn't their most important product, how can they be great teachers?
"FOR THE THIRD TIME in a decade, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) is addressing its educational mission. "
"And Michael S. McPherson, speaking bluntly, puts the matter this way: “Good undergraduate education is not Harvard’s most important product,” compared to its role in fostering world-changing ideas."
"His starting point—“Harvard is an institution of truly great teachers”—"
HARVARD FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES REFOCUSES ON ITS EDUCATIONAL MISSION | HARVARD MAGAZINE MAR-APR 2011 External Link
Many comments here have hit around the point that education is too broad a topic to find a one-size-fits-all model for it. I think it should be conceptualized as a series of enterprises that follow naturally from the progression of grade school and high school. The early undergraduate years concern material that should be familiar to all professors in a field and has been through its research era decades or centuries ago. The chief value added from one’s college at this stage is a well thought out organization, intelligent selection and clear presentation of tons of well known material. The upper undergraduate years are similar but focused onto the topics of specific majors. Exposure to research work is appropriate and necessary but there is still too much background material to cover to worry overly about cutting edge research. The big break is at the graduate student level. Here the emphasis is on training future researchers so while mastering standard material is still important, learning the research biz is the main idea.
A whole other area where college/graduate education is woefully inadequate is in the employment of technology. What’s the difference between watching a lecture in a class of 200 and watching it via movie/video? Perhaps we should be encouraging the tenured profs with years of experience to create really well honed, insightful videos that can be used repeatedly and in many schools. The metric of time in the classroom has little relevance to this activity.
Most of the comments here seem to be placed in the context of the elite Universities, but the number of students attending second and third tier institutions dwarfs the enrollment of the elites. Unfortunately, the problems of tenure and high cost, whether borne by the student, parent, or taxpayer, are just as great there, and less mitigated by the production of significant research, scientific or otherwise.
Many professors discover that with tenure, they can dispense with research altogether, and put minimal effort into their classroom performance, with little consequence to themselves but significant adverse consequence to their students. The rare administrator who may decide to try to ameliorate these consequences will soon find that the faculty union will impede any attempt to get rid of (or even chastise) any of its members short of an axe-murderer.
I have taught every age group from pr-school to graduate students. I ahve a certification for 7-12 language arts. I currently teach as an adjunct teaching public speaking.
I love my students. I am fundamentally a teacher. The Marines and Navy Seals who take my class usualy ask, "What other courses do you theach?" this is not bragging. This is fact.
Unfortunatlety, undergraduate degrees have replaced high school diplomas because high schools no longer prepare students for the world. Education has become a bottom-up hierarchy of learn little earlier in order to learn more later.
Adjuncts and Grad Students carry the heaviest load. We are the ones who decide who is capable to conitnue. We really teach.
I have no research cred, but I have plenty of observations about how learners learn. This is not something most Ph.d's know. They spit out info, but don't check to see if the info is received.
What I was told when I first became a GTA:
"You are now a graduate teaching assistant. You have all of the responsibilities of a full-tenured professor, and all of the priveledges of an unregeistered freshman."
I've always wondered why class size is only an issue in K-12 education. Put a high school senior in a class with 33 other students, and folks act like the world is coming to an end. Then the very next year put a college freshman in a lecture hall with 599 other students, and suddenly it;s an "elite university".
Jumanji, given the amount of state and federal support that higher education receives, my customers are the taxpayers. They pay my salary, whether it comes from the National Science Foundation, Pell Grants or a line in the state budget. Therefore, I evaluate my work, generally, from the pespective of how much value I am providing the taxpayers.
Overall, I think the author makes good points about tenure. I am a big fan of multi-year contract systems instead of lifetime tenure. It benefits young professors who have trouble getting their research started. Schools can keep them under contract for another few years to see if they pan out. This can be especially important for women who elect to have a kid during their first few years as a faculty member.
Re: Point #5 Class Availability - I ran into that precise scenario at a so-called "Public Ivy". The more credits you had accrued, the sooner you got to register for courses. So upper classmen looking to fill out their curricula with low-level courses got first dibs, followed by freshman with transfer credits from prep schools, and finally schlubs like me with a last name at the end of the alphabet and few-to-no transfer credits got to weed through the scraps of courses. As a poli-sci freshman I got saddled with courses on archaeology and a real bear of class on "symbolic logic". I transferred to community college after 3 semesters and never had that problem again because they didn't clutter up course offerings with garbage. The focus was on the core disciplines. And I had better "teachers" than at the public ivy. I went on to finish undergrad at what we call a "commuter" school, a four-year public with approx 75% commuting students, and never had a problem registering for the classes I needed at workable hours, and had some outstanding instructors.
Naomi Riley is oddly off-base if she thinks research is not as important as teaching. It is indeed far more important than teaching. Without peer-reviewed research, what do professors teach? They teach what they have been taught. Some claim they are doing research for their teaching, but who then is to judge the veracity of such claims–the students in their classes? Tenure is likewise essential to protect professors. If you think things are bad now, visit some campus after you get rid of tenure. The Marxists, feminists, neo-Stalinists, and post-industrialists will have made the ensuing chaos and confusion their masterpiece. Hiring “professors of practice” for only a specific amount of time (with contract renewal predicated on performance in the classroom) is hardly an alternative. Such money-saving gestures degrade the entire enterprise of learning and solidifies the idea that colleges should simply become expensive high schools. Tightening the requirements for tenure, based on research but also on teaching performance attracts the most rigorous minds to the profession. Those are the minds most needed on campuses today: independent thinkers, free to pursue ideas in any direction. Only in an atmosphere of free inquiry can the winds of change generate a new birth of freedom.
