For undergraduate students, how do you measure faculty quality?

College Search & Lists
41

<p>At every university I’ve ever been associated with, research, teaching, and service all count in the tenure decision. It’s there in black and white in the tenure standards, with the three elements listed equally. </p>

<p>Now it’s true that most tenure denials are made on the basis of real or perceived deficiencies in research and scholarly publication, but in part that’s because there are somewhat better metrics in that area. It’s much harder to determine that someone’s teaching is deficient-- in most cases, all you have are student evaluations which measure student satisfaction, not true teaching ability, and possibly a couple of class visits by colleagues which aren’t enough to tell you much. And “service” is such an amorphous category that it’s hard even to know what it means. Also, top faculties are acutely conscious of their status, reputation, and rank vis-a-vis other strong faculties, and that in turn depends almost exclusively on their research and scholarly publications—again, in part because no one knows how to measure teaching even internally, much less comparatively. Faculties don’t want to lose top young scholars—or top senior scholars, for that matter—to their competitors. Weaker scholars simply don’t contribute as much to the school’s prestige, even if they’re good teachers. So yes, to that extent, scholarship does in fact weigh more heavily in the tenure decision, even if on paper teaching is an equal consideration. But it’s not as if good teaching is unappreciated or simply not valued, either pre-tenure or post-tenure. And by the way, the pre-tenure period is going to make up a rather small fraction of any academic’s career. What really matters is not what happens pre-tenure, but what happens post-tenure. Most academics I know put a lot into their teaching, perhaps even more so post-tenure than pre-tenure. Most make a good faith effort to be the very best teachers they can be. Some are naturally more gifted at it than others, but even for those who are less successful, rarely is it for lack of effort. </p>

<p>My guess, however, is that the tenure criteria at high-ranking LACs, which are just as status-conscious as the top research universities, are not materially different from those at major research universities, either on paper or in fact. I could be wrong about that, but if so I’d like to have someone really in the know state it clearly, rather than relying on a second-hand speculation from those who for whatever reason have an axe to grind in favor of LACs and against major research universities.</p>

<p>The schools that put the least emphasis on scholarship are not the top LACs, but schools lower down in the pecking order who see their mission more as transmitting existing knowledge rather than creating new knowledge. But I really seriously doubt that teaching quality increases as you go down the pecking order of scholarly engagement, scholarly contribution, and scholarly prestige. And I really don’t think the defenders of LACs want to go there in their argument.</p>

42

<p>For me, as a student making the transition from a top 20 LAC to a top 10 public graduate school, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens. Then again, graduate students have more attention from the faculty members than undergrads.</p>

<p>But yes, teaching, service, and publishing are all factored in tenure decisions. It makes me angry when an excellent professor who motivates students and consistently faces wait-lists for her classes gets her tenure denied, only to be just 6 months away from getting published (AND getting a major book award…oops!). But at the same time, I can learn from her and other excellent teaching faculty who were denied tenure as I prepare to head in that direction.</p>

<p>Remember, we’re looking at from undergraduate perspective. They’re just fresh out of “coddling” high schools where teachers give their time to teach the material well and students are used to be “given.” For them to make the transition to college in a 500-person lecture where the prof doesn’t know anyone’s name can be a shocker. Whether it’s a 500-person lecture or a 15 person seminar, the most important thing that a faculty member can do is be CLEAR, KNOWLEDGABLE, and ENGAGING. There is nothing worse than to sit for a whole hour or 3 in silence and be lost. I don’t care if he’s the hardest marker or his research is totally not related to the course, he has to show me that he can do the job as a professor to spread his knowledge coherently, whether to his peer or the students.</p>

<p>Think about why people love Bill Clinton, Obama, and Reagan but not Bush. I’m not saying the professor has to be the most charismatic but needs to know how to deliver mateirial in an interesting way that works for his intended audience.</p>

<p>I spoke with a newly minted PhD visiting prof about what to look for in a graduate school advisor. He said that very, very few professors can pull off being great teachers and researchers. Many choose one side or the other. I often wondered about my own professors, to me, could they do both? I have read a bit of their work. Their work is quite well done and of high quality research. However, working at a LAC where teaching is emphasized, it makes it all more difficult for professors to publish excellent articles and books at the same pace as those in major research universities where professors can ignore their students. So in some ways, his insight is true but you need to look at the larger picture.</p>

<p>So I don’t think that people should discount the faculty qualty at LACs, especially if they got their PhDs from top schools (as my LAC’s history department is). They have the ability and training to do excellent research and write great stuff… only it’s just one part of their job description. As for major universities, as long they can deliver coherent, appropriate lectures and lead discussions and be respectful of the students as learners (sometimes they’re conscending just because they’re not in the academia).</p>

43

<p>i think Swish and I’Dad are onto something. Nothing that is quantifiable but can be recognized by common sense. Profs that love to teach will be drawn to schools that place an emphasis on teaching. Profs who love to research will be drawn to schools that have a focus on research. Its really quite obvious. the question is not which is better, just which is better for the individual student.</p>

44

<p>It’s telling that nobody singing the praises of “research” here is mentioning that universities view research as a major revenue stream. The pressure is not just to publish, but to bring in dollars.</p>

45

<p>First of all, I am intrigued by the other part of this discussion: “mediocre faculty.” What does that entail? What makes a faculty mediocre? </p>

<p>Yes, even at liberal arts colleges, I have heard of excellent teachers being told that tenure was dependent on their publishing more. It’s a part of the job no matter where you are; the emphasis may be different in degree, but I can’t imagine a college being unconcerned with their faculty’s engagement with the development of their field and discipline (and scholarship is the general way they measure it).</p>

<p>As for research bringing in dollars, that’s not true in every field. What is so “telling” about not talking about outside funding money when we’re talking about the degree to which research and pedagogy may or may not be complementary? I don’t get your “aha” on this.</p>

46

<p>I just thought I’d mention this, since it seems pertinent…</p>

<p>[SparkCollege:</a> Find Your College. Find it Fast.](<a href=“http://college.sparknotes.com/]SparkCollege:”>http://college.sparknotes.com/)</p>

<p>If you search for a school and click on the “students say” tab on the far right, the first question is usually “How involved is the faculty in your academic life?” I compared two top schools and found that at one school, 74% of students agreed with the statement “More than most. They know when I’m lying if I try to use the “my grandmother died” excuse for the third semester in a row” whereas at another top school a mere 27% of students agreed with it.</p>

<p>I know this may not be up to you guys’ standards for accuracy/reliability, but it seems somewhat useful and indicative of just how much the faculty at certain schools really care about their students’ academic development.</p>

47

<p>“It’s telling that nobody singing the praises of “research” here is mentioning that universities view research as a major revenue stream. The pressure is not just to publish, but to bring in dollars.”</p>

<p>“As for research bringing in dollars, that’s not true in every field. What is so “telling” about not talking about outside funding money when we’re talking about the degree to which research and pedagogy may or may not be complementary? I don’t get your “aha” on this.”</p>

<p>I don’t get the aha either.</p>

<p>Maybe… because it is a diversion. :wink: Research and great teaching are not mutually exclusive.</p>

48

<p>Indiejimmy, Cal, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Michigan, MIT and Northwestern do very poorly according to Spark. I don’t mind, those schools are in fine company. But it seems very unreliable. Even schools like Brown and Duke don’t do well.</p>

49

<p>“Research and great teaching are not mutually exclusive.”</p>

<p>Right on.</p>

50

<p>Effective parenting and effective teaching have a similar goal in common. The goal is not to be well-liked (though it is appreciated). The goal is to facilitate your student’s learning (you can’t do it for them)! The effectiveness of one’s teaching are viewed not in the immediate teaching evaluations by the students, but in the subsequent career success of these students!</p>

<p>As a professor, I routinely get high (very good) teaching evaluations in my larger classes. However, these generous evaluations are mainly based on the “entertainment” value perceived by the students. If I am judged based on their their actual learning as evaluated by their standardized tests (GRE) scores, I fair much worse. </p>

<p>In my experience, students do not place sufficient weight on being taught and exposed to the leading edge of their academic areas by leaders in their field (the active researchers). Students often prefer didactic lectures even if inaccurate and out of date! Its simply easier than being challenged to think in the more interactional forums that should be the model of university/college education.</p>

51

<p>The original question was How do you measure faculty quality? The easiest “measure” of faculty quality is student quality, although it is indirect. Student quality and faculty quality go hand in hand.</p>

52

<p>How is that? I see student quality and faculty quality as almost completely distinct measures.</p>

53

<p>Student quality and faculty quality are highly correlated, but different.</p>

<p>Well, I think the debate about pure teacher versus teacher/scholar is relevant and interesting but the important question is whether students are well prepared for their futures as citizens, professionals, graduate students, or whatever. It think both pure teachers and teacher/scholars can provide good preparation depending on what they do in the classroom. There is no good way to get inside the classrooms. There is no good way to separate the effects of good students from the effects of good teachers.</p>

<p>So, how is a parent or prospective student to judge? I would say that the quality of instruction generally rises to the level of the student. And, then good students are attracted to schools with quality instruction and expect quality instruction. So, each school achieves a “dynamic equilibrium” between student quality and teaching quality. It is a law of nature.</p>

<p>Make a value judgement about what you want in your faculty: pure teacher (mostly LAC) vs teacher/scholar (mostly university). This depends somewhat on the discipline. Then go to an LAC or University with the best students you can find.</p>

54

<p>I was going to put down Harvard for this- professors at Harvard routinely pay more attention to their research and grad students than the undergrads (why my friend picked Princeton over Harvard). But then again, do the students at Harvard REALLY need the faculty’s quality?</p>

<p>No. We’ve said on these boards that students don’t generally need to go to Harvard and can do just as well at Berkeley or UVA because they’re motivated. You can’t necessarily judge the quality of faculty based on the quality of students at places like Harvard, Stanford, and other uber-selective schools that look for active learners who can contribute to the discussion and campus life. They’re not going to boost the quality of the faculty. The faculty don’t need these students. One former Harvard prof told his professor wife why he decided to jump ship out of the academia, “My students can read French well in my history class. I assign them readings in French and they do it and can converse in French. Where’s my impact on their learning experience?” Then again, maybe it’s why so many professors at Harvard can get away with a lot of crap for their teaching- their students are so bright.</p>

<p>College is about sinking or swimming. I just don’t think it’s a good idea to measure the faculty’s quality based on the students, except maybe at LACs where there are a lot of close relationships and collaboration between the faculty and students that the faculty have a chance to make an impact.</p>

<p>Again, the main issue is at BIG schools. There are always going to be crappy lecturers who are absolutely brilliant. I had a post-doc fellow from an Ivy League who taught in my course- his first undergraduate course filled with students who did not know a thing about his field and he was absolutely brilliant. But, he couldn’t be coherent in his lecture- couldn’t seem to remind himself that he was lecturing in front of 20 year old students, not 50 year old academics and scholars. We had to remind him to drop the jargon… :)</p>

55

<p>You might be interested in these results of a survey of Cornell faculty. It provides a faculty perspective at a top research university, dirty laundry and all.</p>

<p><a href=“http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000371.pdf[/url]”>http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000371.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

56

<p>The Cornell faculty survey is interesting insofar as it reveals that although faculty at a major research university expected to devote more time to research than to teaching, they report that in fact they devote equal time to research and teaching. Nonetheless, faculty job satisfaction ratings are very high, though somewhat higher for men than for women. This says to me they invest a lot of time in their teaching and don’t mind doing so. My guess is results at other R1 universities would be pretty similar. Most faculty I know enjoy teaching and consider it an equal priority with research.</p>

57

<p>The long list posted by the first respondent is troubling. Class participation should be a significant amount of a grade, and discussion should core to any humanities course.</p>

58

<p>Collegehelp,
Thanks for the link to the Cornell report. I wonder how representative it is of the overall faculty experience at top colleges. </p>

<p>One thing that struck a chord with me was how different the faculty experiences were/are by gender. By and large, men are more prominent in fields such as engineering and math while women are more so in the humanities. The men consistently profess a higher degree of satisfaction with their jobs and various sub-elements that were measured. The women are feeling significantly more stress and are much more likely to consider jumping off the train that is known as the tenure track or even leaving Cornell. I hope that the administration at Cornell is listening to these women because it reads to me like there are some unhappy campers in Ithaca.</p>

59

<p>hawkette-
I really don’t know what to make of the gender difference. I think it probably has to do with juggling two roles for women. There was a lot in the survey about childcare. It might also have to do with rank. I think it is quite stressful until you have tenure. There may be more women without tenure, younger women with families that add to their stress. I never detected any difference in the way male and female professors were regarded by students.</p>

<p>Yes, it does sound like there are some unhappy campers in Ithaca. But the large majority are very satisfied. I suspect that Cornell is probably a better environment than most. I give Cornell credit for tackling faculty issues with such candor and openness and making results public. That indicates a healthy community.</p>

60

<p>As you indicate, the survey results do indicate that most faculty members are happy at Cornell and I don’t want my comments above to convey a different impression. But there is a minority, particularly of women, who aren’t entirely satisfied. If I’m interpreting the survey results correctly, this probably has as much to do with the life that they have created for themselves, in and outside of the workplace, as much as anything else. It’s a tough juggling act for women in academia and in many, many areas of American employment.</p>