Professors and PhD's

I had a fairly insignificant argument a few days back about college professors and PhD's. Or so I thought. Apparently, the pedagological issues which I seemed to be defending aren't as popular and widespread as I maybe would like them to be.

Let me first say that it is really, incredibly hard to be a teacher of anything, and I am guessing that it is equally as hard, if not more difficult, to be a college professor.

For me, my education largely comes from my own personal motivation to learn; to take interesting courses with interesting professors and to pursue, hopefully, learning which is enhanced from the classroom setting, not dictated by it. This view has probably been cemented into my mind because it has worked for me (sure, call me a pragmatist, go ahead, do it, I dare you) in my educational past as well as in college.

My First-Year Seminar professor, Eileen Stillwaggon, on the very first day of my collegiate classroom career told us that college is what the individual student and human being makes it. She gave us this advice for college (not exact quotes): 1) if you're in a class you don't like, switch out. 2) if you don't like the professor of a class in which you're enrolled, switch out. 3) if you don't like the syllabus of the course or the listed course materials and don't see the educational value of the course, switch out.

This is pretty good advice, and advice which coheres exactly to my feelings on education. Throughout high school, my school, Carolina Friends School, sought to make learning an individual thing, where individual students were largely responsible for the courses they took and the material they learned. Students, in the words of english/philosophy teacher Jamie Hysjulien, "got out what they put in," and, to some extent, were only as successful as they let themselves become.

I'm fairly certain that this applies to students everywhere--on a general scale, a student gets out what they put in to a course, an assignment, a paper or a discussion. Yes, of course there are outliers and exceptions, but for the most part, this statement can be said to be true.

Personally, I don't take classes which I don't like the syllabus, the professor or the course as a whole, and I feel like I am a much better student because of it. Sure, I'm just barely going to fulfill my graduation requirements, but I'd really like to wait to take a course like ES 196, in which I am interested, rather than take Bio 102 or 111, Chem 107 or 111, or any other science like that. Yes, biology and chemistry are important to learn about, but I have learned enough about them through high school, summer school and academic programs, for which I didn't get collegiate credit (though I really think I should). I've had enough chemistry. There was a point where I felt like there was nothing else that I wanted to do with my life, but that was ruined by one bad four-week summer experience with two terrible teachers and a boring labratory assignment. But I digress...

The point is this: I can honestly say that I am so successful in school because I am interested. But why am I interested in, say, ES 196 or IDS 121 or philosophy? To some extent, it is a personal experience, but by no means have my experiences been solely individual and personal. I'm not afraid to say that I derive a lot of interest from the people in my life which interest me. This includes my friends (think: my individual study this term), my classmates (think: facilitation discussions for 208), and my professors (think: Phil. Department, Will Lane and Professor Stillwaggon).

What am I saying here? A student can only be successful if they are surrounded by interesting people? No. I'm not saying that this is the only way a student can excel in an academic setting, because there are 8-12 different ways an individual can learn (think: 8 styles of learning), and I'm sure that I can be perfectly "type-casted" into a few of these catagories. I'm trying to suggest that having interesting people in the academic setting can greatly help a student learn.

So what makes an interesting person? And, in a similar vein, what makes a teacher a "good teacher?" Are these the same thing?

I've had very many "good teachers" who happened to be interesting people, but I have also had a bunch of teachers who couldn't for their lives teach a subject but who also happened to be interesting people.

I'll reiterate: it must be really hard to be a teacher. I've taught kids how to shoot archery, helped tutor kids younger than me, and taught a number of courses at CFS and in my community, yet, I have never tried to teach philosophy, or chemistry, or even good writing. I can't imagine how hard it must be to teach.

So, a few days ago, I was out to dinner, and we were discussing the predicament that seems to have befallen the Spanish Department at the College. I could be wrong, but I have heard that the problem is this: professors are getting fired because they don't hold PhD's.

This seems ridiculous to me. Three letters can't possibly dictate that you are a good teacher. Some of the most brilliant teachers I have had don't hold PhD's, Master's degrees, MBA's or even BS's or BA's. These three letters only indicate that you've been to school longer, not that you've studied to become a professor who teaches college students. To some extent, I imagine that teaching college students (or any age, for that matter) can't be taught. To some extent, it must be learned as an acquired skill, and, it must be the case that some people are better suited to become teachers in a collegiate setting.

Yes, I understand that, for college professors, teaching is actually a secondary, or even tertiary job, as publication and research work are far more important to the Administration than it maybe should be. If the College really wishes to pursue the goals which I believe it lists (think: global involvement), or would like to herald the accomplishments which I believe it should (think: CPS), than maybe the focus for our professors should be teaching, and not research. Aspazia and Steve G. both have really solid posts on this notion, found here: http://melancholicfeminista.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-lessons-from-harvard-on-how-to.html
and here: http://www.philosophersplayground.blogspot.com/

The argument went a little like this: I said it was ridiculous to judge someone's teaching ability based on the degree they had. She said that having a PhD ought to be required for any college professor. I asked why this should be a blanket statement, asserting that I've had many teachers who could completely successfully teach a college course (and have) without a PhD. She responded that the knowledge which professors with PhD's are required to acquire through graduate school and a dissertation allow for them to become better teachers. I wanted to know why knowledge is what makes someone a good teacher... she didn't have an answer and then we pretty much dropped it at that.

I kind of wish I'd pursued the argument further, but I also felt completely unable to explain my thoughts at that time. Both Steve G and Aspazia have shared perspectives, as professors, on this, and I can say now that I better understand how "the system" works. But I am in complete agreement with Aspazia who writes,

• "At present, we spend far too much time trying to build consensus on good teaching, on good advising, on our curriculum. The fact is that faculty will never agree on these matters and trying to get everyone on the same page is a losing battle. We aren't just going to make nice and commit to a overarching image of what makes our college great. But, there are faculty around doing the kind of work--i.e. innovative course design, service learning courses, team taught courses, courses with travel/field research built in, doing active research with students, etc.--that epitomize what many of the administrators would like Gettysburg to look like (at least according to the Strategic Planning documents). So, it seems that one way to drive change here would be to reward, and really reward, faculty who are doing what we think best embodies the mission of of this college. As it stands now--like at many colleges--there are not a lot of incentives for creative and innovative teaching (outside of intrinsic desire) and there are NO DISINCENTIVES for bad behavoir."

This pretty much sums up a lot of my sentiments on the issue.

I would really like the College to encourage the creative and innovative ideas of professors who really want to encourage learning through service experiences, team-taught courses, travel-based courses and experimental courses. I'd really like the College to encourage students to learn outside of the classroom and give them some form of credit for service work (think CPS), community action planning and programming (think internships... namely, mine), teaching (think GRAB, GRASS, AI, tutoring programs, etc) and other innovative and interesting ideas. I've always thought it would be cool for the management majors to have it required to start a business, for the physics majors to design and perform an mass experiment for demonstration at the College and other things of this nature. Student films coming out of IDS Film Majors to be shown at a College sponsored film festival? Students getting credit for making independent films to be screened at this festival? Yeah, these are definate learning opportunities for students who actively want to pursue them--why shouldn't the college give them credit?

It's about time that College Institutions provide their actively learning students the recognition they deserve, and it's about time that they provide their outstanding faculty teachers with the support and encouragement that they deserve.