| | I was struck by the part of Professor Moglen's lecture yesterday on our education system, and I wish to address some particularly troublesome thoughts that I've had regarding our higher education system (university level and beyond).
Prof. Moglen said that in general, professors don't care about their students very much. Instead of learning about their students, they would rather sit around in a faculty lunch and discuss how intelligent they are. While as an undergraduate, I had sinking suspicions of this sentiment, it was only until I worked as a graduate student TA that I realized the pervasiveness of this truth. I pursued a PhD? in engineering in part because of my love for teaching, and I was shocked to realize how few professors truly care about it. As a TA, I have worked for professors who rehash each year's lecture on dull powerpoint presentations despite repeated critical evaluations of their ineffectiveness, delegating almost all aspects of evaluation (including all test writing, grading, and office hours) to me and almost all aspects of actual learning to the student himself. In fact, while conversing with fellow graduate students, I have heard of certain professors openly declaring that they cared nothing about their undergraduates, that they were a pain in the ass, and that they would rather do research. And this was at a university which was consistently ranked in the top 5 in the nation and liked to boast of the success of their graduates in that particular field. | | | I do agree however, that something should be done about the "prestige" issue, because Alex and everyone else are right that it is too pervasive in our decision making process and it really only detracts from our ability to make good choices about the future. I think we need to start by asking: what does "prestige" really measure? What does "prestige" mean? So that we can extract any base level of value and disregard the superfluous remains.
I'm not sure eliminating tenure is the way to go to fix this, because I think tenure has a value in intellectual freedom that far exceeds its cost in terms of keeping "bad teachers" around. I also don't think that getting professors from lower ranked schools is the way to go because I disagree that there is a correlation between prestigious schools and bad teachers, and less prestigious schools and good teachers. I think it depends on the individual professors, which is why I think more emphasis on student evaluations would be a good idea, particularly in making hiring decisions. Additionally, since we all look to US News to tell us which schools are prestigious/good, and we would like "good" to include some measure of how much professors care about us, why not get US News to include "student satisfaction" in their measure of prestige? | |
>
> | --Main. MolissaFarber? - 11 Mar 2009
Thanks, everyone, for the critique of my writing. After reading your comments, I see how certain points in my writing necessarily should have been strengthened. And of course, certain stylistic issues as pointed out by Molissa should be addressed. However, I am a bit loath to edit my original writing, because I feel like it would distract from the discussion and make it confusing for subsequent readers.
I think the focus, as Joe, Will, and Molissa have pointed out, is where does prestige come from, and is it really separate from "real" factors? Which would then logically flow to Uchechi's point: is there a "solution", if any is needed?
I have thought a long time about the origin of prestige. What makes an institution "prestigious?" There are many possible factors. One, for example, is acceptance rate. But it is clear that a smaller student body/acceptance rate does not make a school better; in fact, if an institution were to become "too" selective, I would argue that the student body is harmed as a whole. I have arrived at the simple conclusion that what makes an institution great is the quality of the graduates it produces. If xyz law school consistently manages to produce 10 Supreme Court clerks a year and a number of presidents, senators, partners, etc., then it will necessarily become more desirable-- and therefore, "more prestigious", if we define "prestige" as "something that desired by more people."
Now, to determine if "prestige" is separate of "real" factors, we must consider whether in the face of the quality of the teaching, the acceptance rate, the location, even the statistical measure of its student body, etc., the above statement still holds true. I would say that it does. I do not have empirical data to support my assertions, but I would find it hard to believe that a student, in weighing the quality of the graduates against the "other" factors, would weigh the "other" factors more heavily. Of course, here is a huge weakness in my argument, because surely someone can say that they chose an institution based more on "teaching" or for example, even more absurdly, "acceptance rate," than the "quality of the graduates." Moreover, there must be some sort of balancing test: for example, given two "equal" graduating classes, something else must tip the balance; these factors will be assigned a different weight by different individuals based on personal preference.
I simply assert that on the whole, the quality of the graduates is the single largest factor in what makes an institution "prestigious." And this factor is not necessarily connected to one of the major purposes of attending university, which is namely, teaching and learning. I am not saying that one will never find good teachers at prestigious universities. I am not even asserting that good teachers are harder to find at prestigious universities because they have been hired for their star power. I am just saying that it is hypocritical for these institutions to claim that education is their top priority when it is clearly an independent factor. Their cycle of prestige is more self-perpetuating than a result of the education they provide. If a certain university is blessed with a crop of self-motivated high achievers, this will inevitably attract a next group of such students, INDEPENDENT of the actual teaching of the university.
Whether or not there is a "solution" to this "problem" is even more opaque. Firstly, what is it that we are trying to solve? Prof. Moglen suggested that the faculty be focused on learning about the individual and how best to educate him or her. If we see this as the endpoint goal, then I don't know of any feasible solutions. There is no way to make someone truly care who doesn't want to. If we wish to make education as the main goal of universities instead of research, star power, etc., I also see this as untenable. Universities would not sacrifice scholarship in the face of education because it would destroy their cycle of prestige attraction. I see the best solution as "changing the minds and hearts of people," to go to the institution that will best educate them. But this solution is ALSO impossible, because there is no objectively fair way to determine how well an institution will educate oneself without having already been in it.
Molissa has similarly proposed a solution that she has identified as unlikely to work or be instituted. Even providing something in USNews would be wildly subjective and individualized; there is no way to generalize a "satisfaction score" to a university with infinite variables.
Because I see no solutions, I am depressed.
--Main. AlexHu? - 12 Mar 2009 |
|