Office-Hour Habits of the North American Professor 286
An anonymous reader writes "For those of you who wonder just exactly what it is that your advisor is up to when you try to find him and meet with him, The Chronicle of Higher Education has a study on the
Office-Hour Habits of the North American Professor."
Re:That door-closer... (Score:2, Insightful)
A friend who's dad happens to be the dean of my particular college said that there was a movement a few years ago to start phasing out tenure but it was thought that if one school did it all the professors would flock to the schools that hadn't.
It's the biggest detriment to the university system today, hands down.
Black VS. White (Score:5, Insightful)
My first college was a institution primarily occupied by african americans. It was a school traditionally attended by the poor african american class. Some statistics handed out at orinetation were the fact that 90% of the student body worked and that 75% were the first person in their family history ever to attend college. The thing I noticed in my two years there was that the professors kept massive office hours. Typical was 20 or more a week. The more common occurence was that if the professor was not in his/her class then they were in their office. Of further note was the fact that almost no research was done at this instituion, the primary focus was to teach and that is what the teachers did.
After my two years there I left to go to a primarily white middle class college across town. When I arrived there I found it nearly impossible to locate a teacher outside of class. Both places I had been folowing primarily an electrical engineering course track. One had been acredited and one had not, the reason for my transfer.
I was applaled at the lack of teacher availibility at the white school. The indiference that the teachers showed. I would also like to point out the fact that a major focus of this school was research as the school wanted to see itself as a state leader.
The point is that 10 hours a week in the office for teachers is really silly. A teacher needs to be a mentor also. They need to make themselves available to help advance the students. The black school recognixed this and made their focus teaching, the white school did not, and made their focus research.
The sad part was that the black school was in an economically depressed part of town and had little money coming in. The white school , which focussed on research, had lots of money coming in. This made the white school appear prosperous, and in a lot of peoples minds, a better school to attend. They could have not been more wrong.
Re:That door-closer... (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe some of you would like that, but I'd rather learn from someone who wasn't afraid to say 'the wrong thing' and lose his job because crybabies like you folks didn't get the A you deserved (just because you signed up for the class!)
Re:That door-closer... (tenure) (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize there are good reasons for getting upset with the tenure system, but I think it's important we keep in mind the reason why tenure exists: academic freedom. Tenure is not supposed to protect an instructor who is incompetent, unethical, or burnt out. And there is nothing in a tenured professor's contract that would imply otherwise. Nonetheless, it does sometimes does wind up doing that, because professors who abuse the system will wave the tenure contract around and threaten lawsuits, and most departments would rather keep things quiet than actually fight these people. Frankly I think that's a failure of will on the part of such departments. But tenure contracts are essential in any occupation where academic freedom is an issue. Otherwise it is too easy to imagine instructors fired for dissenting views or research. This isn't always about politics either -- imagine for example an agriculture professor whose research is critical of factory farming. Imagine that professor teaches at a university in Iowa whose board of regents comprises factory farming interests. I think the academic freedom implications of the First Amendment demand something like tenure in the public university system (and I think all serious universities should have some legal assurance like that).
But I do not think tenure should be used as an excuse not to deal with professors who have stopped doing their jobs, who are simply incompetent, who constantly prey on sexy coeds, etc. Universities have a post-tenure review process to keep track of what professors do after tenure, but these reviews tend to cover up some of the worst problems rather than rooting them out. It's not a failure of tenure but of the people charged with implementing it; tenured and non-tenured faculty alike should demand better, IMHO.
Re:Obviously written by non-engineering professor. (Score:1, Insightful)
It wouldn't surprise me if the professor had ADD.
You'd probably get a far better response just emailing him a couple of times, or asking him, leaving for a bit, and seeing what he has to say about it in half an hour (you might need to do this more than once). You might even get a better response than anyone else can provide.
Just a guess.
Re:Keep in mind (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So true (Score:5, Insightful)
In the clinical setting, mornings are traditionally the time you spend in rounds educating your students before patients are discharged, while in the basic science setting, mornings are good times to deal with student issues so that you don't have to take time out of your schedule in the day when you are either 1) in the writing groove or 2) in the middle of an experiment. It also shows to the professor or instructor that the students will make the effort to get their asses out of bed to meet with them when they themselves are "at work".
Been there, done that (Score:5, Insightful)
The Be-All: This individual pretends that s/he can satisfy all needs of all comers, be they students, other faculty, or administrators. Almost no request for help or information is turned away, regardless of how busy they may be. They are involved in all manner of teaching activities, advising, research projects, and innovative technology initiatives. They live in terror of being faulted for any shortcoming.
These individuals are typically on the tenure-track and eager to please. Consequently, they are well-liked by students, skeptically admired by colleagues, and occasionally praised by administrators. They secretly sneer (though with jealousy) at other more established faculty who actually know how to set limits, manage their time, and handle all the constantly shifting pressures inherent in the job.
Sometimes, though, Be-Alls fall victim to their optimism. Too many early mornings, missed lunches, and late nights take their toll. A few gain wisdom in time and become more focused on that which is needed to obtain tenure. Some, however, become physically, psychologically, and emotionally exhausted and migrate to a normal life.
"Tenure decisions are made at the time of hiring." Or so it has been said.
Tenure (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens with tenure? The non-tenured junior professor works his or her ass off doing what may well be the best work of their career. Once tenured, there is undoubtedly a relaxation, but if the granting faculty have done their job, they selected someone who will continue on at a strong pace. Although my experience is clearly limited, I know of no cases where a tenured professor has relaxed to the point where he has become a burden on the institution. That, dear reader, does not mean it does not happen, just that my experiences at research universities has been otherwise.
There certainly are times when bad decisions have been made, either for or against granting tenure, but to my experience they are by and large carefully made and good ones. Harvard or MIT, for two ready examples, would not be what they are today were it not for tenure.
And what are the alternatives? Periodic contract renewal? Northeastern University has phased out nearly all of its tenured faculty in favor of part-time professors (my mother among them). I fear greatly for the long-term prospects of NU, as they will not be able to attract world-class faculty by offering renewable short-term contracts. Remember, a university is NOT a business, and there is no reason for it to be run under a business model.
Imagine the following difference in job offers: "hey, you're pretty good, stick around for 3 years, and we'll see if we still want you," or "we believe in you, here's a job for life." Which system encourages far-sighted research plans? Which system encourages making good long-term decisions rather optimizing short-term gain? Which system allows development of highly devoted faculty?
Tenure, frankly, one of the major differences between business and academia, is one of the main reasons my career is firmly on the professorial route.
The biggest detriment to the university system, in my opinion, is athletics. There is no defensible justification for big athletic programs except greed, and that has no place in the university system. Get rid of professional athletes masquerading as students, get rid of athletic scholarships, get rid of lower standards for athletes, do all this and the American university system will be driven more towards a meritocracy and *then* you'll have something. Get rid of tenure? Either the person suggesting that is just confused, works at a lower-tier school where the long-term future isn't a real concern, or is a bean counter at heart.
Re:Black VS. White (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part was that the black school was in an economically depressed part of town and had little money coming in. The white school , which focussed on research, had lots of money coming in. This made the white school appear prosperous, and in a lot of peoples minds, a better school to attend. They could have not been more wrong.
Your observations are all good ones-- but I suspect they have more to do with "teaching focused" than "research focused". There are a number of high-end, highly-focused, full-of-rich-kids schools out there which consider teaching their primary mission, and as such both select professors more for that than for research, and set up the rewards system for professors based on their teaching. (In contrast, many research-focused universities almost don't care about teaching when it comes to granting tenure. Research reputation and funding is it.)
I'm talking about the Swarthmores, the Haverfords, the Oberlines, the Claremont Colleges of the world. All of these are relatively "rich" schools, but feature excellent teaching.
The real pity, as you note, is when excellent teaching at "poor" schools is overlooked.
-Rob
Re:professors..... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not usually. Professors are at a school for a variety of reasons, and it's not uncommon for them to regard teaching as the least important of them. Often they're there mostly to do research. Publication enhances their prestige and that of the school, which is why successful research and publication is so important in achieving a professorship. Less so actual teaching in most cases, although one of the the burdens that must be shouldered by the up-and-coming in academia is the lion's share of the instruction, mainly when the professors don't want to deal with it.
I was fortunate enough to have attended a private college [stevens-tech.edu] where I never encountered a single professor who was uninterested in teaching or who ever tried to avoid the students. (This was also a place where the huge lectures with the professor followed by smaller recitation sessions with TAs were the norm only during freshman year. After that, the professors mostly taught their classes personally.) But I've heard enough horror stories to understand that this is far from being the case everywhere.
Re:That door-closer... (tenure) (Score:4, Insightful)
The general Slashdot reader might be surprized at how much influence the perceived behavior of a professor has on things like the number of committees he is assigned to, the number of students he is allowed to have, how much office and laboratory space he is allocated, and things of this ilk. While it is rare to a professor to have tenure revoked (which, to my mind, is not unlike disbarring a laywer or decertifying a doctor
When a student complains to the faculty about one member in particular, it can have far-reaching consquences. When the student writes a cogent letter to the dean of the school, it can make a big difference. But do you want to revoke tenure for someone who isn't teaching well? No, you want him to teach better. Ignoring his students? Make him pay attention. Violating some student-faculty handbook rue? Make him honor it. Revoking tenure is for eggregious cases such as when a professor sleeps with his students, misappropriates funds, or commits scientific fraud.
Deep hack mode... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why I'll hide if I want to get any research done.
Re:Tenure (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with a lot of what you say, but Harvard's tenure practices are pretty obnoxious. They don't grow their own talent - it's effectively impossible to go from associate to full professor there - but instead skim the best professors from other institutions.
There are other problems with tenure as a system, too. Institutions which see themselves as primarily research-orientated often really devalue the work done by their associate profs. who are interested in teaching as well as research, sometimes to the extent of discounting entire books when it comes to reviewing publications to see if you're worthy of tenure. I think that's as short-sighted as replacing tenure with renewable contracts. Also, if you're in the invidious position of having been denied tenure somewhere, you'll have a very, very hard time getting it anywhere else, even if the denial was politically motivated.
Tenure, frankly, one of the major differences between business and academia, is one of the main reasons my career is firmly on the professorial route.
Good luck, and watch your back. Academics is a full contact sport, sometimes.
Re:professors..... (Score:4, Insightful)
You thought wrong.
It all depends on the school. This is especially true of research oriented schools where a fair portion of a professors salary is paid out by that professors research grant(s). If you want to go to a school to get taught, go to a technical college/trade school. If you want to go to learn, go to a university.
Re:Tenure (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Yes, tenure has some huge problems.
2) But it's good, too!
3) Periodic contract renewal is bad, too.
4) Athletic programs cause huge problems, too.
All of those are true, but are worthelss statements for fixing tenure. If you want to keep it, justify your answer. Employing misdirection only makes me want to classify you in with some of the lesser of your collegues.
Doesn't even cross their minds (Score:5, Insightful)
My graduate advisor is one of these shooting-star big shots on his way up. He's been tenured for a while, and now holds several high-powered positions of responsibility under his belt, federal grant review committees, editorships, directorship of a research center, yadda yadda. He does not give a flying fuck about office hours or undergrads. Really.
He understands one thing: Science. If you ain't talkin the talk, you're wasting his time. He doesn't want to hear about your trifles and personal dilemmas. He doesn't want to hear your frustration with course conflicts and
hand-wringing about your grades. Unless you are a *brilliant* undergrad who has thought about research, preferably his research, and you have new ideas and are there to make your impressive intellect available at his disposal...you're meaningless.
Alas, I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect only a little bit. Yeah, he's cognizant of his duty to teaching. In an annoyed way. Yeah, he'll do his service to his undergraduate advisees--begrudgingly--but with the correct outward social demeanor. But, damn. He's BUSY. And not with you.
I mean shit..his postdocs and grad students barely get a moment of face time...which MAY, in his less sociopathic moments, give him a twinge of guilt...but how hapless are you if you think neglecting the UNDERGRADS gives him pause.
And so much for those of you who think tenure leads to lazy sitting on laurels. This guy is seriously busy. Just not with mentoring YOU. Orchestrating large-scale research endeavors? Yes. Marshalling serious funding dollars? Yes. Preaching the theoretic gospel to better-positioned colleagues? Yes. Shmoozing deans and politicians? Yes. YOU? No.
Not every prof is like this. Even some of the most elite are still very fond of the unwashed undergraduate masses. But when I think back, as an undergrad, to how important I thought my academic issues were to my professors, and how entitled I felt to their time, and how high priority undergraduate mentoring must be to research faculty. Wow. I was silly. Professors, in my experience, do not think in terms of the "merchant/client" model like most kids who throw out the "hey, I'm PAYING for this" argument do. Professors see their money coming from granting agencies, not your mom and dad.
OK, can ya tell I've got issues with this guy's style? He's brilliant, but what a dick.
Anyway...if you have a professor who's both a credit to his field and a credit to your education, give him your thanks. It's a rare combination.
(BTW, this guy's office hours are strictly "by appointment only," which, I've noticed, is a growing trend in scheduling office hours. You think he's got time to leave hours open for unannounced interruption?! No, no, no.)
Re:Black VS. White (Score:0, Insightful)
god, this term makes me choke. look at me, i have red hair, white skin and freckles and my last name starts with Mc. perhaps 200 years ago my family migrated to america from scotland.
do i consider myself scottish-american? no! i'm american, and that's that.
look, just call them americans. if you need to emphasize that they're black, say black americans. if you wanted to emphasize that a certain group of americans were white, wouldn't you say white americans?
oh, and in case there's any black dude out there with mod-points, do your worst.
Re:It's not that bad (Score:1, Insightful)
If a serious researcher is NOT teaching, then the researcher should get ZERO percent of the money provided by undergraduates. They should be 100% funded by their research grants -- which is practically impossible, because undergraduate money is usually thrown in a large pool of money that supplies electricity, telephones, secretaries, landscaping (water, gardeners), janitors, and so forth that help to subsidize the research professor.
And from experience, graduate students are NOT the best teachers:
1) They do not always have the desired maturity and social skills.
2) They do not always have the patience.
3) They do not always have teaching skills. ("Teaching" means more than just rambling on in front a large group of people. It means involvement, assigning appropriate problems commensurate with the material covered in lecture, grading papers as feedback to see if the lectures were effective, and adjusting future lectures as necessary.)
4) They have no track record to tell how effective their teaching skills are. What are students going to say about them 5 years from now? Are the students going to be in a professional position that their teachers thought they would be? Are the graduate students necessarily going to be where THEY thought they were going to be?
5) There seems to be no real "screening" process for the suitability of a graduate student for teaching positions.
Sadly, every single one of the criticisms I mentioned could be leveled at professors as well. Just about every single professor in college I had was a lousy teacher or explainer, but great at playing the research-grant-game.
Re:What's next? (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the posts under this article are rather one-sided -- the parent is the only one that really considers the student as a locus of responsibility for learning. Someone mentioned sarcastically a professor who taught his students the value of reading their textbooks and working cooperatively -- those are real values the students will need in the much-fabled "real world."
Imagine you hire two engineers, fresh from e-school. Both work on tasks beyond their immediate scope of knowledge; let's say each has to code in a new language he's never seen before. One actively searches for information, buys and reads books on the new language, and works together with his teammates to solve problems. The other emerges only from his cubicle to ask his immediate superior, who is working on other matters, how to write code. Worker number two never asks anyone else, never tries to figure out his problems on his own, never takes initiative but expects to be spoonfed. Who gets the better performance evaluation?
I recognize that the analogy is not exact, but the student who actively seeks knowledge to solve problems on his own will learn more than one who wishes to be given the answers while remaining passive. Further, he who seeks to solve problems with his peers is also teaching his peers, and teaching is one of the best ways of learning. Cooperative study and teamwork is very much the trend in elementary and secondary education for precisely the reasons sketched above.
None of this absolves a professor from the responsibilty of being available to answer the occasional question, but the student who is dependent on the professor is also in breach of his responsibilities as an active learner.
Re:The Absent. (Score:1, Insightful)
Gosh, your life is terrible, isn't it? Heaven forbid that you would have to spend 24 hours mulling over a problem before you trouble someone else with it.