Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: PER vs EdD (SciEd)



There's a rather well known E. Coast U. where an Asst. Prof. was granted
tenure on the basis of his teaching. Unfortunately, he stopped
developing and just coasted. I think my informant said they'd never
make that mistake again.

In the 70's CC's tightened up their hiring and I had to give a lecture
*. The Physics Chair said I was fine except so nervous the students
became nervous. A year or two later I tried again -- my life must have
been better, because at the end of the lecture I got applause! I stayed
there 'till I moved to Santa Cruz.

* For all the previous jobs the credential and interview had been
sufficient. Incidentally, now there is no credential and CC's have
great latitude in qualification demanded.

That chair decided to see how the big boys did it at the local U. The
lecturer wasn't aware the air track wasn't level and gave up on that
part. I don't remember what else happened, but the CC Physics Chair was
quite self satisfied as the lecturer was a N. L.

bc


John Denker wrote:

Quoting "Edmiston, Mike" <edmiston@BLUFFTON.EDU>:



Notice that I said terminal degree IN THE FIELD.

The Ed.D. may be a terminal degree in the field of education, but it
is not the terminal degree in the field of physics.



There's a point to be made, and it is made properly below, but
that's not the right way to begin the discussion.

There's a difference between a _real thing_ and the _symbol_
that symbolizes the thing. If you observe that a light switch
is in the "on" position it does not prove that the light is on.
Maybe it indicates that the light is _supposed_ to be on or is
_desired_ to be on ... but wishing doesn't make it so.

I spent a few years as a manager in a rather well-respected
research lab. Two of the most productive (and highly paid)
researchers had no doctoral degrees at all; they had started
as technical assistants and worked their way up through the
ranks. (Not everyone -- not even all the managers -- were
aware of this. They sorta assumed that all the hot-shots had
doctorates, and I didn't bother to disabuse them.)

Furthermore, many of the other hot-shots got their doctorates in
fields far afield from their current activities.




I teach at a small college. One of the things that prospective
students (and parents) want to know is whether the courses will
be taught by real "whatever."



I know of a small college that hired some guy as professor of
biology even though his PhD was not "IN THE FIELD". As I recall,
the guy's name was Max Delbrück.
http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1969/delbruck-bio.html

I personally have taught a few computer science courses. I have
no degrees "IN THE FIELD". Forsooth I have never even taken a
single course "IN THE FIELD".

Will the chemistry courses be taught by "real chemists."


Will the history classes be taught by "real historians." In this
context I think "real" means that the person has done and/or is doing
physics research



That's the right way to say it. Somebody should get the
physics teaching job based on whether they REALLY know
their stuff and REALLY know how to teach it ... and
possessing a piece of sheepskin that says PhD on it is
neither necessary not sufficient.



as opposed to physics education research.



I agree, based on what I've seen published in the PER literature,
that a PER degree is not reliable evidence of competence in physics,
nor in education, nor in research.



Said another
way, are the courses going to be taught by "practicing physicists"
where
practicing means doing actual physics or having done/published actual
physics



Right.