I have a few opinions/comments. Don't look for one overall point
because I am making several points.
(1) I think on a continuum between worst teacher and best teacher there
is a big overlap between those with the MS and those with the PhD.
However, I am inclined to put the bottom of the MS slightly lower than
the bottom of the PhD, and I am inclined to put the top of the PhD
slightly higher than the top of the MS.
A PhD typically has more experiences and depth of experiences to draw
from. There is an advantage to being able to say, "been there done
that," and I think a PhD is likely to be able to say that more often.
If the PhD has done a post-doc there are even more experiences to draw
from.
If the goal is good teaching, I personally would certainly take an MS
applicant with excellent teaching skills over a PhD with poor teaching
skills. However, if the teaching skills were equal, I would have to go
with the PhD.
In the faculty searches I have been involved with there was no shortage
of PhD applicants who appeared to have very good teaching skills and
genuinely seemed to have a desire to teach. Several years ago when we
had an opening for a physicist we had over 200 PhD applicants, and my
little school only had 800 students at the time, and our salaries are
low, our teaching loads are high, and our research capability is almost
nonexistent. If the letters of recommendation are accurate, at least
half the applicants had demonstrated excellent teaching skills.
(2) The statements of others that administrators want to talk about the
number of faculty with terminal degrees is certainly accurate. There
have been some instances where I thought hiring an MS candidate was the
appropriate choice, but that got vetoed by people higher than me.
(3) High schools around here will hire PhD scientists and have done so.
Indeed, they are usually glad to do so, assuming the person is a good
teacher. It does not cost them any extra money, and they can boast they
have PhD faculty members. It does not cost more because all the
teaching contracts I am aware of max out at MS or MS+15hrs (15 semester
hours of course work beyond the masters). Thus, the PhD contractually
cannot be given a salary higher than the top slot on the pay scale,
which is either MS or MS+15 around here. Note, "around here" is rural
Ohio... I am aware some city schools have pay scales that include PhD.
A good friend of mine (with PhD in chemistry) quit college teaching
after 20 years and then taught high school chemistry for over 10 years.
He loved teaching HS, and the students and faculty loved him. The
superintendent wanted him so badly that he counted his 20 years of
college teaching as "teaching experience" even though contractually they
would not have had to do so. That means he hired in at the top of the
pay scale. Nonetheless, he took a salary cut from what he was making in
college... but he didn't care.
I can't speak for other areas of the country, or even other areas of
Ohio, but this is what I observe around here.
(4) Even the small colleges and even the community colleges have
administrators who are pushing their faculty to do research and publish.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but it is happening. When I got
tenure, it was based solely on teaching and service to the college and
community. I pity those seeking tenure now because those things are
necessary but not sufficient. Publications or other evidence of
scholarly activity is expected, yet the teaching loads are high enough
and the resources are scarce enough that real research is nearly
impossible.
Quality teaching is still the number one criterion, but rather than
weighing in at perhaps 90% 20 years ago(when I got tenure) it probably
weighs in at 60% today.
Perhaps most harsh in this regard are branch campuses of major
universities. I have friends who teach at branch campuses of Ohio State
University. The university intends that you are getting a degree from
"The Ohio State University" whether you attend a branch campus or attend
the main campus in Columbus. Therefore the courses are same, the
textbooks are the same, the labs are the same, etc. And...
qualifications and expectations of the faculty are the same. To get
tenure at a branch campus requires the same criteria as getting tenure
at the main campus. I called that harsh because it is clear, especially
in science, that the branch campuses do not have the labs and lab
support staff of the main campus.
Note, I am impressed that it appears OSU comes pretty close to carrying
out the goal. A student who completes a degree at a branch campus does
not experience the size and "atmosphere" of the Columbus campus, and
that is not insignificant in one's education. But the branch-campus
students probably experience course work that is at least equal and
perhaps better than students on main campus. I say perhaps better
because the professors have to do more of the work (no graduate
students) at the branch campuses. Repeat... this is just my impression.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l