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: who really "knows his/her stuff"?

I think Joe has opened many cans.

First I take great exception with his last paragraph (maybe tongue in
cheek?). My first wife is a pianist and for a time very much in demand,
in an admittedly small town, as an accompanist. When I was at Keele she
taught music at one of the local infant schools. She would buy the
latest Beetles records to use as examples -- She said they were as good
as the three B's for teaching and more approachable to the students.
The Stars are composers, arrangers, PR experts, etc. in addition to
being performers. They practice just as much as classical musicians. I
remember in an interview of a very famous star being asked who was his
favo. musician, with no hesitation, JSB. I later learned he'd had a
classical ed., as I think many have.

Given this situation, I can think of three ways an applicant without
the
preferred degree can get careful consideration. (1) The applicant
knows
someone who knows someone... (2) The applicant is already in the
institution in a lower-level position and has proven to be an
exceptional talent. (3) The number of preferred-degree applicants is
very small or zero.



Neither (1) nor (3) even remotely hint at instructional competence.



I voiced the same objection ("old boys' network") to Garrett Hardin who
pointed out that the network had a responsibility to recommend good
people -- it would reflect badly if the recommendee failed to "live up".

I think Joe's other points are serious and point out the elitist nature
of Drs. (not very new)

bc, who thought research was supposed to be confined to U's.


Joe Heafner wrote:

On Jan 20, 2004, at 10:37 PM, Michael Edmiston wrote:



John Denker and others are absolutely correct that (1) having a Ph.D.
in
physics does not guarantee the person can do physics; (2) does not
guarantee the person can teach physics, (3) and not having a Ph.D. in
physics does not mean the person cannot do or teach physics.



Agreed.



But where else do we start? When we have a vacancy for a position
normally held buy a person with a Ph.D., we typically stipulate in the
job description that a Ph.D. is required or at least preferred. Once
when we had an opening for a physicist at my college we said, "Ph.D. in
physics preferred; MS in physics will be considered." We said that
because we were not sure we would have enough Ph.D. applicants.



Was that the only reason?



Goodness, were we ever surprised. We had a little over 200 applicants.
Of those, about 150 had a Ph.D. in physics and about 50 had an MS in
physics. There were a few who applied who did not have a physics
degree
at all. I do not remember any Ed.D. or similar degrees, but there
might
have been a couple.

Some of the MS applicants or no-physics-degree applicants might have
been wonderful physicists and wonderful teachers, but we didn't even
read their applications beyond noting they did not have a Ph.D. We



Technically, then, they were not realistically "considered" as per the
advertisement were they? Is this ethical?



would indeed have read them and considered them if none of the 150
Ph.D.
applicants had worked out. But we never got close to that point. I



Were you not already obligated to read them as per the advertisement?



personally read all 150 Ph.D. applications, taking careful notes. Two
others on the search committee did the same thing. We independently
listed 20 that we liked. When we compared notes we found that the
three
top-twenty lists contained 9 names in common. After a bit of
discussion, those 9 and a few others became our working list. One of
those was eventually hired.



Doesn't it bother you that you may have discarded the application of
the best undergraduate physics instructor your institution ever had?
Personally, that would keep me up nights.



I think this is one of the purposes of a degree. The degree is not a
ticket for a job, but it is a ticket to the applicant pool. If the



Not according to the published advertisement. Is there no
accountability?



Given this situation, I can think of three ways an applicant without
the
preferred degree can get careful consideration. (1) The applicant
knows
someone who knows someone... (2) The applicant is already in the
institution in a lower-level position and has proven to be an
exceptional talent. (3) The number of preferred-degree applicants is
very small or zero.



Neither (1) nor (3) even remotely hint at instructional competence.



Once the person is hired we need to remember the tenure process. If we
goof and hire someone who is not as good as we thought, that person
might be denied tenure. At a small college this could happen because
of
poor scholarship or because of poor teaching. Having the proper Ph.D.
does not guarantee tenure.



Personally, I'd rather be remember for having taught energy concepts
correctly to that intro class than for having tenure. That's just me
though.



Like others, I have known people without a Ph.D. who can run circles
around some who have the Ph.D. In higher education these people face
an
uphill battle. I fought to get an MS person tenured. When that failed
I began fighting to have the person put on continuing two-year
contracts. That would not be the same as tenure, but it would mean the
position is filled and we are not looking. At the present time this
fight has neither been won nor lost. The administration is still
trying
to decide whether to keep this wonderful person or go after a Ph.D. In
view of this type of situation, it's sad that the piece of paper
carries
as much weight as it does, but that's the way it is.



The system is what we have made it. (Well, I didn't have anything to do
with it.)

What's REALLY sad here is that colleges and universities (especially
the large ones) effectively commit false advertising when they toot
their own horns about quality instruction. What they really need to do
is 'fess up and admit up front that their faculty are NOT hired based
on teaching competence, but are hired based on their (somehow
quantified) potential to bring in the grant $$$. Undergrads need to be
aware of this from day one.

Equally sad it the false advertising for positions. When I read "MS
considered" I tend to actually believe that the application will be
read at least once. I suppose I'm being naive.

Sad too is the perception that universities actually promote quality
instruction. If a university wants to be known for it's research
efforts, fine. Be honest and say so up front. Get people in the
classroom who WANT to be there and who CAN provide quality instruction
and who AREN'T treated like poop for doing so. Seriously, I have come
to realize that *teaching* has no uniform definition and this is a
problem. To some among us, *teaching* translates into *preparing
someone to do my own job someday*. To others among us, it translates
into *giving someone the background to do whatever they decide they
want to do*. My own personal translation is *to give someone the
resources he/she needs to get at the truth for himself/herself*. I
suppose there are many more translations. I tend to think that most
universities use the first translation and treat people in the other
categories as unpersons.

Something else that's really sad about this situation is that the
playing field needs to be leveled among all those who WANT to earn a
PhD. It currently is anything but level. Admission into PhD programs
(and I'm speaking of physics and astronomy because that's all I'm
familiar with) is usually based on the applicant's "potential to carry
out independent research". I've no idea how this is objectively
measured, but this often explicitly "weeds out" anyone with an interest
in pursuing the hard science for the purposes of finding better ways of
conveying it in the classroom. I attended the recent AAS meeting in
Atlanta a couple weeks ago (I'm a member and have attended 4 such
national meetings) and you would not believe the degree to which
non-PhD's are snubbed in that organization. They're treated as
intellectual children with no capacity for understanding anything
beyond Coloring 101, and the system is designed to safely perpetuate
this culture. Despite this treatment, there are rare pockets of true
inspiration and honest consideration at these meetings (including the
Atlanta meeting) and I suppose that's what keeps me paying over $200 /
year out of my own pocket to belong to that organization despite my
perceived unwelcomeness (is that a word?). Thank God the AAPT isn't
like that!



In summary... (1) Those exceptional people without a Ph.D. are going to
have a significant uphill battle, particularly trying to land their



Then why not give them a fair shot at the high glorious honor of
earning the magic letters so they will be considered human?



first job or to move to a different institution. (2) Those who have a
Ph.D., but aren't very good, can be weeded out. I admit this does not
always happen.



They CAN be weeded out, but let's be honest. They frequently are NOT;
there wouldn't be enough physics/astronomy faculty left! This is one
reason for the general poor quality of undergraduate science
instruction. I'd go so far as to say it's THE major reason. I may be
wrong.

If I seem bitter, it's only because I am. If I knew then what I know
now, I would have thrown the science thing out the window and majored
in music as an undergrad. Then I could have become a rock star, which
doesn't require any talent or skill and the pay is a helluva lot
better.

...my poor cramped fingers...

Cheers,
Joe Heafner -- Astronomy/Physics Instructor (not really)