[Physltest] [Phys-L] Re: Arizona State University: Lecturer position in physics

[Joe Heafner <heafnerj@CTC.NET>]

On Nov 29, 2004, at 6:33 PM, Frohne, Vickie wrote:

> Many of us Ph.D.'s actually are excellent teachers, thank you very
> much. Having performed some searches myself, I'm certain that the
> search committee at Arizona will be able to find plenty of highly
> qualified candidates that meet the stated academic criteria and who
> are vastly superior teachers, too.

As this will be my final post to PHYS-L and I am unsubscribing
immediately after sending this, I see no harm in responding.

First, I sent what I thought was a private reply to Jane Jackson and
apparently I mistakenly sent my reply to the entire list. Off list, I
falsely accused Vicki of making my "private" reply public. I have
already sincerely apologized to her for that and I do so again now in
front of everyone.

Yes, I'm sure plenty of "highly qualified candidates" will be found. I
chuckle every month when I read the ads in the back of Physics Today.
The funniest ones are the ones that read, and I quote, "...teaching
experiences beyond PhD are preferred." and "Candidates ...should show
potential for superior teaching..." and  my all time favorite,
"Candidates with a PhD in Physics are preferred, although candidates
with a Masters in Physics will receive consideration." We *all* know
what that means don't we? BTW, these quotes are from the December 2004
issue of Physics Today.

I think it's high time for everyone, especially the universities, to
openly admit that employment at universities is all about research and
has nothing at all to do with the capability to deliver quality
instruction. I have yet to meet a faculty member (including those whom
I deeply respect...there are a few) at any institution who, even behind
closed doors, denies it either. There is more than sufficient anecdotal
evidence to support this statement. If I were to name every professor I
had as an undergraduate who gave what I now consider to be competent
instruction, the list would only have one or two names on it if that
many.

But all is not lost. I have come to understand, I think, that the term
*teaching* has different meanings to universities and other
institutions. In the ivory towers, *teaching* means *to prepare one to
work as a graduate student doing research in my lab* and this only
applies to the upper level undergraduate courses. At other institutions
it means something different. I think part of the definition should
include *how to make my discipline attractive to as many students as
possible*. Yet, we wonder why students dread taking astronomy and
physics courses and we wonder why students turn to other disciplines as
majors. They do so because of the rotten experiences they have in the
introductory courses where the most inexperienced faculty are assigned
to show pretty pictures (in the astro courses) or spout equations for
students to memorize (in both astro and physics). The PER community has
documented the resistance of such faculty to break current failing
trends and replace them with better methods.

A disturbing trend is that more and more PhDs are being hired by
smaller schools and colleges to teach ground level undergraduate
courses when such a lofty qualification isn't warranted. At these
institutions research is frequently frowned upon. Three of my
institution's most recent science faculty hires were PhDs and I work at
a community college. In my part of the country, the accreditation
standards for community colleges and universities are identical...a PhD
simply isn't required to teach undergraduate courses. Ironically, no
university will hire me to do what I've been doing for over a decade.
Interesting. It's all politics.

Regarding PER/AER, I'm very concerned that teaching has been hijacked
by people who claim to know what's best in the classroom when they
themselves have extraordinarily limited TRUE teaching experience.
Supervising some cookbook undergraduate lab doesn't cut it. Serving as
a TA in a large lecture course doesn't cut it. Yet these are routinely
passed off as "teaching experience". Performing a limited amount of
instructional research in pursuit of a PhD doesn't cut it either.
Earlier this year I inquired about entering a PhD program at a large,
well known southern university. I was told that, despite my 12 years of
actual year-round full time teaching experience, I would never qualify
for one of their prestigious teaching assistantships because (a) such
awards are reserved for only incoming grad students straight out of
undergrad and (b) I'm too old. When I inquired why they would award a
"teaching" assistantship to someone with absolutely no classroom
experience over someone with over a decade of it I got no response of
course. I expected that. Another large southern university told me that
I'd never be able to "handle" large enrollment introductory astronomy
courses after teaching at a community college for so long. Nevermind
that I taught intro astronomy at a nearby university for two years.
This was during a telephone interview and the interviewer (the
department chair) couldn't have been more insulting and condescending
towards teaching. I feel sorry for his students and the poor undergrads
at that other institution subject to relatively clueless first year
grad students who are barely one step ahead of the students they're
pretending to teach. It just further supports my thesis that
instructional competence plays no role in university employment.

I happen to be in a profession where the lack of a PhD makes me a
second class citizen and I have come to accept that. I can't change it
either. I can't earn a PhD either because I'm apparently not allowed to
because I had rotten grades as an undergrad (much of which I can
directly relate to poor instruction in the first place, the rest to
cluelessness on my part). In any case it's too late for me. I can
accept all this, but I don't have to like it and I don't have to be
told that I *have* to like it and I don't have to pretend that I like
it and I don't have to be silent about what I see as a community that
constantly whines about poor instructional quality and even develops a
whole new subdiscipline to address the issue but fails to concede that
the main source of the problem lies within. Help is available from
outside, but that would somehow sully the ivory towers. The culture is
too ingrained to ever change I'm afraid. Don't blame me.

I should say that there are some PhDs whom I truly, deeply respect.
Among them was Arnold Arons. I had the pleasure of speaking with him in
person, in complete privacy, for about an hour about a year before he
died. Edwin Taylor, Ruth Chabay, Bruce Sherwood, Paul Hewitt, Aaron
Titus, Myles Standish (JPL), John Hubisz, Bob Clark, Ned Greene, all of
whom I've met and some of whom I've studied under, round out the (not
necessarily complete) list. I'm sure this list will grow.

Farewell,
Joe Heafner -- Astronomy/Physics Instructor
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l