billd@celerity.UUCP (Bill Davidson) (03/11/89)
In article <21351@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >But come on -- this business of blaming bad teaching on research is a >gross oversimplification. Look at the two large California public >university systems, the University of California (UC) and the California >State Universities and Colleges (CSUC). UC is research oriented and >CSUC is not. Sit in on some sample lectures in both systems. You'll >be amazed at the difference -- UC professors are on the average >SUPERIOR TEACHERS, compared to the CSUC faculty, in my observation. Since you mentioned UC vs CSUC and having experienced classes from a number of teachers from both systems (CSUF 1 year, UCSD 2.5 years), I feel that I have an unusual perspective on this (I was also in the Califorina Community College system for a while at Orange Coast; that's junior colleges in case you didn't figure it out :-). At CSUF, the computer science faculty was inadequate and the program stank horribly in nearly every way in 1985. The classes were not well designed, the equipment was garbage, the set of classes that you had to take was a joke (I've heard that they've improved since then but I don't know). I came into it with a fair amount of hacking background and a few CS classes from OCC and I felt that I knew more than some of the teachers. This was my reason for changing to UCSD, in spite of the fact that it would push back my graduation date by over a year. My calculus teachers at CSUF were very good, probably better than UC. It was the CS that was bad. At UCSD, I always felt that my CS profs KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT! When I asked questions (when one could ask questions) they were answered promptly and CORRECTLY! This was not the case CSUF. The problem with UC is that I always felt like a number. Much more so than elsewhere; especially in classes such as calculus. Having to teach calculus seems to be some form of punishment for professors there. Some of my profs seemed to actually avoid students, even at upper levels. OCC seemed to have better instructors than CSUF :-). At OCC it usually seemed like the teachers took a personal interest in helping students. I rarely saw that at UCSD. At UCSD it was: present the proofs, give the assignments, give the test and disappear. The only people you could regularly get help from were the TA's who were grad students themselves with little if any training in teaching (not that the profs had any either). While, I'm on this tyrade, presenting proofs is no way to show people how to do calculus. It may be O.K. for advanced math students (I still didn't like it up to my last math class (and it was my major) but at I got to where I could handle it sort of O.K.) but it makes it unnecessarily difficult for people who are just starting to get into higher math. (Oh no! I actually got up on the soapbox and flamed entire organizations! I'm going to get it now. Where'd I put my asbestos suit?) --Bill (gee, I'm glad I'm out!) Davidson -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ....!{ucsd|sdcsvax}!celerity!billd
tdhammer@wsuiar.uucp (03/17/90)
Organization: Wichita State Univ., Wichita KS Lines: 55 In article <WINDLEY.90Mar14092554@cheetah.cheetah.ucdavis.edu>, windley@cheetah.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley/20000000) writes: > In article <1990Mar14.021955.27323@athena.mit.edu> oliver@athena.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III) writes: > > Anyway, the view that good reasearchers *in general* make lousy teachers > is pretty pervasive. What do people at other schools, particularly > those with undergraduate experience at places with smaller graduate > departments (i.e. less research emphasis) seem to think? > > > There is a very importatn point being missed here. In order to *teach* > GRAD students, you have to be able to do *research*. If a school awards > PhD's then more than likely, it will emphasize research because this is how > grad students are educated. Now I know that this doesn't sit well with all > the undergrads that want an excellent classroom teacher (not an execellent > mentor), but if you want a good undergrad education *AND DON'T PLAN ON > GOING TO GRAD SCHOOL* go to a school that DOESN'T offer the PhD degree. > You'll see a great emphasis on teaching. I think the emphasis needs to be on learning everywhere. It seems that every year at this time there is an uproar around the country about professors at universities who have been denied tenure because of a lack of publications. Students respond because that professor was a good instructor. Being available to students is a major part of being a good instructor, perhaps moreso than classroom ability. But, how is anyone, professor or student or professional, going to keep up with their peers without doing some kind of research? I hate to see a good instructor get the boot, but sometimes that instructor also has gotten a bit behind the times and can't keep up a discussion with colleagues. On a related thread, I attended a small, liberal-arts school because that was where I felt comfortable. I always expected to go to grad school and now I know how under-prepared I was, however I did get the emphasis on teaching. And I will return to that environment to teach if at all possible and take with me a commitment to be both a good teacher and a good researcher, even if it isn't the kind of work that brings in mega-money contracts. I think that that situation could be an excellent preparation for grad school or career. Tim .D. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim .D. Hammer BITNET: TDHAMMER@TWSUVAX Teaching/Research Assistant UUCP: uunet!ncrlnk!ncrwic!wsucsa!hammer Computer Science Dept. Box 83 INTERNET: tdhammer@wsuiar.wsu.ukans.edu Wichita State University TalkNET: (316)689-3156 1845 Fairmont Wichita, Ks. 67208-1595 #include <std.disclaimer> #define VIEWS_and_OPINIONS MY_OWN /* no one else would admit to them */ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A little learning is a dangerous thing." Alexander Pope