Slashdot Mirror
Office-Hour Habits of the North American Professor
An anonymous reader writes "For those of you who wonder just exactly what it is that your advisor is up to when you try to find him and meet with him, The Chronicle of Higher Education has a study on the
Office-Hour Habits of the North American Professor."
I would agree absolutely. I can't remember how many times I have been told, ohh so and so is tenured in and there is nothing we can do about your complaint. Maybe 10? Maybe more.
A friend who's dad happens to be the dean of my particular college said that there was a movement a few years ago to start phasing out tenure but it was thought that if one school did it all the professors would flock to the schools that hadn't.
It's the biggest detriment to the university system today, hands down.
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
Loss of tenure = loss of academic freedom = McEducation
Maybe some of you would like that, but I'd rather learn from someone who wasn't afraid to say 'the wrong thing' and lose his job because crybabies like you folks didn't get the A you deserved (just because you signed up for the class!)
I realize there are good reasons for getting upset with the tenure system, but I think it's important we keep in mind the reason why tenure exists: academic freedom. Tenure is not supposed to protect an instructor who is incompetent, unethical, or burnt out. And there is nothing in a tenured professor's contract that would imply otherwise. Nonetheless, it does sometimes does wind up doing that, because professors who abuse the system will wave the tenure contract around and threaten lawsuits, and most departments would rather keep things quiet than actually fight these people. Frankly I think that's a failure of will on the part of such departments. But tenure contracts are essential in any occupation where academic freedom is an issue. Otherwise it is too easy to imagine instructors fired for dissenting views or research. This isn't always about politics either -- imagine for example an agriculture professor whose research is critical of factory farming. Imagine that professor teaches at a university in Iowa whose board of regents comprises factory farming interests. I think the academic freedom implications of the First Amendment demand something like tenure in the public university system (and I think all serious universities should have some legal assurance like that).
But I do not think tenure should be used as an excuse not to deal with professors who have stopped doing their jobs, who are simply incompetent, who constantly prey on sexy coeds, etc. Universities have a post-tenure review process to keep track of what professors do after tenure, but these reviews tend to cover up some of the worst problems rather than rooting them out. It's not a failure of tenure but of the people charged with implementing it; tenured and non-tenured faculty alike should demand better, IMHO.
Manyof my liberal arts profs were actually the most friendly and punctual during office hours, and would say hello to you when you saw them on campus, and would often remember your name. Most of them also did their own teaching, surprisingly.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
However, most of the "early birds" I have known in the hard core basic sciences are typically very productive in their research AND publications AND teaching. Some of the professors I have always had the most respect for spend more time in the lab than some of the graduate students and post-docs and are in the lab early in the morning.
In the clinical setting, mornings are traditionally the time you spend in rounds educating your students before patients are discharged, while in the basic science setting, mornings are good times to deal with student issues so that you don't have to take time out of your schedule in the day when you are either 1) in the writing groove or 2) in the middle of an experiment. It also shows to the professor or instructor that the students will make the effort to get their asses out of bed to meet with them when they themselves are "at work".
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I propose another "subspecies":
The Be-All: This individual pretends that s/he can satisfy all needs of all comers, be they students, other faculty, or administrators. Almost no request for help or information is turned away, regardless of how busy they may be. They are involved in all manner of teaching activities, advising, research projects, and innovative technology initiatives. They live in terror of being faulted for any shortcoming.
These individuals are typically on the tenure-track and eager to please. Consequently, they are well-liked by students, skeptically admired by colleagues, and occasionally praised by administrators. They secretly sneer (though with jealousy) at other more established faculty who actually know how to set limits, manage their time, and handle all the constantly shifting pressures inherent in the job.
Sometimes, though, Be-Alls fall victim to their optimism. Too many early mornings, missed lunches, and late nights take their toll. A few gain wisdom in time and become more focused on that which is needed to obtain tenure. Some, however, become physically, psychologically, and emotionally exhausted and migrate to a normal life.
"Tenure decisions are made at the time of hiring." Or so it has been said.
Tenure is definitely not a detriment however often abused by both granting institutions and grantees. Just because a mechanism is not perfect does not mean it carries no value, nor that it should be abolished.
What happens with tenure? The non-tenured junior professor works his or her ass off doing what may well be the best work of their career. Once tenured, there is undoubtedly a relaxation, but if the granting faculty have done their job, they selected someone who will continue on at a strong pace. Although my experience is clearly limited, I know of no cases where a tenured professor has relaxed to the point where he has become a burden on the institution. That, dear reader, does not mean it does not happen, just that my experiences at research universities has been otherwise.
There certainly are times when bad decisions have been made, either for or against granting tenure, but to my experience they are by and large carefully made and good ones. Harvard or MIT, for two ready examples, would not be what they are today were it not for tenure.
And what are the alternatives? Periodic contract renewal? Northeastern University has phased out nearly all of its tenured faculty in favor of part-time professors (my mother among them). I fear greatly for the long-term prospects of NU, as they will not be able to attract world-class faculty by offering renewable short-term contracts. Remember, a university is NOT a business, and there is no reason for it to be run under a business model.
Imagine the following difference in job offers: "hey, you're pretty good, stick around for 3 years, and we'll see if we still want you," or "we believe in you, here's a job for life." Which system encourages far-sighted research plans? Which system encourages making good long-term decisions rather optimizing short-term gain? Which system allows development of highly devoted faculty?
Tenure, frankly, one of the major differences between business and academia, is one of the main reasons my career is firmly on the professorial route.
The biggest detriment to the university system, in my opinion, is athletics. There is no defensible justification for big athletic programs except greed, and that has no place in the university system. Get rid of professional athletes masquerading as students, get rid of athletic scholarships, get rid of lower standards for athletes, do all this and the American university system will be driven more towards a meritocracy and *then* you'll have something. Get rid of tenure? Either the person suggesting that is just confused, works at a lower-tier school where the long-term future isn't a real concern, or is a bean counter at heart.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
No, not usually. Professors are at a school for a variety of reasons, and it's not uncommon for them to regard teaching as the least important of them. Often they're there mostly to do research. Publication enhances their prestige and that of the school, which is why successful research and publication is so important in achieving a professorship. Less so actual teaching in most cases, although one of the the burdens that must be shouldered by the up-and-coming in academia is the lion's share of the instruction, mainly when the professors don't want to deal with it.
I was fortunate enough to have attended a private college where I never encountered a single professor who was uninterested in teaching or who ever tried to avoid the students. (This was also a place where the huge lectures with the professor followed by smaller recitation sessions with TAs were the norm only during freshman year. After that, the professors mostly taught their classes personally.) But I've heard enough horror stories to understand that this is far from being the case everywhere.
And the brethren went away edified.
The parent posting eloquently raises a number of excellent points.
... extreme measures which are rare by design), there are a number of lesser punishments, if you will, which can be meted out. Tenure is not the only means of enforcement, just the most severe within academia.
The general Slashdot reader might be surprized at how much influence the perceived behavior of a professor has on things like the number of committees he is assigned to, the number of students he is allowed to have, how much office and laboratory space he is allocated, and things of this ilk. While it is rare to a professor to have tenure revoked (which, to my mind, is not unlike disbarring a laywer or decertifying a doctor
When a student complains to the faculty about one member in particular, it can have far-reaching consquences. When the student writes a cogent letter to the dean of the school, it can make a big difference. But do you want to revoke tenure for someone who isn't teaching well? No, you want him to teach better. Ignoring his students? Make him pay attention. Violating some student-faculty handbook rue? Make him honor it. Revoking tenure is for eggregious cases such as when a professor sleeps with his students, misappropriates funds, or commits scientific fraud.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
That's why I'll hide if I want to get any research done.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I thought that professors were supposed to be at a school to teach.
You thought wrong.
It all depends on the school. This is especially true of research oriented schools where a fair portion of a professors salary is paid out by that professors research grant(s). If you want to go to a school to get taught, go to a technical college/trade school. If you want to go to learn, go to a university.
Here's some advice to bright-eyed undergrads hoping to glean knowledge from the professorial elite: Do not be surprised if they just don't care.
My graduate advisor is one of these shooting-star big shots on his way up. He's been tenured for a while, and now holds several high-powered positions of responsibility under his belt, federal grant review committees, editorships, directorship of a research center, yadda yadda. He does not give a flying fuck about office hours or undergrads. Really.
He understands one thing: Science. If you ain't talkin the talk, you're wasting his time. He doesn't want to hear about your trifles and personal dilemmas. He doesn't want to hear your frustration with course conflicts and
hand-wringing about your grades. Unless you are a *brilliant* undergrad who has thought about research, preferably his research, and you have new ideas and are there to make your impressive intellect available at his disposal...you're meaningless.
Alas, I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect only a little bit. Yeah, he's cognizant of his duty to teaching. In an annoyed way. Yeah, he'll do his service to his undergraduate advisees--begrudgingly--but with the correct outward social demeanor. But, damn. He's BUSY. And not with you.
I mean shit..his postdocs and grad students barely get a moment of face time...which MAY, in his less sociopathic moments, give him a twinge of guilt...but how hapless are you if you think neglecting the UNDERGRADS gives him pause.
And so much for those of you who think tenure leads to lazy sitting on laurels. This guy is seriously busy. Just not with mentoring YOU. Orchestrating large-scale research endeavors? Yes. Marshalling serious funding dollars? Yes. Preaching the theoretic gospel to better-positioned colleagues? Yes. Shmoozing deans and politicians? Yes. YOU? No.
Not every prof is like this. Even some of the most elite are still very fond of the unwashed undergraduate masses. But when I think back, as an undergrad, to how important I thought my academic issues were to my professors, and how entitled I felt to their time, and how high priority undergraduate mentoring must be to research faculty. Wow. I was silly. Professors, in my experience, do not think in terms of the "merchant/client" model like most kids who throw out the "hey, I'm PAYING for this" argument do. Professors see their money coming from granting agencies, not your mom and dad.
OK, can ya tell I've got issues with this guy's style? He's brilliant, but what a dick.
Anyway...if you have a professor who's both a credit to his field and a credit to your education, give him your thanks. It's a rare combination.
(BTW, this guy's office hours are strictly "by appointment only," which, I've noticed, is a growing trend in scheduling office hours. You think he's got time to leave hours open for unannounced interruption?! No, no, no.)
Most of the posts under this article are rather one-sided -- the parent is the only one that really considers the student as a locus of responsibility for learning. Someone mentioned sarcastically a professor who taught his students the value of reading their textbooks and working cooperatively -- those are real values the students will need in the much-fabled "real world."
Imagine you hire two engineers, fresh from e-school. Both work on tasks beyond their immediate scope of knowledge; let's say each has to code in a new language he's never seen before. One actively searches for information, buys and reads books on the new language, and works together with his teammates to solve problems. The other emerges only from his cubicle to ask his immediate superior, who is working on other matters, how to write code. Worker number two never asks anyone else, never tries to figure out his problems on his own, never takes initiative but expects to be spoonfed. Who gets the better performance evaluation?
I recognize that the analogy is not exact, but the student who actively seeks knowledge to solve problems on his own will learn more than one who wishes to be given the answers while remaining passive. Further, he who seeks to solve problems with his peers is also teaching his peers, and teaching is one of the best ways of learning. Cooperative study and teamwork is very much the trend in elementary and secondary education for precisely the reasons sketched above.
None of this absolves a professor from the responsibilty of being available to answer the occasional question, but the student who is dependent on the professor is also in breach of his responsibilities as an active learner.
Gosh, your life is terrible, isn't it? Heaven forbid that you would have to spend 24 hours mulling over a problem before you trouble someone else with it.