Thought this was an interesting article in the newspaper and thought I'd share:

http://www.theglobeandmail.c om/news/opinions/want-to-know-why-professors-dont-teach/article1293548/

It's nothing new. I've heard about it occasionally but I've never really come across a prof who was more interested in their research then helping out their students.

Its professors typically devote only 40 per cent of their time to teaching. And the effectiveness, efficiency and productivity of that teaching are almost an afterthought. “I've been teaching for 35 years,” he says, “and not once has my department head or any other administrator come in and watched me teach. I've never heard of anyone being fired for teaching badly.”

Rumour has it that the comp sci teacher for first year business students got fired last year because the class average was way too high (somewhere in the 80s) >__>

Though my friend said that the class was a joke. The next term we got a different prof and the class had a lower average... And then everyone complained so eventually the marks got bumped up anyways.

Originally Posted by Colin

Thought this was an interesting article in the newspaper and thought I'd share:

http://www.theglobeandmail.c om/news/opinions/want-to-know-why-professors-dont-teach/article1293548/

It's nothing new. I've heard about it occasionally but I've never really come across a prof who was more interested in their research then helping out their students.

Some profs shouldn't teach because they're so bad at it.

Just think you need to be certified to teach pre-school, elementary, and intermediate levels...but not university...does that make any sense to anyone else?

Originally Posted by JEFF_CHAN

Rumour has it that the comp sci teacher for first year business students got fired last year because the class average was way too high (somewhere in the 80s) >__>

Though my friend said that the class was a joke. The next term we got a different prof and the class had a lower average... And then everyone complained so eventually the marks got bumped up anyways.

I almost got kicked out of Commerce because of that effing class. And yes, I DID try super hard. >_<

I found the article interesting, but not surprising. I also agree with the statements that dishing out more money won't solve anything (they get enough as it is to properly educate us, they just can't ****ing allocate it efficiently) and that there are way too many useless papers being published for no darn reason.

Just think you need to be certified to teach pre-school, elementary, and intermediate levels...but not university...does that make any sense to anyone else?

Nope.

The only logical reason I can think of is because kids are more prone to influence so you can't be some psychopath or whatever. You know, patience and all that bullshit.

Originally Posted by JEFF_CHAN

Rumour has it that the comp sci teacher for first year business students got fired last year...

Someone should start a petition to change the name of that class from "Comp. Sci" to "Intro to Compooter". That business class is not computer science in the slightest, lol.

As soon as I started reading it this stood out to me:

"Our classes were small and many of our professors were creative and enthusiastic."

My program is small and it is Multimedia so our classes are small and our professors are for the most part artists so they are creative and enthusiastic about the craft they teach. I find it makes a huge difference from the professors who ramble on and on about their research.

Originally Posted by lorend

Some profs shouldn't teach because they're so bad at it.

Just think you need to be certified to teach pre-school, elementary, and intermediate levels...but not university...does that make any sense to anyone else?

It's not like you really learn that much from teacher's college anyway, that directly influences one's teaching ability. You learn various models, theories of learning and such, but there are no solid answers...it takes talent. Not to mention, in academic settings you 'take what you can get.'

Pre-school, Elementary, and Intermediate anyone who has any university degree can teach...so of course, to thin the pool a bit, and to provide a higher level of teaching expertise, formal training is required. You have a choice between good and bad.

University on the other hand, you don't have a whole lot of people with PhDs. Sure, you have enough to fire a few bad profs and re-hire a post-doc or two, but in general if you required people who've spent 6 years or so beyond a bachelor's degree, to do an additional year of training, no one would do it. You have a choice between bad and nothing.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

It's not like you really learn that much from teacher's college anyway, that directly influences one's teaching ability. You learn various models, theories of learning and such, but there are no solid answers...it takes talent. Not to mention, in academic settings you 'take what you can get.'

Pre-school, Elementary, and Intermediate anyone who has any university degree can teach...so of course, to thin the pool a bit, and to provide a higher level of teaching expertise, formal training is required. You have a choice between good and bad.

University on the other hand, you don't have a whole lot of people with PhDs. Sure, you have enough to fire a few bad profs and re-hire a post-doc or two, but in general if you required people who've spent 6 years or so beyond a bachelor's degree, to do an additional year of training, no one would do it. You have a choice between bad and nothing.

Touche.

Sometimes nothing would be better though, I think.

Often times I learn best by doing it myself and not attending the lectures (ie. bad profs)...so I agree with that.

But the only reason this is true is because someone has designed the content that each course will cover...and it's likely these people were underqualified / didn't go to teacher's college either.

In other words, I think if we truly had no direction, no governing body, we'd be at a stand-still with learning.

Originally Posted by Colin

Thought this was an interesting article in the newspaper and thought I'd share:

http://www.theglobeandmail.c om/news/opinions/want-to-know-why-professors-dont-teach/article1293548/

It's nothing new. I've heard about it occasionally but I've never really come across a prof who was more interested in their research then helping out their students.

I had a communications prof in first year (I won't name any names) who blatantly told us "Teaching you is SECOND to me. I'm a researcher first, then a professor So don't expect me to answer all your questions and be at all my office hours and check my email."

Welcome to your first class on your first day of university.

I can tell you this much: that professor is the SOLE reason I didn't go into communications (I planned to otherwise). I got a C- in that class.

McMaster actually has some profs who are just teaching profs and don't do research. Both Dr. Lock and Dr. Kajiura are examples of this.

They were also two of the best profs I had, so I think its a good system, at least for first year.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

I had a communications prof in first year (I won't name any names) who blatantly told us "Teaching you is SECOND to me. I'm a researcher first, then a professor So don't expect me to answer all your questions and be at all my office hours and check my email."

Welcome to your first class on your first day of university.

I can tell you this much: that professor is the SOLE reason I didn't go into communications (I planned to otherwise). I got a C- in that class.

I'm curious to know who this is but I probably didn't have them as I've never heard a speech like that. Even the most egotistical, research loving Prof in Comm I can think of I can't imagine saying that.