College students... do you feel your teachers put time and effort into teaching?

nota bene said:

At four-year institutions, professors don't teach six classes; they generally teach three. Senior lecturers, lecturers, and other adjunct faculty teach four or sometimes five. At two-year institutions, the load is generally four or five courses. In my state, teaching six classes is an overload and not permitted semester after semester.

Click to expand...

I am, of course, referring to the colloquial use of "professor" here, meaning what Aunt Spiker would call the person teaching her courses. I've definitely heard of teaching six classes, but I'm not sure that this is atypical --four or five, however, is definitely a minimum for an adjunct.

Whether a TA does the grading depends on the discipline and also the course. As students complete the core curriculum required by the state (the basic history and government courses that count as "citizenship hours," two science courses, one with a lab, and etc.), they may well be taught by grad students, but upper-level courses are generally taught by regular faculty. As your career develops and you earn seniority, it's natural to want to teach in your specialty (and to focus on the grad courses you teach) and to allow more junior faculty to gain the experience they need to eventually fill your shoes.

Click to expand...

Yes, obviously, which is why I specified with my assumption that she was likely taking a 100-level class, where higher-level faculty are usually not found unless they've sailed on bad political winds. This is where TA's are concentrated and where adjuncts are much more likely to be teaching.

Adjuncts carry the heavy burden of teaching at most institutions, and their abuse has long been decried.

Click to expand...

Long been decried --well, to some degree. Long been accepted? Yes this, too. Long been increasing in numbers and work? Yes again. At your average 2-year university, it's usually the worst. The overall trend there is a push towards a total absence of tenure track jobs. As such, adjuncts frequently move around universities (I've even seen them leave and go to another university during the semester), at least from my talks with the poor sods who choose this line of work. At four-year institutions that don't do research or nominally do research, you also have a surplus of adjuncts, but there's still usually (again, in my experience) some level of tenured professors. It's really only at research universities that you see minimal use of adjunct faculty and a majority of tenure-track professorships --not that this necessarily helps students, as researchers have rather mixed pedagogical acumen, at least in my experience.

I've tutored loads of students at these kinds of universities, I'm used to how typically awful adjunct faculty are. Re: my previous statement about people getting what they pay for. They pay for very good administrators and very good advertising. Once you're in the door and your check clears, they're pretty much banking on your belief in your ability to "get a good job" after get the diploma.

But I would like to make clear that adjuncts aren't necessarily inferior teachers. Often, because of their wealth of experience, they are the best teachers. That's what they do--they teach. They aren't generally required to otherwise participate in the life of their department (although some do)--committee work, including textbook review--and the professional development requirements aren't as demanding either.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's true, it depends on the situation. Similar things can be said for graduate students, who also have to teach and they also have the freshest memory of the course material. The results, as per usual I would say, depends on who's doing the teaching. Some people get teaching, some people don't. I can't speak to which group really, on average, produces the best instructors.

FieldTheorist said:

I am, of course, referring to the colloquial use of "professor" here, meaning what Aunt Spiker would call the person teaching her courses. I've definitely heard of teaching six classes, but I'm not sure that this is atypical --four or five, however, is definitely a minimum for an adjunct.

Click to expand...

No, not a minimum but, rather, a maximum.

FieldTheorist said:

Long been decried --well, to some degree. Long been accepted? Yes this, too. Long been increasing in numbers and work? Yes again. At your average 2-year university, it's usually the worst. The overall trend there is a push towards a total absence of tenure track jobs. As such, adjuncts frequently move around universities (I've even seen them leave and go to another university during the semester), at least from my talks with the poor sods who choose this line of work. At four-year institutions that don't do research or nominally do research, you also have a surplus of adjuncts, but there's still usually (again, in my experience) some level of tenured professors. It's really only at research universities that you see minimal use of adjunct faculty and a majority of tenure-track professorships --not that this necessarily helps students, as researchers have rather mixed pedagogical acumen, at least in my experience.

Click to expand...

Well, I've never heard of a two-year university, only a two-year college. Adjuncts do teach at upper-division research institutes too; lecturers and senior lecturers are generally non-tenure track, but some actually do have budget lines.

FieldTheorist said:

I've tutored loads of students at these kinds of universities, I'm used to how typically awful adjunct faculty are. Re: my previous statement about people getting what they pay for. They pay for very good administrators and very good advertising. Once you're in the door and your check clears, they're pretty much banking on your belief in your ability to "get a good job" after get the diploma.

Click to expand...

I strongly, strongly disagree that most adjunct faculty are awful. And I have no sympathy for students who have no interest at all in the acquisition of knowledge, only in getting a good job. A university should not be considered a somehow exalted trade school.

FieldTheorist said:

Yes, it's true, it depends on the situation. Similar things can be said for graduate students, who also have to teach and they also have the freshest memory of the course material. The results, as per usual I would say, depends on who's doing the teaching. Some people get teaching, some people don't. I can't speak to which group really, on average, produces the best instructors.

Click to expand...

Teaching well is a gift. You can be absolutely brilliant and a poor teacher, you can be a brilliant teacher and weak scholar, or you can be both a superior teacher and scholar. It depends on the individual entirely. But those who have the most experience in the classroom semester after semester tend to be solid performers year-round.

soot said:

Some of the professors I learned the most from, both as an undergrad and in grad school, didn't use PowerPoint, or a blackboard/whiteboard, or an overhead projector, or provide annotated and thoroughly cited lecture notes, or really hold your little hand in any other way.

They were 70 and 80-year old lecturers who sat in front of the class and lectured for an hour and a half, and it was up to you to take your own notes, do your own research, and reconcile the claims they made in their lecture with the scholarship available on the topic.

I still managed to graduate cum laude with a pretty thorough understanding of the things I studied, which then translated in to a pretty lucrative career doing something I love.

Don't sell yourself short.

You don't need to be spoon-fed.

Click to expand...

There is a huge difference in spoon feeding...and a teacher who just sprays random material at you. It REALLY depends on the topic too. If you were in any topic like liberal arts? Where you pretty much had to read the material and write essays? Why even show up to class at that point? Why pay that guy and the university? I can do the same thing with a library card.

I think that is the main point of this thread. If the guy is only in the classroom to spray random information and not actually communicate knowledge...then there is a problem. If that 80 year old guy is lecturing and giving you important information? That is important. My girlfriend is currently taking chemistry 2 I think (can't remember which). The jackass puts information on the PowerPoint and the test material is not covered in class or anywhere in the reading. He doesn't go over the problems. He just lectures. Last time she was in class the guy told everyone that the project they were going to do required 3 people...and he emphasized that it couldn't be done without 3 people...and then dropped her in a group of 2 with an Asian girl who doesn't speak English very well.

See where I'm getting at? People show up to these jobs who don't want to teach. And they get their ass covered by "not gonna spoon feed" mentality (not saying that is you). And sadly some of them don't even bother to give you the damn food to feed yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Carjosse said:

It really depends on the professor, I find the part-time ones who teach because they want to make the best professors. PowerPoints are very useful and are guaranteed to be legible. I had one professor's writing that so bad he might as well have been writing in Chinese and his speaking was incomprehensible. It really depends on the professor, if you have that many problems, maybe try a different school.

Click to expand...

Has also to do with what type of class it is. An intro to anything is going to be more presentation/lecture than discussion. More of the discussion classes are upper level, at least at major universities. It is common sense. The survey/intro classes are filled with people just pulling down pre-reqs to graduate and might have 60-100+ people in them, whereas the 300 & 400 classes might have a dozen or two at most, sometimes less. I have taken classes with 120 students and I have taken them with 8 students. Had one class that started with 39 and finished with 6 and the quality of the interactions improved as the class size dwindled.

backpacker said:

Has also to do with what type of class it is. An intro to anything is going to be more presentation/lecture than discussion. More of the discussion classes are upper level, at least at major universities. It is common sense. The survey/intro classes are filled with people just pulling down pre-reqs to graduate and might have 60-100+ people in them, whereas the 300 & 400 classes might have a dozen or two at most, sometimes less. I have taken classes with 120 students and I have taken them with 8 students. Had one class that started with 39 and finished with 6 and the quality of the interactions improved as the class size dwindled.

Click to expand...

Could not agree more.

nota bene said:

No, not a minimum but, rather, a maximum.

Click to expand...

You are correct, I was misremembering "year" vs. "semester." Here's a good popular article for the interested reader.

Well, I've never heard of a two-year university, only a two-year college.

Click to expand...

I obviously meant associates degree-granting institutions. I felt that was perfectly clear given the context.

Adjuncts do teach at upper-division research institutes too; lecturers and senior lecturers are generally non-tenure track, but some actually do have budget lines.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and I said as much.

I strongly, strongly disagree that most adjunct faculty are awful.

Click to expand...

I have no idea if most are awful in any innate sense. I said that the many that I have run into are poorly paid and poorly motivated to do their jobs well, and that's a pretty severe impediment to them showcasing their teaching ability one way or the other. Or maybe those ones are just genuinely awful. The net result for the student is the same, however. And that's not absolve the students, either, who are generally delusional about what the point of their degree is --which segues nicely with the following.

And I have no sympathy for students who have no interest at all in the acquisition of knowledge, only in getting a good job. A university should not be considered a somehow exalted trade school.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but you should tell that to the advertisers for universities, including the spokespersons who go to high schools and preach the gospel about how much more money you'll make over your lifetime if you get a bachelors degree.

First, let's make a distinction between the marketing people and recruiters; they aren't the same. Second, I've done my fair share of recruiting (athletic and also minorities), and the assumption when you meet with kids at their high school or school fair is that they want to attend college. I never talked about the value of a degree itself; I talked about why they wanted to choose _______--what it had to offer.

nota bene said:

First, let's make a distinction between the marketing people and recruiters; they aren't the same.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, their literal job designations aren't equivalent. The question is how much your average marketing firm and your average recruiter distort the truth or otherwise stay on the "talking points" (e.g. promote college as a means making more money). I talked to many recruiters in high school, I've seen the TV ads. In my experience and in talking with friends and people I have tutored and taught, there isn't a substantial difference in messaging.

Second, I've done my fair share of recruiting (athletic and also minorities), and the assumption when you meet with kids at their high school or school fair is that they want to attend college. I never talked about the value of a degree itself; I talked about why they wanted to choose _______--what it had to offer.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about you personally, but if you want to speak from experience: And in those conversations, it was never discussed the eventual expected salary of a profession based on that degree?

You needn't really bother answering that question, you and I both know the answer is "No, it was discussed in almost every one of those conversations." In any case, this is veering off topic.

No, I never discussed potential salaries possible with particular degrees; the purpose of my visits was to recruit students to my institution instead of another, and so I extolled the virtues of my institution compared to others.

The marketing people come up with the (often stupid) "branding." They are public relations folks and "information officers."

FieldTheorist said:

Well, yes, their literal job designations aren't equivalent. The question is how much your average marketing firm and your average recruiter distort the truth or otherwise stay on the "talking points" (e.g. promote college as a means making more money). I talked to many recruiters in high school, I've seen the TV ads. In my experience and in talking with friends and people I have tutored and taught, there isn't a substantial difference in messaging.



I wasn't talking about you personally, but if you want to speak from experience: And in those conversations, it was never discussed the eventual expected salary of a profession based on that degree?

You needn't really bother answering that question, you and I both know the answer is "No, it was discussed in almost every one of those conversations." In any case, this is veering off topic.

Click to expand...

But there is some truth to that is that people with bachelor's degrees, no matter in what subject, earn more than those who do not attend post-secondary education.

Aunt Spiker said:

Things have changed a lot since I was first in college. This go around - all of my teachers are obsessed with powerpoint presentations instead of giving quality lectures / providing board-notes during class, they just click through powerpoint slides that are overpopulated with too much information. Instead of being on task, professors ramble aimlessly about whatever oddball things enter their heads.

It's like the content we're supposed to be learning doesn't pertain to what they teach.

In short - I think in class lectures and so forth are just the same as taking classes online with how lazy professors have all become. People prefer in class lectures because it's supposed to give deeper education and discussion, but I'm not seeing any depth here, only lazy professors who created a powerpoint presentation 5 years ago and washed their hands clean.

Anyone else experiencing the same thing?

Click to expand...

As a shout out from the past, some of my professors were very competent and provided very interesting and engaging materials in classes. This is from the first half of the 70's. My two favorites were almost diametrically opposed in both their approach and their personalities. Both exceptional in their understanding of all facets of the topic. One was a down home, mid western farm boy who happened to be a published author several times over. His area of emphasis was the American Author from the frontier days through Sanders. The other was an immigrant from Germany who specialized in Chaucer and Shakespeare. He, too, was widely read and published numerous times.

In their lecture halls, the mind was transported.

Others were disinterested prancing jerks who were professors, it seemed, only to take advantage of the ready supply of nubile young ladies anxious to further their education in sweaty bodies.

By your post, it seems the same general universe of professors still lectures but uses more current techniques.

FieldTheorist said:

Professors aren't usually lazy, they're usually overworked and underpaid. You're probably in a 100-level class, I'm assuming, at a non-research university. That means that the person teaching you right is probably teaching about 6 of these classes, and they're getting paid around 20,000 --not per class. For all of them. How much effort would you put in if you have a Masters or a PhD, and you're getting paid worse than a high school teacher? Your work is also likely being graded by an upper level undergrad or a grad student for ~700 dollars a semester. Most undergrads who pay for the classes don't know the difference, and will pay the money because how are they going to actually change the system? The few reasonably paid professors aren't in any better of a place to fix the system, and indeed if they did make waves they'd likely be retired.

But your education probably costs a lot more than it did before. Why? It probably has something to do with the 300% increase in school administrators and the increased pay of school administrators.


So yes, your education probably does suck. No, it isn't because professors are just lazy and someone needs to work them harder. It's because universities decided that living-wage professors shouldn't exist, it was cheaper to make masters/PhD students teach a lot of courses, and that instead of investing the money in professors, the money needed to be invested in more school administrators who will spend more money on advertising.

Click to expand...

This is hilariously false.

Being a professor is one of the best paying jobs you can have. Pays around 100k on average. Even the professors at my community college made a very good living. Heck even assistants make more then what you idiotically suggested.

Yes, a lot of professors have become lazy, because they aren't held to any standard. They are allowed TA's to teach for them, to just throw a power point up there, etc. Don't even get me started on their effort into staying somewhat organized. I've had professors change test date two weeks out to that very day, because of their own mistake, and the people that weren't there got a zero.

It's really sad state of college where professors would rather sit there and ramble their political beliefs while a power point is up, then actually teach kids when they are paid six figures to do it.

thenotorious said:

This is hilariously false.

Being a professor is one of the best paying jobs you can have. Pays around 100k on average. Even the professors at my community college made a very good living. Heck even assistants make more then what you idiotically suggested.

Click to expand...

No. https://toughnickel.com/industries/Average-Salary-for-a-Tenured-Community-College-Professor

It's going to vary widely, just like anything in life. Believe it or not, your mileage of whining is going to reflect your own lack of effort. I'm at a top 25 ranked undergrad and i can tell you i've had to settle both for the overworked and unprepared TA/Adjunct (of which FT goes into length about) with practically no control or respect over their class. So what, manipulate things to your favor

I've had a research prof of half a century who NEVER used powerpoints or any other tech that i could see and only basically trotted along and mumbled while staring at the floor. But hey, that's the downside of tenure, and I got the hell out of there.

I've had a prof who had to fight for hours just to get the class approved (controversial), and so he seemed to take our actual education therein very seriously. Even his wife attended.

I've had a prof who was auditioning (and soon granted) for the Directorship of one of the institutes and so, obviously his research work mattered far more to him than his class and his method of "teaching" was similar to the OP described - very uninspired, break us into group work and show random clips to eat up time.

But i've also had a prof from Italy who was very energetic, gave multiple perspectives on everything, and even his TAs were quite impressive

Of all these, the last one had by far the hardest class and the hardest top grade. That's the price of getting what you want OP, of getting more out of lecture. The tests could be brutal and they aren't gonna take half assed papers

nota bene said:

No. https://toughnickel.com/industries/Average-Salary-for-a-Tenured-Community-College-Professor

Click to expand...

That was stated as the standard university, not assistants, community college professors (which I clearly stated had a different financial standing in my statement), etc.

thenotorious said:

This is hilariously false.

Being a professor is one of the best paying jobs you can have. Pays around 100k on average. Even the professors at my community college made a very good living. Heck even assistants make more then what you idiotically suggested.

Click to expand...

That may be true at your singular university, it is not true nationally.

FieldTheorist said:

That may be true at your singular university, it is not true nationally.

Click to expand...

It is true nationally. At my university they get paid even more than that. The facts are the facts and they are displayed for the world to see. To say these people work full-time and make 20k is about the most asinine comment I've seen on here.

thenotorious said:

It is true nationally. At my university they get paid even more than that. The facts are the facts and they are displayed for the world to see. To say these people work full-time and make 20k is about the most asinine comment I've seen on here.

Click to expand...

Actually, this little misinformed outburst is what's extremely asinine. Let's go back to what was actually said very slowly, because you don't seem to understand what was said.




So please, spare me your hyperbole and indignation.

nota bene said:

I love reading up at Rate a Prof and etc. "He's the worst professor I've ever had! Avoid his class at all costs!" and "He was a wonderful prof. Yes, he expected students to work hard, but if you showed an interest, he went out of his way to help you, especially if you dropped by his office." :lamo

Click to expand...

Add into that the humor of rating professors by attractiveness- demonstrating true depth of evaluation LOL.

Aunt Spiker said:

Things have changed a lot since I was first in college. This go around - all of my teachers are obsessed with powerpoint presentations instead of giving quality lectures / providing board-notes during class, they just click through powerpoint slides that are overpopulated with too much information. Instead of being on task, professors ramble aimlessly about whatever oddball things enter their heads.

It's like the content we're supposed to be learning doesn't pertain to what they teach.

In short - I think in class lectures and so forth are just the same as taking classes online with how lazy professors have all become. People prefer in class lectures because it's supposed to give deeper education and discussion, but I'm not seeing any depth here, only lazy professors who created a powerpoint presentation 5 years ago and washed their hands clean.

Anyone else experiencing the same thing?

Click to expand...

I'm truly sorry you feel that way. I too feel that the cost of education is often out of proportion to the value of that education.

However, teachers have a truly difficult job. They must retain the attentions of the students, they compete with cell phones and tablets, and that's pretty rough.

Anyway i don't see it always as laziness, i think there's more going on. I'm sure that some are legitimately disgruntled, but i think powerpoints were poorly suited to most of my curriculum so my professors tended to avoid it.

Absentglare said:

Add into that the humor of rating professors by attractiveness- demonstrating true depth of evaluation LOL.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes, the red chili peppers. :roll:

FieldTheorist said:

Actually, this little misinformed outburst is what's extremely asinine. Let's go back to what was actually said very slowly, because you don't seem to understand what was said.

1.) Firstly, I claimed that the people teaching 100-level courses are often teaching a large number of classes all year round make ~$20,000.

2.) Why? Because, the formal title for these 100-level/low level course teachers is not "professor" (ignore that it's what the students call them), nor "Assistant Professors." Those positions are official, tenure-track positions. Those pay well, and that was never in dispute. The national average for these positions is something like $99,000, with lows of 40,000 and highs of 200,000. These are, on average, not the person teaching these lower level classes.

3.) The people actually teaching these lower level classes go under various names depending on the university, but "adjunct faculty" or "adjuncts" are the most common names for these positions.

4.) The national average for "adjunct faculty" is... $20,000 to $25,000, as promised.​

So please, spare me your hyperbole and indignation.

Click to expand...

Thank for you informing me.

thenotorious said:

This is hilariously false.

Being a professor is one of the best paying jobs you can have. Pays around 100k on average. Even the professors at my community college made a very good living. Heck even assistants make more then what you idiotically suggested.

Click to expand...

To be getting that money, you're talking a tenured PhD professor. It takes several years, depending on University, to get onto that track. And they can make more, and sometimes if they pull in enough money to the University, they get more paid out of their grants.

Can it become a good paying job? Yes, right degree, right field, right department, yes a professor can end up making a good amount of money. Not as much as if they had gone into private business with their degrees, but a very comfortable amount.

nota bene said:

Oh, yes, the red chili peppers. :roll:

Click to expand...

I always found that demeaning. But, you know, college freshmen and sophomores.