8: The Great Researcher = Great Teacher Myth
Former Indiana University president Thomas Ehrlich wrote his comments on
“Great Teachers and Teaching” in The Courage to Inquire
(op. cit.), pp. 25-26; I assume that he does not mind my taking his title to heart, and inquiring into the myth that he perpetuated here. Professors Patrick T. Terenzini and Ernest T. Pascarella debunked the “good teachers are good researchers” myth in “Living with Myths: Undergraduate Education in America,”
Change,
January/ February, 1994, pp. 28-32; all of their quotes in this chapter are from this article. They based the article on their book,
How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research
(San Francisco, 1991); the interested reader can easily go from the topics in the article to the voluminous research behind it in their book, and I recommend this course of action.
Professor Lewis H. Miller wrote about “those rare few” faculty members who simultaneously conduct intensive research and teaching in “Hubris in the Academy: Can Teaching Survive in the Overweening Quest for Excellence?”
Change
, September/October 1990, pp. 9-11, and p. 53; and in “Bold, Imaginative Steps Are Needed to Link Teaching with Research,”
Chronicle of Higher Education
, 9/13/89, p. A52. The quote in the text is from the
Change
article, but some points in the paraphrase are from the
Chronicle
piece. Ehrlich (op. cit.) “underscore[d] that students benefit immensely,” p. 25. The
Chicago Tribune
discussed the University of Michigan study and quoted the U of M science professor, 6/23/92. Paul Strohm wrote his comments in “The Ideology of âExcellence,'”
AAUP Report
, a publication of the American Association of University Professors, Indiana University Chapter, Autumn 1991, pp. 2â5. Christopher J. Lucas in
American Higher Education
(op. cit.) discusses the myths surrounding research and teaching, p. 284f, and takes another run at them in Crisis (op. cit.), p. 198.
A majority of faculty at research universities consider themselves good teachers, thus buying into the administration's ideology on the subject as well as protecting their own egos. Some even cite those notoriously flawed indicators, student evaluations, as proof of their teaching excellence. However, most of these professors refuse to allow outside experts into their classrooms to evaluate their teaching, and to assess what their students actually learned, if anything, in their courses. A charitable observer has to conclude that some of these professors are probably adequate teachers but nowhere near as good as they imagine themselves and their colleagues to be, and many other faculty members are mediocre to awful teachers. Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, before I began the research for this book, I believed that I was an excellent teacher and I had the student evaluations to “prove” it; I subsequently had my teaching evaluated by outside experts and I have discovered that, although it is quite good, it is far from outstanding. The experts suggested that I devote more time to preparation, student conferences, and marking papers and, in this labor-intensive way, try to become an excellent teacher. I know that many other faculty members at research universities are in the same situation.
The visit to the “freshman psychology lecture” is in Boyer,
College
(op. cit.), p. 140. Many commentators have discussed the lecture-course method: Christopher J. Lucas in
Crisis
(op. cit.), p. 169f; Simpson and Frost in
Inside College
(op. cit.) have an excellent chapter, “How Professors Teach,” and a section, “Interactive Methods,” of that chapter on these issues; and
Robert Nielsen in the
AFT Newsletter
(American Federation of Teachers) offered insights into the history of lecturing, “Putting the Lecture in Its Place,” December 1990/January 1991, p. 16. Simon Bronner (op. cit.) related the folklore joke, “During a lecture,” p. 183. Christopher J. Lucas in
American Higher Education
(op. cit.) commented on St. John's in Annapolis, Maryland, p. 280. Many authors have discussed the higher-education reforms suggested by rebel students in the 1960s; an excellent anthology on this topic was
Beyond Berkeley: A Sourcebook in Student Values
, edited by Christopher G. Katope and Paul G. Zolbrod (Cleveland and New York, 1966).
The
Chronicle of Higher Education
discussed the financial crisis in higher education and its impact on class size in various articles over the years, including Karen Grassmuck's analysis of administrators' reasons for placing faculty in lecture courses, 1/31/90. Arthur M. Cohen in
Shaping of American Higher Education: The Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System
(San Francisco, 1998) explained the “$15,000 or more per class taught by a full-time professor,” p. 347. Ernest Boyer in
College
(op. cit.) quoted undergraduates on classes with “more than one hundred students enrolled,” p. 145; Rutgers professor Michael Moffat noted “classes of 300 and 400 were quite common,” p. 292; University of Illinois political science professor Robert Weissberg discussed his class sizes and his “lounge act” in the
Chicago Tribune
(op. cit.), 5/21/92; that newspaper also reported that “students find themselves in lecture halls seating 1,200,” 5/21/92; and quoted U of I student Dan Lillig on the mechanical engineering professor who “faced the blackboard the entire time,” 6/23/92. The interview with the Ohio State student took place in Columbus, Ohio, 6/6/88, while I was doing research for
College Sports Inc.;
the interviewee began complaining on tape about his undergraduate courses.
Indiana University student George David related the story of the professors and the overhead transparencies, 11/14/94. Anne Matthews in
Bright College Years
(op. cit.) quoted the student remarks, and discussed the evaluations, pp. 198â99. The cross-country survey of the
Insider's Guide to the Colleges
is from the 1999 edition. Many studies contrast “lecture/discussion classes” with “active learning” situations; a classic work, still valid, is
Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education
, National Institute for Education (Washington, D.C., 1984).
Randolph H. Weingartner in
Undergraduate Education
(op. cit.) included the study that “found lecturing to be the mode of instruction of” most faculty, p. 102. The day that I wrote this footnote, I passed by a seminar room at Indiana University and, through the open door, I saw a professor standing at a lectern, lecturing four students! Mary Beth Marklein reported on the study that calculated the number of questions from students per classroom hour in
USA Today
, 10/9/90. An undergraduate at the University of Iowa remarked that “lectures frustrate me” in an interview in Iowa City, 10/19/99.
The Carnegie Foundation has tracked faculty attitudes toward students for many decades: Ernest Boyer in
College
discussed some of their findings, pp. 140-45; and individual universities, including my own, have discovered similar faculty complaints over the years. The interview with the University of Texas (Austin) junior occurred in the student union, 11/21/98. Ernest Boyer in
College
summed up, “If faculty and students do not see themselves as having important business to do together,” p. 141. A comment as powerful as Boyer's came in
What Matters in College: Four Critical Years Revisited
by Alexander Astin (San Francisco, 1993), p. 419. Astin, a UCLA professor, has conducted the most extensive polling of undergraduates ever undertaken; he concluded that “the net result of these trends [emphasis on research, de-emphasis on teaching undergraduates] is a large physical and psychological distance between the research university faculty and their undergraduate students.” The latter feel that they are “not regarded as important enough to merit the personal attention of the university community's most esteemed members: the faculty. No wonder, then, that student satisfaction with faculty is lower in the public university than in any other kind of institution.”
9: New Siwash in Red Ink
Arthur Levine's comments came in an op-ed piece for the
Chronicle of Higher Education,
“Higher Education's New Status as a Mature Industry,” 1/31/97, A48.
USA Today
did a good job of tracking the escalating costs in higher education and printing the comments of the
corporate critics (it did not explain the main reason for the costsâUpward Drift): see Mary Beth Marklein's article on the costs, 2/5/97; Jon C. Straus's op-ed piece on the same subject, 5/17/97; and the editorial complaining about the costs, 3/5/98. All of these pieces provided excellent and accurate statistics, and I have used them in the text; the Marklein piece noted the increase in research expenses of “157% between 1981 and 1995,” and the item about George Mason University; and the Straus one, “bureaucratic bloat.” Nancy J. Brucker wrote about “50 percent of their time to fund-raising,” and “States now typically supply,” in the
Washington Post
, 2/22/98. She also noted that when the job performance of administrators is reviewed, they are “graded on their fund-raising ability, and those who won't do it, or don't do it well, don't get promoted”; indeed, some get fired.
Christopher J. Lucas in
American Higher Education
(op. cit.) wrote about the history of state universities and their late-twentieth-century predicament, chapters 5 through 7; and he discussed the topic in his
Crisis
(op. cit.), pp. 110f. From a market point of view, raising tuition made some sense, but in terms of higher-education historyâpublic universities were established to allow bright students within the state to attend, regardless of their economic statusâraising tuition changed the nature of many student bodies, particularly at residential campuses, with poor students increasingly priced out of the school and relegated to urban institutions and community colleges. Sara Hebel of the
Chronicle of Higher Education
wrote that the Clinton administration's tax credits for tuition were not helping competent but poor students enter and stay in four-year universities, 10/22/99.
Patrick Healy of the
Chronicle of Higher Education
reported the prediction by Harold A. Hovey of State Policy Resources Inc. on the decline in “state spending on higher education” in the twenty-first century, 7/27/99; in the article, David Breneman, a high official at the University of Virginia, seconded this prediction: “The basic message is a sobering oneâwe're acting like everything's just wonderful right now [during the current prosperity] and all the problems are solved for higher education,” but we're living in a fool's paradise. Lisa Guernsey of the
Chronicle of Higher Education
reported the U.S. General Accounting Office's figures on the 234 percent increase in tuition fees of four-year public universities, 9/6/96.
Time
magazine did a cover story on the escalating costs in higher education, 3/17/97, and discussed the University of Pennsylvania numbers, as well as the “Chivas Regal effect.” No doubt, that effect has transmuted into the “Glenlivet effect,” and keeps changing names as tuition and the cost of rare brands of Scotch whiskey escalate.
Financial World,
3/15/94, carried the report by Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene on the rise in tuition versus educational quality. Just as the media loves and focuses on the “horse race” aspect of politics, it does the same with the “admissions competition.” In a typical example, the front-page feature article in
USA Today
, 4/16/96, by Kavita Varma, headlined “Top Colleges Reject Top Kids,” and subheaded, “More students than ever are turned away/Better than 1500 on the SAT is no guarantee of an Ivy League education.” Nowhere in the feature article is there a discussion of the lack of selectivity of the colleges and universities beyond the Ivy League. In its 1998 college issue,
U.S
.
News,
in a prominent place at the front of the “How to Apply” section, listed some important statistics, including, “Schools that accept over 90 percentâ205.” Yet most readers ignored this reality.
Gordon C. Winston wrote about
“prestige maximization
in an article for
Change
magazine, “The Decline in Undergraduate Teaching: Moral Failure of Market Pressure” (September/ October, 1994) pp. 9â14. The quotes from
U.S. News
about its criteria for rating universities are in the 2000 edition; the comments of Angela Browne-Miller, California higher-education expert, about “students graduating who cannot write a business letter,” were in her book,
Shameful Admissions: The Losing Battle to Serve Everyone in Our Universities
(San Francisco, 1996), p. 12. Rudolph H. Weingartner in
Undergraduate Education
(op. cit.) complained about the student concept of
“having been
to college ⦠[as] the important” thing,” pp. 126â27. The Boyer Commission's
Reinventing Undergraduate Education
(op. cit.), remarked about “undergraduate programs as sideshows to the main event,” p. 37. The male senior at Ohio State put his remarks in the P.S. section of the survey form for this book on the web, 8/12/99.
10: Student Mix and Match
In the mid-1990s, in my advanced expository writing classes at Indiana University, Bloomington, I used Clark and Trow's essay (op. cit.) as the basis of a writing assignment. I asked students to read the essay carefully, and then to respond to the following question: “In what ways, if any, do Clark and Trow's four student subcultures apply to current undergraduate life at Indiana University, Bloomington? Feel free to illustrate your argument with personal examplesâhowever, be sure to focus on the question, and do not write a memoir of your college experiences.” This intentionally open-ended assignment received a variety of responses and I quote from some of them in this chapter. Because the students in this class were typical IU undergraduates, I believe that their responses reflected the opinions of many students at their school and at similar universities across the country. However, I claim only anecdotal, not scientific, validity for these responses. Finally, for obvious reasons, I cannot use the students' names but, if they read their comments here, I wish to thank them, as well as all of the other students who wrote such good and thoughtful essays on this assignment over the years.
A number of historians and sociologists noticed that the campus turmoil of the 1960s broke down the barriers between student subcultures, often unifying undergraduates from various groups against the administration or the national government. Helen Lefkovitz-Horowitz (op. cit.) remarked that “the boundaries between groups became more permeable,” and this continued in subsequent decades, p. 290. Patrick T. Terenzini and Ernest T. Pascarella remarked on this phenomenon in their late-1970s article on Clark and Trow's subcultures (op. cit.), pp. 245â 46. Alexander Astin's comment about “the student's peer group” is in his
What Matters in College?
(op. cit.), p. 398.
The most authoritative study on intercollegiate athletes engaging in antisocial behavior is the ongoing “National Initiation and Athletics Survey,” conducted by Alfred University in upstate New York. Educational journals and the national media have printed the results of this survey, for example,
USA Today
, 8/31/99. In addition, the national media has increasingly covered specific incidents at various colleges and universities, for example, the Associated Press, 11/25/98, carried a story about a party involving North Carolina State athletic scholarship holders that resulted in a murder, and
USA Today
, 2/4/00, featured a hazing incident involving the University of Vermont hockey team.
The
Insider's Guide
(op. cit.) discusses the LSU student dress code in the 2000 edition, and an on-campus visit to Ohio State made me aware of the “Cake Lady” tradition. The questionnaire for this book (op. cit.) revealed how students spent their time during the average school week; the statistic that 32 percent of male students spent more hours per week as sports fans than they did studying and doing course assignments was ascertained by comparing each respondent's totals for the question on studying versus the one on sports fandom. The Ohio University student attending Bristol University put his comment in the P.S. section of the web survey form, 9/10/99. Scott Edelstein's remarks are in his book,
The Truth about College: How to Survive and Succeed as a Student in the Nineties
(New York, 1991), p. 103.
Lou Harris announced the results of his polling in a talk to the National Alliance for College Athletics Reform at Drake University, 10/22/99; he also supplied the audience with a handout of his results. The Boyer Commission's comment, “At many universities, research faculty and undergraduate students do not expect to interact with each other” is in
Reinventing Undergraduate Education
(op. cit.), p. 9. A good example of undergraduate contempt for professors was provided by Chris Edwards, a student columnist for the
Indiana [University] Daily Student
newspaper on 10/18/99: “In small-town Indiana the guys who stagger around town in cheap suits and blather incoherently about things that no one cares about are called town drunks. Here [at Indiana University] we call them professors.”
William Tam's letter appeared in the
Indiana [University] Daily Student
on 3/28/95;
Mea culpa
âas a faculty member at IU, I did not attend this university-wide Founder's Day ceremony. I cannot remember what I did during that time period; however, I did attend my department's Founder's Day ceremony held later that day.
U Magazine
reprinted the cartoon entitled “University X” by James Lasser of the University of Michigan in the 3/96 issue.
The
Princeton Review
's explanation of its rankings are from its website:
www.review.com/
college; it offers a brief explanation of its methodology at the front of each edition but provides a much more complete one on its website. Julie Mandelbaum, guidebooks editor of the
Princeton Review,
provided me with a copy of every set of rankings for every year of the guidebook's existence, and also explained how some of the categories have mutated during the past decade. In terms of the “Party school” list, although the big-time college sports schools have dominated it over the years, some minor Division I institutions and some not in that division have appeared on it: in 1999, SUNY-Albany headed it, but was followed by major athletic powers, and in 2000, California State at Sonoma snuck on. Their presence seemed more anomalous than trend-like, although the University of Rhode Island's high ranking in 1996 heralded its debut in big-time basketball.
The
Princeton Reviewâ
s comments on Rice University appeared in its 1999 edition. Rice was thoroughly researched for this book, including extensive on-campus visits in November 1995, August 1997, November 1998, and June 1999. Christopher J. Lucas commented that “students do not need to be talked âat'” in lectures in
American Higher Education
(op. cit.), p. 293; he titled this section of his book “Neglect of Undergraduate Education.” In addition to the big-time college sports schools on the
Princeton Review
's negative academic lists, other institutions made the top twenty in recent years: some of the military academies, probably because of their relentless lecturing; a number of historically black institutions, again probably because of their historic commitment to lecturing; and Canadian schools like the University of Toronto and McGillâagain, these institutions feature massive lecture classes, and very few small discussion ones. Even the exceptions to the big-time college sports/beer-and-circus rule prove that lecturing deadens education.