Re: virus: Arts & Science

Reed Konsler (
Mon, 29 Apr 1996 18:54:10 -0400

Ken Sartor said Mon Apr 29, 1:57pm
"This is not _quite_ true. There are many universities that do not
offer PhD's in chemistry. I believe that they tend to value teaching
more highly. I know of only one anecdotal case. SUNY at Genesco (sp?)
has a 4 year program for physics and a friend of mine teaches there. He
does do some research, but it is secondary to his teaching... (he also
loves to teach). In any case, he involves his better students with
his research (which, i believe, turns out to be teaching...)."

Ah, I agree. But how did he get his job? Odds are he went to grad school and
did research. Then did more as a post doc. When evaluated for the position
the question was likely "how many articles have you published?" and when he
comes (came?) up for tenure the same question is (was?) asked. At no point was
he evaluated explicitly for teaching ability.

This is a generalization. Exceptions exist, and I'm not as familiar with
physics as I am with chemistry. What I do know is that even universities and
colleges primarily targeted toward teaching undergraduates evaluate their
incomming professors based on the length of their "rap sheets"

You're right, of course. If I really want to teach there are almost an
infinite number and ways of doing it.

But I want resources and power; more than are nominally allocated to teachers.
Teachers fall somewhere in there along with artists as people who are
considered useful, perhaps interesing...but not required.

Stephen said earlier that he though more money should be funneled into the
arts. I think more money should be funneled into teaching. We're in the same
bind; the world doesn't value what we do as much as we think it should.

So it is our responsibility to make them act as if it were so.