pedagogical apologias, etc

[kaysixteen]

Forgive me for the lame title I thunk up for this new thread, started because what I want to say now is probably not a natural fit for any current thread and I do not wish to unnecessarily derail any of those.

What I want to say here is that it is crystal clear to me that my views on pedagogy differ greatly from the majority, perhaps vast majority of you, irrespective of the area of study your disciplines inhabit (at least for the most part).  As I said, my thinking is more or less the old school SLAC mentality, which is, also as I mentioned, full of clear historical interplay with the American boarding school culture (though there are signficant differences).  However, it is also true that, even when I was a student at dear alma mater in the late '80s, the younger faculty there were increasingly different, because, well, they did not have this background themselves, as they were mostly not only PhD grads of R1s, but increasingly had this as an undergrad background as well (indeed, in 2010, the newly announced president of the school was such a man, never having had any experience at any level in a slac, which fact was apparently sufficiently noticed and complained about by some alumni, so as to prompt a senior dean to write an apologia for the man, assuring the alums that he knew and was committed to our liberal arts tradition.  He was lying, apparently, because the gradual R1-izing of the school continued apace during his years, but has noticeably slackened off in the reign of his successor.  But professors there are simply not the same animal as their historical colleagues were, where the place was unambiguously dedicated to a teaching-first faculty, and many professors, esp humanists, did little publication of any kind (there were still plenty of these, well-tenured, in the late '80s, but the actual intellectual life of the place was as strong as any Ivy's).  This was also the model used by more or less all slacs, many of which explicitly championed (many, at least somewhat many, still do this) in their recruitment efforts, this fact, emphasizing the teaching-first, TAs far to the rear, if at all, nature of the schools, coupled with small classes, loads of prep school-style discussion classes around the seminar table, etc.  Even in STEM (only S and M of which are even by 2025 still taught at dear alma mater, and many other slacs), professors did much less of the stuff that makes R1 science life what it is, and many of these professors, esp at elite slacs, chose specifically to come to a slac like this in order to get this sort of employment situation. 

And, like it or not, one very real aspect of this sort of undergraduate experience is indeed that the teaching/ mentoring/ boarding school-esque environment always respects the reality that undergraduates are at best emerging adults, and need the sort of environment designed to maximize their intellectual, spiritual, and professional development.   Which by its very nature includes the reality that treating these kids like PhD candidates, irrespective of type of discipline, is not the best way, really not the proper way, to accomplish these goals.  And now here is the full confession-- a very large part of the reason I say things such as those I am known for here is precisely because it would be arrant hypocrisy to do differently... because the profs at dear alma mater showed mercy and wise corrective and restorative justice to me as needed.  They recognized that a barely shaving 18yo boy is not a 25yo professional adult and should not be treated as such.  I could and will give public or PM elaboration of any of my experiences without reservation, but only if asked.  Honestly, thus, wrt my views on pedagogy, writ-large (i.e., including discipline), I could simply do no differently.

[eigen]

Not to be too on the nose, but other than your personal experience in the 80s as a student, when was the last time you taught at a SLAC?

[bio-nonymous]

Kaysixteen: I will admit that I only mostly interact with undergrads if they are in my lab--whether they taking an independent study course with me, doing their honor's thesis with me, or the like. SO, my experience with undergrads is through a different lens--mainly only from being a student, or from afar, at large land grant R1 institutions--and from teaching/working with them in grad school or health professional school after they have graduated. I have no direct experience with SLACs at all--and truly value all the info I get from others about what that looks like. I do enjoy listening to others' reflections on the undergraduate teaching experience--it informs me about trends I see in our incoming students, for example. We all bring our own experience to our interactions here on the Fora.

[kaysixteen]

2019.

[eigen]

Interesting- do you see that much of a change relative to 2019?

My most senior emeritus colleagues (who would have been of age to teach you when you were an undergrad at a SLAC) seem to have the opposite opinion to what you suggest in the OP: they think colleges are increasingly babying students rather than treating them as adults. That opinion persists pretty much all the way down the ranks, at least at the two SLACs I've taught at. Very much opposite to your idea that SLACs are increasingly treating students like "25 year old grad students".

My entering college first years, to a large degree, have no idea how to live on their own. Many have never been grocery shopping. They've often never had to pay for things (check, credit card). They've never had to deal with government paperwork without a parent present. They've never opened a bank account, dealt with getting a phone, or any sort of contract. Increasingly our first-year seminar classes are all about teaching students how to survive without their parents running their lives, much less "treating them like PhD candidates".

That said, I would also suggest that many well-regarded SLACs have students involved in mentored research, and that those students are often as capable as the average first/second year grad student. They have had the extra individual attention and mentorship to succeed, and when they do go to grad school (it's about 1/3 to 1/2 of my department) are often going to much more highly ranked places than we as faculty came from. Not sure if that falls under "R1-ification", but if so it's been a thing since the 90s at least here.

[eigen]

This was also the model used by more or less all slacs, many of which explicitly championed (many, at least somewhat many, still do this) in their recruitment efforts, this fact, emphasizing the teaching-first, TAs far to the rear, if at all, nature of the schools, coupled with small classes, loads of prep school-style discussion classes around the seminar table, etc.  Even in STEM (only S and M of which are even by 2025 still taught at dear alma mater, and many other slacs), professors did much less of the stuff that makes R1 science life what it is, and many of these professors, esp at elite slacs, chose specifically to come to a slac like this in order to get this sort of employment situation.

In my experience, all of this is still very true at SLACs. Especially in the experimental S&M disciplines, choosing to teach at a SLAC/PUI is something you often decide early on in your career (grad school). That said, in my S discipline undergraduate research has been a hallmark of SLAC/PUI jobs (and students) for several generations, with the expectation that every student will have individually mentored research projects, where those from talented and dedicated students are often published. It's the teacher-scholar model where teaching and scholarship are inextricably linked: you're teaching students how to do scholarship through intensive mentoring, and they learn by taking part in that scholarship.

This fits the "teaching first" mission because while the research is often grant funded and published, the goal isn't the publications or grants: the goal is well trained students experiencing and taking part in research. The outputs in grants and publications are the things that enable you to keep that process going, by paying for students to work over the summer and providing the $$ for supplies you need to keep the work going during the year.

As such, the first part of your paragraph (below) doesn't ring true to me, at least not in S&M. Even my colleagues in the humanities have always been expected to be part of knowledge creation and dissemination, even with a teaching focused mission.

But professors there are simply not the same animal as their historical colleagues were, where the place was unambiguously dedicated to a teaching-first faculty, and many professors, esp humanists, did little publication of any kind (there were still plenty of these, well-tenured, in the late '80s, but the actual intellectual life of the place was as strong as any Ivy's).

Sorry for the double post: I can never quite get quotes the way I want them.

[ciao_yall]

Can we take this at another angle?

I enjoyed teaching. I needed a job, yes, still, I enjoyed the interaction with students.

However, being at a CC teaching wasn't creative. I wasn't doing my own intellectually challenging work. After a while, the same Intro to XXX class was getting dull, semester after semester.

So I moved into admin, which I enjoy. My faculty colleagues love working with students and "never get bored." Though several are curious about my transition and wondering about it for themselves. "Using another part of my brain."

So, as faculty, where is your ideal balance between teaching, research and service?

[Minervabird]

Can we take this at another angle?

I enjoyed teaching. I needed a job, yes, still, I enjoyed the interaction with students.

However, being at a CC teaching wasn't creative. I wasn't doing my own intellectually challenging work. After a while, the same Intro to XXX class was getting dull, semester after semester.

So I moved into admin, which I enjoy. My faculty colleagues love working with students and "never get bored." Though several are curious about my transition and wondering about it for themselves. "Using another part of my brain."

So, as faculty, where is your ideal balance between teaching, research and service?

I was at a SLAC, then an R2 state branch campus, a Russell Group University in the UK, Oxbridge, and then a post-92 in the UK (which is kind of like an R2). Out of all those, I enjoyed the Oxbridge tutorials the most for teaching and the full on research balancing each other out. The professorial chair I was given at the post-92 promised more research time, but in reality, I ended up being pressured to do a load of research, publish and run grants, but also have a fairly high teaching load.  After a decade of it, I got kind of burnt out from overwork and retired early. I moved as the Post 92 was where my husband grew up and he wanted to come "home," and frankly also due to pay.  It did set us up for retirement nicely, as the cost of living is cheaper where we live now.

[marshwiggle]

My most senior emeritus colleagues (who would have been of age to teach you when you were an undergrad at a SLAC) seem to have the opposite opinion to what you suggest in the OP: they think colleges are increasingly babying students rather than treating them as adults. That opinion persists pretty much all the way down the ranks, at least at the two SLACs I've taught at. Very much opposite to your idea that SLACs are increasingly treating students like "25 year old grad students".
 

That's more my experience in Canada. Far more was demanded of students when I started than now; there's has been a steady decline in responsibility placed on students themselves.

And I started university, in a different province than my home, at 16. By 25, I had completed undergrad and grad school, was married, and had a kid on the way. I had no idea I wasn't an adult!!!

[bio-nonymous]

Can we take this at another angle?

I enjoyed teaching. I needed a job, yes, still, I enjoyed the interaction with students.

However, being at a CC teaching wasn't creative. I wasn't doing my own intellectually challenging work. After a while, the same Intro to XXX class was getting dull, semester after semester.

So I moved into admin, which I enjoy. My faculty colleagues love working with students and "never get bored." Though several are curious about my transition and wondering about it for themselves. "Using another part of my brain."

So, as faculty, where is your ideal balance between teaching, research and service?

Roughly 55-65/25-30/10-15 Research/Teaching/Service; of course this comes with caveats...

[ciao_yall]

Administration is like 100% service. Some administrators do their own research projects or adjunct at other places.

[Ruralguy]

I have been teaching at a 100-ish ranked SLAC for the last 25 or so years. Its not the only place I have taught, but clearly it has dominated my career.

I would say that there is really a mixture of the two underlying trends here: R1-ification and babying of students. If they seem as if they'd be at odds, they are, most of the time, but not always.

We're far from ever being an R1, but we have just reduced our teaching load, and brought certain staff/deans working on grant management a bit more to the forefront. More new faculty are very active researchers/creators (some are artists and such). More faculty, but not anywhere near a majority, even in a give subfield, have grants of the government and foundation variety.

On the other side of the coin, we still admit almost anyone who meets the minimum requirements. So that level of students, up to the mid-level, need quite a bit of aid, and that bores and pisses off the better students. So, we're struggling with that in our teaching. It sounds like we wouldn't have many good students, but we do because of institutional loyalty, generous scholarships, etc.

We do believe in giving students research opportunities. Some of these students are great, and can probably publish. Some even go on to be academics (although, over all fields, its maybe  between 0.1 and 0.5 percent of our graduates that get academic jobs).  But most are just OK, and are mainly doing it to get practical experience with computers or instrumentation or various medical/biological techniques. But its not just STEM. Some are performing plays or even writing them. Same with poetry and other creative works. There's also some inter-disciplinary work.

How does this relate to the OP?  He's partially on to something, but there are a mixture of conflicting trends, and probably the R1-ification is more of a thing at Williams  than it is at, say, Washington and Jefferson College (no diss on them, my college basically is them!) . And gone are the days when a tenure candidate could use a rejection letter from a journal (and just one!) as proof of scholarly activity. In fact, we have a higher percentage of *retiring faculty* who still publish.

But on the other end, the pressure due to the demographic cliff is forcing many schools to coddle in order to retain.

Also, though SLAC's try their best to keep their core missions, you'll see more talk of "Business" and "Engineering" than in the good old days.

As far as my own work goes, I have a few different areas, and some I do on my own, some I do just with students with no chance of publication, and some I do with students with some hope of publication. Most STEM'ers and social scientists have had some students on publications over the years, if not tons. One biologist has one or two students on virtually ever publication, and there have been many for this person.

I hope that clarifies.

Oh, and I went to an ivy in the 80's that had some SLAC'y characteristics, but was obviously within a major R1 university. We do have a decreasing number of faculty who either went to our SLAC or any SLAC.

[apl68]

Oh, and I went to an ivy in the 80's that had some SLAC'y characteristics, but was obviously within a major R1 university. We do have a decreasing number of faculty who either went to our SLAC or any SLAC.

I suspect it's been many years now since somebody who was an undergrad at a SLAC has had much chance at all of breaking into academia.  Seems that to succeed you've pretty much got to have come up through the R1 world all the way.  If you go to grad school from a SLAC background, you're in danger of already being too much of an outsider.  It was already the case in the 1990s, but my SLAC mentors didn't seem to realize that.  Well, I found out the hard way.

[apl68]

But on the other end, the pressure due to the demographic cliff is forcing many schools to coddle in order to retain.

The other thing is that there is so much coddling going on before the students reach college age.  It's all many of them know.  I've seen some just remarkable examples of that in a non-college setting where I live.  For example, every couple of years we have a mother come to the library with a timid, mute, downcast-gazing teenager in tow, inquiring whether we can give the silent teen a job.  It's obvious that the mother is hoping that the library can serve as a safe harbor for her teen to earn some money and learn some adulting skills, while remaining sheltered from any challenges or unpleasantness.  Sorry, but we just can't offer that.  We need workers who can do public service, which means looking people in the eye, using your voice, and sometimes dealing with frustrated or grumpy people.

I assume these silent teens are probably "neurodivergent" in some way, and I get it because I was also.  But they make my timid teenage self look swaggeringly loud and bold.  I don't know whether they've been disciplined so severely at home it's broken their spirit, or kept so extremely sheltered that they never developed any spirit to start with. Anyway, those are extreme examples of what appears to be a much broader phenomenon. 

[marshwiggle]

I assume these silent teens are probably "neurodivergent" in some way, and I get it because I was also.  But they make my timid teenage self look swaggeringly loud and bold.  I don't know whether they've been disciplined so severely at home it's broken their spirit, or kept so extremely sheltered that they never developed any spirit to start with. Anyway, those are extreme examples of what appears to be a much broader phenomenon.

I think modern terms like "neurodivergent" and <whatever>-"non-conforming" are just refusals to admit that people, ALL people, need to learn how to adapt to social norms to actually operate in society. No-one is born meeting all social norms.