This is a really good article. The writer reflects on his terrible experience as a chemical engineering major. This ex-engineer student has basically stated some of the biggest reasons why I think CS, IT and many of the sciences in general are losing student enrollments. Click here for the writeup.
This IRKS me to no end! As an instructor, I can make a difference, but as a PhD student, the differences I can make are very minor. (The irony in all of this is that I need to keep my research as a priority so I can graduate and be a professor someday. I hate irony.) As I've mentioned months (if not years) ago in older blogs, the lack of pedagogic skills at colleges and universities is taking a toll. The grim reality is that when a department considers potential candidates to fill an opening as a professor, most colleges and universities care about one thing -- how much money can this person bring to this department? That's it! I'm sorry to say that this is the way it is here at numerous other colleges and universities around the country.
Douglas (the writer) clearly came into college as an extremely talented individual, graduated with honors, took all accelerated classes, etc. He was well prepared for what he was about to embark upon. But, he lost his vision. Why? BECAUSE OF POOR TEACHERS! His experiences with both professors and their TAs were absolutely terrible. It's one thing to be in a class, know your lost, and not do anything about it. It's another thing to be lost, and try to do something about your situation, and get no support whatsoever.
So, you must ask yourself, "Why do these terrible professors stay on board?" In state schools, there are two reasons -- money and tenure. Otherwise, in all other colleges, it just comes down to money. Many of these professors bring in some good research dollars. Many departments are required to meet quotas in terms of research dollars, and if they fail, the talented faculty that care about teaching more than their research are the first ones to go. Even if they get the best student evaluations, they get rave reviews from students in their courses, and their courses have the highest enrollments over all courses in the department, the college doesn't care. Ex-professor X isn't doing their part in bring in research dollars.
I had a professor back when I was doing my MS in CS that had a profound impact on me as a computer scientist. He shaped my thinking and gave me a platform to stretch my abilities to new levels. I ended up doing my master's thesis under his advisement. I used many of his methods throughout my years in industry. I completed my MS back in 1992. I found out a couple years ago that he didn't get tenure, and that's why he left academia. Why didn't he get tenure? Because he wasn't bringing in enough research money. Can anyone see anything wrong with this picture? This is reality, folks! This is what really happens in colleges and universities nationwide. The faculty that have the highest ability to bring out the biggest potential with students are the least respected in the departments.
If you want my opinion (which you didn't ask for, but if you got this far, hey... it's just a couple more paragraphs), changing the priority from research to teaching has to be the first significant change to happen nationwide. This should not be interpreted as me saying that research must be put on hold. On the contrary, research must clearly continue or else we will lose our lead in tech as a nation. Ideally, teaching and research should coincide. Professors should strive to bring aspects of their research into the classroom. I believe that if you sink resources into your teaching right from the first year that students start courses in their major, and those standards continue throughout their academic career, then you will have molded a student research staff which would allow a department to get even more done in research than the current strategy of simply ignoring pedagogy. If these students are truly inspired and are involved in research, if they can see the fruits of what they learned being manifested in their projects, then there is a very good chance they will stay for grad school, at which point they will be well-prepared to perform significant research projects. It's a win-win situation. The department gets more resources from which to perform research, and the student is rewarded with experience to place on their resume, as well as sheer satisfaction from being a part of doing some significant research project. There are long-term effects as well. If the department reputation shines, a larger pool of students will be interested in applying to the major, and the average level of the student that gets to the point of being able to do research increases.
My idealistic side believes that this is just a simple application of the principle of reaping what you sow. As an instructor, I can inspire young, energetic, talented, creative students from the beginning. I can encourage them to push themselves further than they thought they could go. They can continue to get that inspiration from other faculty as they complete their foundational courses. Then, by the time they get to their senior year, you now have a pool of students craving cutting-edge research projects and opportunities that will be eager to do much of the research under direction of the faculty. I (as well as the entire department) will have reaped what we have all sown.
On the other hand, the nation as a whole is reaping what its sown already.
In my experience, it is an impossible job for any professor to perform high quality research that is solid enough to receive grants, AND spend the time needed to teach in such a way that inspires and molds up-and-coming scientists, researchers, etc.
Perhaps I'm just being too idealistic again.
