NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/math/14854

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-12 | 5.5 KB

Xref: sparky sci.math:14854 sci.physics:18772 sci.astro:11926 sci.bio:4112 sci.chem:4538 misc.education:4266
Path: sparky!uunet!usna!faculty!baldwin
From: [e-mail] (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.bio,sci.chem,misc.education
Subject: Re: What can we have for an educational system?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:06:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: misc.education
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Lines: 103
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 12 Nov 92 10:40:32 -0400

[Sorry for replying to the wide cross-posting; I attempt again to
wrestle this topic back to its proper venue with the appropriate
followup line.]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (The
Morning Sun) writes (quoting Allan Adler [[e-mail]]):
>>As I have pointed out on other occasions, if they would improve the
>>working conditions, they could have PhD's teaching in the public schools.
>>I don't mean improve them a little. I mean offer working conditions that
>>would make a PhD happy and the glut of unemployed and underemployed
>>PhD's will beat down the doors of the schools trying to get in.
>
>Having Ph.D's teach in public schools is not going to help.
>A Person with a PhD, has done research in a particular area
>which is probably totally irrevelant to his teaching.
>
>Theorem : PhD implies good teacher
>
>[thats your assumed theory]

I agree with Allan in principle, I think, but I wouldn't put it that
way.  What he said is NOT equivalent to "Ph.D. implies good teacher."
This means that, from here on out, you are attacking a straw man, but
that's OK--let's move on.

>one counter-example can destroy your theory and arguments,
>I will however present several.

This would be true only if the only acceptable solution would be the
ultimate and final solution to the problem of poor teaching.  With
your "one counter-example" approach, you imply that a solution that
would make things in general better, but that would make occasional
isolated cases worse, is no solution at all.  I disagree, and that
clearly was not Allan's implication.

I did not suggest (originally) that Ph.D.'s are necessary or even
desirable in our public schools, but I did say (in a message to which
I believe Allan was replying) that a proof of mastery of the subject
matter should be adequate to be *admitted* to the teaching profession
(it is, of course, no guarantee of success therein).  A mastery of the
"education science" material currently required for a teaching
certificate in most places should properly be regarded as irrelevant
or even as a (slight?) disadvantage.

>Empirical Data:
>
>     [examples of horrifying and downright tragicomic incompetence
>         on the part of Ph.D. professors deleted]
>
>I believe I have given enough empirical evidence.

The word you are looking for in place of "empirical" is "anecdotal."

That aside, I accept your examples as true.  In fact, I could supply a
few of my own (though I don't think I could beat the one about the
chemistry professor thinking that Paul Dirac is "Daric").

None of this addresses the real issue.  Most Ph.D.'s I've met *do*
know their own subject matter well enough to teach it adequately.
Even the lousy teachers (with Ph.D.'s) I've known (with a couple of
exceptions) have had a good command of the material and can get by.

If we accept the above as *generally* true (no, one counterexample
won't disprove a trend), then one question remains.  Which of the
following is better:

    a)  A good teacher who knows his subject; or
    b)  A bad teacher who knows his subject; or
    c)  A good teacher who doesn't know his subject; or
    d)  A bad teacher who doesn't know his subject?

Obviously a) is best and d) is worst, but which of b) and c) is
superior?  I maintain that b) is superior and therefore come to the
conclusion that the average B.S. math major is probably superior to
most Ph.D.'s in "math education" (yes, there really is such a thing
and I've seen it firsthand) for the purpose of teaching in the primary
and secondary schools.  I'm not suggesting that such a person can
simply walk into a first-grade math class and teach extemporaneously
with no training and no lesson plan (though he might well be able to
come close to doing so successfully for a tenth-grade math class), but
the final product will be a lot closer to the ideal than it is now.

A final thought experiment:  if all this country's science teachers,
good and bad, were suddenly replaced with all this country's science
Ph.D.'s, good and bad, would we be better or worse off?  This is not,
of course, what I have proposed, but I think it illustrates the point
nicely.

>High school can't be saved. It's gone.

In my more discouraged moments, I tend to agree with the above.

>Try to save the university. And not with mindless PhDs.

I do not pretend to be familiar enough with the general state of
*higher* education in the U.S. to be able to respond intelligently to
this one.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   [e-mail]   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~