"English 101, 102 and the survey literature courses are not the sorts of courses which necessarily require an instructor with a PhD. . . The letters after someone's name do not guarantee good teaching skills."
I believe you are correct, LVN, insofar as the discipline of English is concerned. And you are correct by saying that a Ph.D. after ones name does not guarantee good teaching skills. However, the philosopy of whether or not to have a graduate students in the basic introductory course differs from discipline-to-discipline. From a national perspective, and from my experience, my particular discipline tends to assign its most experienced faculty members to teach the introductory course. Not just any senior faculty member, of course, but senior faculty members who can spark student interest as well impart state-of-the-art knowledge. Also, from my experience, when a senior and experienced faculty member does teach the introductory course, that faculty member wants to teach it again . . . and again . . . and again -revising the lectures annually, of course, in order to maintain the course on a a state-of-the-art basis. In my discipline, graduate assistants are typically used for laboratory sections, and for some lower-division courses. I do not know what the current situation is at USM - I am referring to what is generally the national norm.
quote: Originally posted by: LVN "I have to take issue with this remark. A PhD is a research degree. PhD's are experts in certain fields, and they bring to those fields a greater depth of knowledge and experience than someone with an MA. However, English 101, 102 and the survey literature courses are not the sorts of courses which necessarily require an instructor with a PhD. I have been a TA and an adjunct (elsewhere). I can tell you that adjuncts, who do not have to do committee work or publish, can bring a great depth of energy and dedication to their teaching. The letters after someone's name do not guarantee good teaching skills."
So, what you're saying is that someone who knows less is a better teacher. And up is down.
quote: Originally posted by: interested " So, what you're saying is that someone who knows less is a better teacher. And up is down. "
Kindly read my post. That is not at all what I said, what I meant, or what I implied. I said that certain core courses do not require one to have a PhD. I said that having a PhD does not necessarily make someone a good teacher. Does someone need a PhD to teach parts of speech and subject/verb agreement (which I have had to do.)
quote: Originally posted by: LVN " Kindly read my post. That is not at all what I said, what I meant, or what I implied. I said that certain core courses do not require one to have a PhD. I said that having a PhD does not necessarily make someone a good teacher. Does someone need a PhD to teach parts of speech and subject/verb agreement (which I have had to do.) "
LVN is right. That's why I said that what is customary varies from discipline-to-displine. What is good or established practice in one discipline does not necessarily pertain to another discipline's treatment of the introductory course.
Thank you, Eaglegate. I was thinking back to my undergraduate days. I went to Northwestern my first two years, where I was taught by several famous professors who never knew my name or my face. The papers were marked by TA's, the labs were taught by TA's, the discussion groups were led by TA's. Who was teaching me?
quote: Originally posted by: LVN "Thank you, Eaglegate. I was thinking back to my undergraduate days. I went to Northwestern my first two years, where I was taught by several famous professors who never knew my name or my face. The papers were marked by TA's, the labs were taught by TA's, the discussion groups were led by TA's. Who was teaching me? "
I should add that these were gigantic lecture sections where the prof gave the lecture to hundreds of students at a time. We could have a great tussle here over what constitutes "teaching"
quote: Originally posted by: LVN "I should add that these were gigantic lecture sections where the prof gave the lecture to hundreds of students at a time. We could have a great tussle here over what constitutes "teaching""
When students have a choice (and they do not always have a choice), they can consider a large university, a small liberal arts college, or a community college. Those choices should be identified, along with the pros and the cons of each. This is but one of the reasons I object to the goal of enticing any and all students to enroll at USM (or at any other school for that matter) simply for the purpose of making it the largest in the Magnolia state. That designation carries no distinction whatsoever.