NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/math/15136

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 5.7 KB | 109 lines

Newsgroups: sci.math
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!zurich.ai.mit.edu!ara
From: [e-mail] (Allan Adler)
Subject: Re: What can we have for an educational system?
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 12 Nov 92 19:50:19 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: sci.math
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
References: <[e-mail]>> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:01:05 GMT
Lines: 94

I would like to join Jon Gilligan in criticizing the following quote from
Laura Walsh:

   >I agree.  Think about teaching a class in a university.  Typically,
   >the class meets 3 times a week for 50 minutes.  The instructor will
   >spend about an hour preparing for each class (photocopying, getting
   >references, checking the texts, etc.).  The class meets for 16 weeks
   >in the semester.  The instructor teaches a maximum of 2 courses a
   >semester.  Bathroom breaks are permitted, as is lunch with colleagues.


I have already posted articles in the past describing the depths of
working conditions that occur in universities in the US. For example,
that which Laura Walsh portrays as "typical" in a university
is considered part time work in some universities and pays $7000/year
at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock. It is not uncommon for
full time employees to have to teach four courses per semester.

It is not the case that one simply rolls out of bed and teaches.
People who take their teaching seriously and who attempt to be in any
way creativewind up spending a lot of time preparing courses
and developing teaching strategies, even if they only teach 2 courses.
I know people who teach four courses and attempt to maintain their
educational standards and their commitment to their research and
it is heartbreaking to see how hard they have to work. For some reason,
having to work harder under such strenuous conditions is often commensurate
with low status and low pay, even for full time work. For example, at the
University of Rhode Island in Kingston Rhode Island, there is a RULE
that says that if you take a 1 year job as replacement for someone on
sabbatical, you MUST teach 4 courses and you can only receive about
$20,000 per year for your trouble. A lot of people are taking 1 year
jobs and even one semester jobs just to have an income and these
working conditions tend to depreciate the very research credentials
that they need to continue to get jobs.

There is, however, a certain chore that many people in a department
call "teaching" and that may be what Laura Walsh is referring to.
It has nothing to do with teaching as I understand the term.
Some people in the department like their research better than the chore
and they are called researchers. Others like the chore better than
research and are called teachers. But the idea that teaching could mean
something else is not supported.

The apparent complacency that underlies such descriptions of working
conditions as Laura Walsh has given us is not uncommon. I have no doubt
that many people enjoy the conditions that she describes, but the assertion
that they are typical is utterly false. And it is obvious that they cannot
be typical since there is no mechanism to make them so. No matter how
badly one gets screwed because the system fails to work the way we
imagine it is supposed to work, there is normally nothing one can do
about it. People may express sympathy, muttering something about how it
really isn't supposed to work that way, but then they shrug and walk
away.  The truth is that as long as there is no mechanism to
guarantee good working conditions, the abysmal working conditions
that one finds must be regarded as being consistent with the standards
of the profession.

What kind of mechanism is required? I am not sure how to answer that.
Many people think that a union is the answer. There is much to be
said for this point of view, since unions are, after all, in the business
of defending working conditions. There are however ways in which unions
are incompatible with the ideals of scholarship, notably the ways
in which they tend to increase the bureaucratization of creative activity.
If institutions that employ scholars did not impose intolerable working
conditions on the scholars, the scholars would not find it necessary
to defend themselves. So I tend to lay the blame at the feet of the
employers. There is, however,  a larger picture, namely that of the context
in which universities try to support scholarly activity, the context of
society as a whole. We live in a society which neither understands
nor appreciates scholarship and our educational system at all levels
is a manifestation of this. How does the university respond to the lack
of uncontrived resources? It throws some of the scholars overboard
nominally to preserve itself. But it doesn't have to be like that.
There is no reason I can see why universities could not be the advocates
of scholars instead of the instruments of their exploitation and to match
their advocacy with commitment not to leave its scholars without the
necessities of their life and scholarship.

Let those who employ scholars take this step and let them take their
stand against the attitudes and institutions of our society
that regard scholarship as worthless while exalting mere moneygrubbers
to the highest form of existence. The arbitrariness of the policies
we live with becomes apparent as soon as there is no one to pay for them.
Let us take careful aim at the heresy that money is a rule of inference
which makes absurdities somehow logical, instead of catering to it with
our educational and employment policies.

Allan Adler
[e-mail]