Interesting…this is something that has always got me thinking onto whether faculty are actually carrying out their roles other than research (at least major ones like teaching and service). And how well candidates for a faculty position represent their potential for these roles by only talking about their research in seminars and the like.
Essentially, potential candidates need to be evaluated for all their roles and not just research.

Thanks for the great post. Very well written.

Contrary to your experience, I didn’t grow up with cell-phones, internet, email and social media. And the more those “high seas” of the internet world become increasingly dangerous to sail through, the more I am happy to have known a time when, to find information, you searched for the printed encyclopedia on your parent’s shelf. Don’t take me wrong: I agree with you in the many educational possibilities the internet era provides. At the same time, however, I feel that it is also turning newer generations too focused on facts and “too impatient” to learn. Furthermore, I don’t think we have the tools (will we ever?) to steer our students adequately across those “oceans of nonsense” one can find on the net. Society has moved from the mouth-to-ear (“someone told me”), to “I heard it on the radio or read on the paper”, then to the “I saw it on the TV” of my generation, and now to the “I found it on the internet”. The problem here is that this is an exponential curve of the potential of each of those mass media to spread out nonsense. A lot more information funnels out a lot faster when climbing a step in that evolution of transmission of knowledge, but so does the speed of disseminating garbage. Plenty icebergs ahead, at port and at starboard.

You bring up a lot of good points. I honestly don’t know how I feel about student athletes getting paid. On one hand, they sure do a lot of work on behalf of the university. In fact, they are often the face of the university. I also believe that student athletes receive a lot of benefits already for just being a part of a collegiate sport. I can’t think of anything comparable except for graduate teaching/research assistants, but in the case of college athletes, we’re talking about undergraduates. I do agree with you on having standards with admissions. It is an ongoing problem. Students that are not qualified to attend a university are accepted due to their athletic abilities. However, some individuals that are not as academically gifted may see their athletic qualities as being what will eventually make them successful. Indeed this is a tricky subject.

I agree with you that university education at the undergraduate level should focus on preparing well-wounded individuals. the problem is that, instead, it has become some sort of chain production factory of individuals who know how to do x, y or z. I think this is partly a consequence of massification of the university system and technification of society. It is going to be hard to revert this situation, but people need to be able to see the value of becoming educated beyond the goal of finding a job. But, of course, many people go into large debt to go to college, so they need to see an applicable (that is, landing a job) outcome to their degree. It is a difficult balance.

Thanks for sharing Amanda! It is interesting to know that some sports team have given you more difficulties than others. Like we have talked about many times in class, universities (or at least the people that attend them) sometimes tend to put college sports on a pedestal. I, like many others, love college sports, however we must ensure that the “student” part of student athlete is being acknowledged. On the other hand, I can’t imagine being both a college student and a collegiate athlete. I think there is a happy medium somewhere.

You bring up a good point that not all students may be interested in teaching. I think where I struggle with this concept is that whether or not students are interested in doing research or not, they’re still required to do so (at least in my department). So clearly the emphasis in some cases is in research rather than teaching. I’m curious to know what a world would look like where all students were required to teach, but only those that were interested in research could seek out that path.

But aren’t undergraduates already exposed to such-writing reports and giving presentations- throughout their studies? (whether in senior design projects for engineers or one of the mandatory english classes). Although having an intensive writing/presentation class would definitely be more beneficial, I don’t particularly think that it is the way to getting a ‘successful career’. I believe that needs a lot more preparation/development programs etc. then adding these classes.

Many students go into engineering thinking that they could escape writing and instead focus on the math and sciences – what a terrible misconception. While I agree with your post, I also think the seminars were rather lacking. The focus was largely placed on ASCE format, ethics and referencing, but never on the actual writing itself. Although writing could be practiced and developed, I really do think engineering students could greatly benefit from taking lessons from professional technical writers. The requirement for conciseness and clarity makes technical writing different and difficult. The nuances in the tenses, sentence structures and organization make a world of difference. I had a technical writing course in my undergraduate at University of Toronto that spanned over 4 months. Much needed and appreciated. I still carry those lessons with me. So perhaps it’s an unfair comparison, but I just thought the seminars didn’t do much for me. Or maybe teaching technical writing during graduate school may already be years too late.

That’s a good model to base your own interviews upon. I wonder though, at an R1, do they really care about anything other than funding and research? Would they pick the well-rounded guy over the guy who brings in 20% more grants, but sucks at teaching? On the other end, would a SLAC care about a well-rounded researcher, when they could grab a famous teacher? In both cases, hopefully, but I am not sure.

I always assumed that the interview was mostly to see if they could envision working with you on a daily basis (is this guy crazy or a jerk, or is he a nice guy). Still, it is certainly a good model for the interview. I’ll try to follow it myself. ?

Well said. The amount of experience in these that students receive varies significantly across the university.

My current program has two separate seminars, and each requires presentations (about 1.5-2 per year for different audiences). The presentations for one seminar are actually required for graduation (and graded as 1 credit A-F courses). My last program only required the student present their masters work, and they have since done away with that too (replacing it with poster session). They have a seminar too, but it is entirely optional, so usually 4-5 people attend and the professor has to ask people to present. I think this is a huge disservice to them. No matter what they do after graduation, they’ll be expected to communicate effectively.