10/11 How a secret backroom deal between The Governor and
The Chancellor have sealed the UC into a permanent low
level of funding:
http://www.csua.org/u/jpe
\_ So, bad as this is, 2011 is not "permanent."
\_ Um, bad as this is, 2011 is not "permanent."
\_ While I don't support op or the article's editorials, the way
I read it, the author is pushing the idea that by 2011, UC
system may have lost much of what made it great, making it
difficult, though probably not "permanent" to regain its
excellence and status. I mean, would you have decided to come
to Cal if you had to pay 10-15k tuition a year to attend
a university where half of the classes are taught by TAs and
faculty members were mediocre? You'd have to throw a lot more
money at the problem if it ever gets that bad to fix it.
\_ how is that different from most research universities
including most of private ones? TAs for most part "teach"
the discussion sections only. The only class that I had
including most of private ones? At Cal, TAs for most part
"teach" the discussion sections only. The only class that I had
that was entirely taught by a grad student was RHET 1A/B.
When research universities hire new faculty, no one really
cares whether the candidate is a good teacher anyways. It's
all about research. That's the reality of the US research
universities, and I kind of like it, because it teaches people
to fend for themselves and not to expect to be spoonfed
all the time.
"teach" the discussion sections only. The only class that
I had that was entirely taught by a grad student was RHET
1A/B. When research universities hire new faculty, no one
really cares whether the candidate is a good teacher
anyways. It's all about research. That's the reality of
the US research universities, and I kind of like it,
because it teaches people to fend for themselves and not
to expect to be spoonfed all the time.
\_ TAs leading discussion section is fine, but at least
at when I last took summer sessions years back, many
summer sessions were taught by non-professors. I also
agree with you in that one of the stronger teaching tool
present at Cal compared to, say, Stanford, is the "fend
for themselves" nature. It may just be that I'm not as
capable as you are, but I do wish there was a just a tad
more hand-holding for me when I was an undergrad. That
aside, even if as a college-bound high school student or
a parent of one, if you had to pay similar amount of
tuition to send yourself/kid to a "public" school with
the "fend for yourself" mentality or a private school,
would the choice have been easy to make? And what if
there weren't even good *research* faculties at this
public school? I mean, why did you choose Cal, instead of,
say, Irvine or other UC's? Quality of faculty, regardless
of whether or not they're good teachers, matter. And the
article is suggesting that we are losing out on bid for
quality faculty members due to lack of funds. -pp |
http://csua.com/feed/