Positions available: There are currently three: Moral or Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind and Knowledge Integration
That's me! Now I'm so, very very tempted to actually apply...
"Good morning sir, let's get down. What are your credentials?"
"Uhhh....I think good? Like, real good?"Plus of course I'd have to refuse an actual salary, and I would probably have to refuse to teach the courses they actually want me to teach.
I would of course teach anarchy and property rights, dualism, and I'm not sure exactly what the third one would be called, respectively.
Now, a non-corrupt institution wouldn't actually give a crap about my credentials. They would just test me. Naturally I'd ace such a test.
As a result, we know for a fact that they don't care about actual philosophical ability. Instead they care about credentials and being socially acceptable.
"Now, a non-corrupt institution wouldn't actually give a crap about my credentials. They would just test me. Naturally I'd ace such a test."
ReplyDeleteNaturally. Anyways, what kind of test do you think should be required? I would object if you were to claim that the only credential you need to be a teacher is sufficient knowledge of the subject. You need to be able to teach, and I can't think of any sort of test which would assess that.
Of course, and on that note, I would agree that credentials should only count for so much. I took classes in college from professionals who'd been in their field for decades, Ph. D's, books, etc., but they just couldn't put together a class - they couldn't really teach, I'd essentially be learning out of the textbook.
The books were usually alright. So I guess that's my position - if you have "actual philosophical ability", write a book; don't go for teaching unless you think you've got actual pedagogical ability.
"Anyways, what kind of test do you think should be required?"
ReplyDeleteI would just ask them for their opinions, and demand that they defend them.
If they don't fall into logical contradictions, they win!
"I would object if you were to claim that the only credential you need to be a teacher is sufficient knowledge of the subject."
It's a good thing I don't claim that then.
But universities don't give a crap about teaching anyway, so it's kind of irrelevant to anything but a pie-in-the-sky type ideal.
"if you have "actual philosophical ability", write a book; don't go for teaching unless you think you've got actual pedagogical ability."
Um...dude...what do you suppose the purpose of a book is except to teach?
Dude, what do you suppose a blog is except a high-tech book?
Urgh. It hurts. Please don't say things like this. You'll make baby Alrenous cry.
Finally, how am I supposed to test my conclusion that I have ability if, as you imply, the blog isn't enough?
"If they don't fall into logical contradictions, they win!"
ReplyDeleteSays the dualist. =P
"Um...dude...what do you suppose the purpose of a book is except to teach?"
... that was sort of my point, in a way. I learned mostly from my books in college, and, if you have good philosophical ability and want to impart it, then you should just write (because it's easier than teaching).
The classroom environment is different, however. If you can write well, and impart some knowledge well in that sense, it still doesn't mean that you can teach a good class. In fact, sometimes that leads to the worst kind of teaching. The professor gets up there and starts giving a lecture which sounds like he's just reciting chapters from a book - he's good at writing, so he figures he'll just write a lecture and it'll turn into good teaching.
"Dude, what do you suppose a blog is except a high-tech book?"
It's more like teaching. Books aren't interactive, usually - in other words, the reader can't really "post a comment", or it's a lot more difficult in any case.
If I'm reading a book, I can't really access the author such to ask something like "I didn't really understand the bit about so-and-so - wouldn't that mean that x-and-y?"
Teaching needs to be accessible (especially philosophy), which is why the stand-and-lecture pedagogy is shit. Which means that, just because you've got the knowledge and can write with some ability, it doesn't follow that you can teach a classroom full of people.
Blogging is different. It's somewhat unstructured - you blog at your own pace, you write about ideas as they have come to you. It's different in many ways, actually, too many to enumerate here.
Point being, authoring and blogging are not the same as teaching. In general what you're doing is writing to people who have some kind of autodidactic interest in the topic.
"But universities don't give a crap about teaching anyway, so it's kind of irrelevant to anything but a pie-in-the-sky type ideal."
What would you say they give a crap about?
"I would just ask them for their opinions, and demand that they defend them."
That's not testing you, it's testing them.
"Finally, how am I supposed to test my conclusion that I have ability if, as you imply, the blog isn't enough?"
Get a job as a teacher. I'm not saying that you shouldn't, or that you have to know before you teach. I was just responding to the notion that you should just have to pass a test on the subject, and that's it.
If a university gives you +1 eligibility points for having experience, or having taught a class before, I don't think that's corrupt - I think it's smart. I think the concept of passing a test on the subject, as though to prove yourself as a teacher you just have to take the final exams yourself, is flawed.
"Says the dualist. =P"
ReplyDeleteMy dualism is very well-supported, thank you.
The rest about teaching I'm gonna have to just say 'yes' though if you're using a non-pure definition of teaching such as 'teaching in the classroom,' and you expect me to treat it as such, then you need to let me know.
"That's not testing you, it's testing them."
Yeah, expertise is normally required to recognize expertise. I recently read an article about how this even applies to artists. The skills that make up competence are also the skills to recognize competence.
If this exercise tests the proctor not the candidate, what exactly do you suppose a certification program is doing?
For instance, I can recognize that you're very competent. The qualitative difference between your arguments and, say, Reddit's, are extreme, IMHO.
"What would you say they give a crap about?"
Hah! No need to rely on me. Get it from an 'authoritative' source.
I say 'authoritative' because they don't say anything I wouldn't say myself. But it's more credible, for some reason, if I get them to do it for me...
If you don't want to read it all: it's prestige, of which research is a major factor and teaching isn't. To test this conclusion: what kind of adjective is used to describe a 'good' university?
If you picked 'prestigious,' you win!
"Get a job as a teacher. I'm not saying that you shouldn't, or that you have to know before you teach."
I would love to. Except we have the certification problem all over again, and we're back to square one.
If a university gives you +1 eligibility points for having experience, or having taught a class before, I don't think that's corrupt - I think it's smart.
First, they don't care about teaching. Second, I don't disagree. They do do that, but that just means they aren't completely corrupt.
I'm talking about getting a job at my local university. You're talking about applying for a teaching job.
While I would love for that not to be a conflation, it is.
Oh I see the confusion now. You saw my comments about what I would teach and concluded that
ReplyDelete-I think I'd be good at it
-I think it's important to the position
Really, I was just pointing out that no matter how tempting it is, it could never possibly work out.
Whether I believe either of those are irrelevant. Which is good, because my ability to judge the first is zero and what I think about the second is complicated.