Tipsters
The fair division of work in an academic department is one of those problems
that will probably never be solved to everybody's satisfaction. However, this
does not mean that we should not try.
Our Department is in the process of looking for a new "formula" to lessen
potential conflict in this regard. But it seems that the task is even more
complex and complicated than we anticipated. One of the major problems,
of course, is that everybody firmly believes that he or she is working harder
than anybody else in the department.
I would therefore really appreciate your input in this regard. For example:
* In trying to bring about a more fair division, teaching on both undergraduate
and graduate levels are compulsory some departments . The problem,
however, is that you just cannot turn certain lecturers loose on
undergraduates. Although they might be outstanding researchers and even
good lecturers on a Ph.D. level, they are a total disaster when it comes to
teaching undergraduates. And what about those who have no teaching
aptitude whatsoever, regardless of the level?
* Is there any way to (roughly) quantify a teaching load, e.g. xx number of
undergraduate lectures equal xx number of graduate lectures; xx number of
undergraduate/graduate lectures equal supervising xx master's/doctoral
dissertations?
* To what extent can the marking of undergraduate papers and
assignments on a undergraduate level be compared with similar assignments
on a graduate level?
* Most lecturers on a graduate level feel that they should be credited for
hours spent to supervise graduate students in areas such as Clinical and
Counseling Psychology. (Counseling = American English; Counselling =
Oxford English). But what about undergraduate lectures who spend a lot of
time with students coming to see them with all sorts of academic (and
personal) problems?
* We all know of colleagues who are poor teachers but good researchers,
and vice versa. How fair is it to allow the good teachers to mainly teach, and
the good researchers to mainly do research --- especially against the
background that "publish or perish" is the norm at most universities? When
it comes to promotion, publications and/ or research are usually rated
significantly higher than teaching excellence. Isn't it therefore unfair to put
the good teacher/poor researcher in a situation where his or her chances to
be promoted are reduced?
I look forward to your viewpoints and especially recommendations in this
regard.
Dap
**********************************************************************
DAP LOUW, PH.D.(Psych.), PH.D.(Crim.)
HEAD: CENTRE FOR BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES
PROFESSOR: DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE
P.O. BOX 339
BLOEMFONTEIN
9300 SOUTH AFRICA TEL: INTL + 51 + 401-2444 (Work)
436-3423 (Home)
FAX: INTL + 51 + 447-5719
EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********************************************************************
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
