As a matter of course, we almost always ask applicants to submit 2-3 course descriptions of classes the applicant envisions and would like to teach. These matter a lot–and they can tell us more about vision, responsible knowledge of field, some effort to suss out our institution than a teaching statement. They take a different kind of thought than syllabi (which often tell much less about how someone thinks of a course than the institutional policies on plagiarism and grading). Since we don’t do letter grades but narrative evaluations, we don’t much care about grading policies and we do want to know more about how this person would envision the field and work with our students.

Teaching portfolios are now common, and at least the first posts leave aside the students’ evaluations of the course. I’m guessing that like me, many find these problematic, but sometimes these comments can be suggestive–even negative student comments can tell us that the teaching is challenging and demanding, which is what we’re looking for. Faculty who pitch it high and then back down as students need them to work better than those who pitch it too low and then try to ratchet up.

In other words I’d have to put some money toward shaking up the structural problems that currently drive institutions toward the “third-rate Michigan” model. It goes without saying that any serious reform would require serious backing, both from the state governing bodies and campus constituents, though because this is a hypothetical experiment I get to assume I have both.

I have mixed feelings about the value of teaching portfolios because good teaching depends so much on responding to specific situations. A syllabus, lecture, or assignment that is perfect for one institution may be utterly unsuitable for another. I think that a show-and-tell approach might be useful here: have a candidate bring one or two specific assignments, activities, websites, lectures, or whatever to the interview, present them to a small or a large group, and discuss the thought process that underlay their development: the nature of the student body, the goals of the course, the reasons for developing this particular element in the course, different ways in which these particular items could be adapted to a new course or a new setting. This might help the interviewers evaluate each candidate’s teaching philosophy and intellectual flexibility more substantively than a canned statement of teaching philosophy does.

The most critical investments in individuals for many large public universities are in athletics. There is a reason why the head football and basketball coaches at such institutions are by several fold the highest paid state employees and that is the economics. Based on ticket sales alone a full stadium is worth at least 2 million dollars per game and that doesn’t include the income from the courted well-heeled donors in the special boxes. As winning is the primary requirement for filling a stadium and the supply of coaches who can establish and maintain a winning program in a competitive conference is limited, considerable attention and funds are invested in football and basketball programs and their head coaches.

Next is investing in individuals who can increase research funding indirects. Even in public institutions the indirects on most grants are close to 50% of the grant total, half of the granted amount going to the investigator to spend on research supplies, lab technicians, minor equipment and graduate students and the other half being retained by the administration to support such things as the library collection, the power bill, the janitors, general upkeep and so on. As state support for typical major public institutions is around a quarter of the total budget, these indirects are a very important source of income. Therefore, attracting faculty who are highly competitive for those $500K NIH R01’s is very important as less than one in five proposals are funded. A research star who is successful in consistently obtaining funding to run a large lab brings in millions of dollars so institutions compete for such stars. Hence, considerable funds are invested in attracting research talent and because the institution tends to get what it pays for, the associated reward structure.

By comparison, what additional revenue does the institution generate from additional investment in excellent undergraduate teaching? Little or none if the additional students are in-state students paying in-state tuition. Because the supply of these students is in excess at the current level of in-state tuition, no classroom seat will be left unfilled no matter the teaching. As legislatures pay a school for x students, if x + 1 are enrolled, they still only pay for x so attracting more in-state students is a loosing proposition. I doubt legislatures will pay more per student to improve teaching excellence. Attracting additional out-of-state students who pay the several fold higher out of state tuition to generate income to support teaching excellence is problematic. If the target market is those out-of-state students attracted by reputation for teaching excellence, the public institution is now competing with the elite private institutions with established reputations, making it a very tough market with a long lag between investment and return. I’m betting that comparing public institution websites to the elite private institution websites will show that the former are promoting other things about themselves more heavily than teaching excellence compared to the elite private institutions.

In short, I doubt that the marginal benefit of investing in teaching excellence is sufficiently positive, particularly compared to alternative investments in other missions, to justify that focus as the primary emphasis. I wish that was not the case.

Also, the more teaching experience, the better – if a person’s only been a TA, then have they at least TA’d for large lecture courses on several occasions, so that they’ve seen it done well and/or badly? If visiting/adjunct faculty end up favored, this is IMO a feature, not a bug – it would be a good thing for academia in and of itself.

Recruit from SLAC’s, but with caution – I’ve done both, and (at least in my personal experience) the required persona and skills are a little different. One can be a very good teacher in the SLAC context, and yet not have the charisma to hold the attention of a room with 2000 people in it. I would also try to recruit from the next tier down in the state schools, who may well have more relevant experience.

I think one should be wary about duplicating the community colleges too much. The school at which you’re aiming should have a symbiotic relationship with the cc’s – it should be the ideal destination for strong transfer students from the cc’s.

First thing for the new president to do is to thank heaven for small mercies. S/he has a couple of things going for them. First – a lot of small private colleges with regional identities are going to be hard-pressed in the next few years. There’s still a certain market for regional identities, though, and, less nebulously, for higher education that’s close to home. The public university is ideally placed to take advantage of this. I’d repeat to myself, as often as possible: “The University of Whatever is here to serve the population of Whatever.”

Secondly, despite all the talk about small class sizes, there is a glamour and a thrill to sheer size that has deep cultural appeal to Americans. Those huge lectures – done badly, they’re astonishingly awful, of course. But done well, there’s a real energy in the room which I haven’t encountered anywhere else. I’ve seen that become an end in itself, where the arena rock atmosphere started to get in the way of actual learning. But I’ve also seen it used responsibly to reinforce the retention of information.

Thirdly, the lifestyle of the big college town is likely to be appealing to potential faculty, which, once you’ve decided who you want to recruit, should make recruiting easier.

Another model is more innovative but cost inefficient – build an R1 base of top-researchers whose sole teaching responsibilities focus on grad students. Add a “teaching college” layer with faculty who are passionate about teaching and can mentor those grad students in the undergrad classroom – these people would lead undergrad education and guide TAs, while the researchers pull down grants and infuse the “new knowledge” into the system. But effectively, you’d be hiring two faculty to fulfill the role that 1 typically is assumed to do now. Not going to fly, especially in this climate.

To be honest, most recent PhD???? really learn to teach in their first two or three years on the job.

This is true of high school teachers as well. But by 3 years out, people are usually well on their way to being promising teachers, or pretty clearly not headed there. So, yes, this would require people to put some time in as non-tenure-track faculty to be hired at an excellent institution; but the institution would then have to recognize that as the plan, and not be all “we can’t hire someone from a tier way below us,” as many institutions currently are. There’d have to be a real shift in hiring priorities for this either way, and I think it would lead to greater mobility for teaching-oriented academics in what could be a really good way.

I work at a teaching institution and the administration is still stuck on a hybrid R1/high school teacher model for tenure and promotion. (Some sort of publication plus time served and not pissing off your colleagues = tenure and promotion). Some of this is due to the union contract, but a lot of it has to do with minimizing costs in terms of time and money for the administration.

As you say, “great teaching doesn???? offer the same kind of external record that research or publication productivity does.” Publications are a simple and easy way to validate a hire or promotion. In a sense the journal reviewers have already done this for you. Which is why my school wants more people to publish something before tenure. It has nothing to do with the mechanics of the job, but it sure makes hiring and promotion easier. Somebody else thought you did something good so we’ll give you tenure.

North might have a model for hiring great teachers, but it certainly would skew things in favor of not only adjuncts, but also midcareer people who want a lighter teaching load, or a chance to teach in a larger department. I would love to teach more classes in my specialization, but frankly, thats not what my current department needs. So most of my time I teach Western Civ.

So there is a way to hire great teachers, but it would certainly stack the deck against recent PhDs. But I am not so sure that is a bad idea given the mission of your hypothetical teaching university. I do not think I was that great of a teacher when I finished grad school. I was competent, but not great. I think most people would admit as much.

A R1 PhD program is a lousy place to learn about teaching. Either the subject is ignored entirely and you learn to teach from your fellow TAs and grad instructors; or the department “outsources” the lessons in pedagogy to a nebulous “college teaching portfolio” program offered for minimal credit by the Grad School. To be honest, most recent PhD’s really learn to teach in their first two or three years on the job.