What criteria are used to evaluate research in academia?

[vanhees71]

I've very mixed emotions towards my own high school teachers. Most of them were quite annoying but a few were really a gift. Among them was the physics teacher in the last 2 years towards the "Abitur" (I'm from Germany). In Germany you have to choose two main subjects ("Leistungskurse"), and I've chosen math and physics (the best decision in my life ;-)). The physics teacher was exceptionally good, and the reason is pretty simple: She was not trained as a physics teacher in the beginning but she studied just physics (at this time in Germany you got a "Diplomphysiker" which is equivalent to a today's master at universities), got her PhD in experimental atomic physics and then did some years of postdoc research in this field. She taught us physics in a very good way. It was challenging but precisely at a level you could just follow at high school, and it covered both the experimental and theoretical aspects very well. Even with the limited math you have at the high-school level we learned how to apply calculus (which we learned in math too of course) to physical problems. We even learned the Schrödinger equation of quantum theory and solved the time-independent Schrödinger equation for simple model cases like the box and even the harmonic oscillator.

So my advice is, do not study physics for high-school teachers but simply physics and then become a high-school teacher. The most important thing for a good teacher in my opinion is to have a very solid knowledge about the foundation of the subject you want to teach and to be excited for this subject and be able to provide this excitement to your pupils.

I also cannot follow the lamento about the "bad kids today". That lamento is as old as mankind, and you find famous quotes by Sokrates about the spoiled youth of his days. I'm myself a postdoc researcher at a university and also teach from time to time, and I love it. It's a great opportunity to learn something new yourself and to (hopefully) help the students to learn something. I think in some sense the whole purpose of doing basic research is to figure new stuff out and then teach it to the next generation, and teaching should be done in a very close relation to the way science is really done. This is an idea, in Germany known as the Humboldtian idea about what a good university should be, coming unfortunately out of fashion.

What's even worse are the modern ideas about teaching and didactics. Often I hear statements from (physics) didactics people that all the fancy stuff the physics students have to learn are unnecessary for the teacher students, who need more good didactics than a solid foundation of the subject. For me this is nonsense, and a real danger for science education.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

I've very mixed emotions towards my own high school teachers. Most of them were quite annoying but a few were really a gift. Among them was the physics teacher in the last 2 years towards the "Abitur" (I'm from Germany). In Germany you have to choose two main subjects ("Leistungskurse"), and I've chosen math and physics (the best decision in my life ;-)). The physics teacher was exceptionally good, and the reason is pretty simple: She was not trained as a physics teacher in the beginning but she studied just physics (at this time in Germany you got a "Diplomphysiker" which is equivalent to a today's master at universities), got her PhD in experimental atomic physics and then did some years of postdoc research in this field. She taught us physics in a very good way. It was challenging but precisely at a level you could just follow at high school, and it covered both the experimental and theoretical aspects very well. Even with the limited math you have at the high-school level we learned how to apply calculus (which we learned in math too of course) to physical problems. We even learned the Schrödinger equation of quantum theory and solved the time-independent Schrödinger equation for simple model cases like the box and even the harmonic oscillator.

So my advice is, do not study physics for high-school teachers but simply physics and then become a high-school teacher. The most important thing for a good teacher in my opinion is to have a very solid knowledge about the foundation of the subject you want to teach and to be excited for this subject and be able to provide this excitement to your pupils.

I also cannot follow the lamento about the "bad kids today". That lamento is as old as mankind, and you find famous quotes by Sokrates about the spoiled youth of his days. I'm myself a postdoc researcher at a university and also teach from time to time, and I love it. It's a great opportunity to learn something new yourself and to (hopefully) help the students to learn something. I think in some sense the whole purpose of doing basic research is to figure new stuff out and then teach it to the next generation, and teaching should be done in a very close relation to the way science is really done. This is an idea, in Germany known as the Humboldtian idea about what a good university should be, coming unfortunately out of fashion.

What's even worse are the modern ideas about teaching and didactics. Often I hear statements from (physics) didactics people that all the fancy stuff the physics students have to learn are unnecessary for the teacher students, who need more good didactics than a solid foundation of the subject. For me this is nonsense, and a real danger for science education.

Yes. I can vouch for a similar experience. I took geometry in community college. My teacher was employed by NASA for over 30 years. He is quite older, and African American, so in that time period you had to be the best and it shows. He would go above and beyond n explaining the material, we even did origami, constructions (all other teachers skipped these), and he even taught us to work from a least 2 books given time constraints. He was really great because he understood the material at a real high level and could explain without sacrificing rigor.However, there can be professors who are extremely brilliant, have created theories and useful research, however they can blow as educators.

I am experiencing this in my linear algebra class. The professor has written in countless journals, edits other people's research, and has multiple degrees (phd math, physics, masters engineering), the problem is he sucks as an educator. His test are basic, the problem is who have to teach yourself and we all have more than 1 class. There is literally 2 students in the class. He has a 90 percent failure rate for all classes. Surprised administration has not fired him.

 

[symbolipoint]

Yes. I can vouch for a similar experience. I took geometry in community college. My teacher was employed by NASA for over 30 years. He is quite older, and African American, so in that time period you had to be the best and it shows. He would go above and beyond n explaining the material, we even did origami, constructions (all other teachers skipped these), and he even taught us to work from a least 2 books given time constraints. He was really great because he understood the material at a real high level and could explain without sacrificing rigor.However, there can be professors who are extremely brilliant, have created theories and useful research, however they can blow as educators.

I am experiencing this in my linear algebra class. The professor has written in countless journals, edits other people's research, and has multiple degrees (phd math, physics, masters engineering), the problem is he sucks as an educator. His test are basic, the problem is who have to teach yourself and we all have more than 1 class. There is literally 2 students in the class. He has a 90 percent failure rate for all classes. Surprised administration has not fired him.

The constructions for Geometry are absolutely needed. Studying without handling them is a highly inferior Geometry education. Also, not quite Origami, there are some excellent paper-fold activities which help in some geometric concepts and theorems. One of the Prentiss-Hall books included them.

The student must do his own learning. One should not expect the professor to put all the learning into you like installing a piece of software through an installer file. A teacher may help, and often is very helpful in helping to show a method or some other explanation or demonstration. Still, if only two students still in a class,...?

 

[MidgetDwarf]

The constructions for Geometry are absolutely needed. Studying without handling them is a highly inferior Geometry education. Also, not quite Origami, there are some excellent paper-fold activities which help in some geometric concepts and theorems. One of the Prentiss-Hall books included them.

The student must do his own learning. One should not expect the professor to put all the learning into you like installing a piece of software through an installer file. A teacher may help, and often is very helpful in helping to show a method or some other explanation or demonstration. Still, if only two students still in a class,...?

Yes. Only 2 students everyone dropped before midterms. I understand up to isomorphism. Yeah I'm aware that it is ultimately the students job to learn the material, and oftentimes when going or already in a graduate program, we have to learn things on our own. Don't mind learning on my own, I am of the mentality that things should be learned for the sake of knowing them ie, ie no incentive, just to say aww I understand this, now let me show someone else. And he is not hard, I've had harder teachers but they were great lectures.

However, let's say you are an engineerir and you know you are not good at constructing bridges. If the bridges fall and you know you are not good at them. Should you be allowed to engineer? Same with teaching. If you are not a good teacher why teach? Go into the private sector instead.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

The constructions for Geometry are absolutely needed. Studying without handling them is a highly inferior Geometry education. Also, not quite Origami, there are some excellent paper-fold activities which help in some geometric concepts and theorems. One of the Prentiss-Hall books included them.

The student must do his own learning. One should not expect the professor to put all the learning into you like installing a piece of software through an installer file. A teacher may help, and often is very helpful in helping to show a method or some other explanation or demonstration. Still, if only two students still in a class,...?

And are you talking about geometry for the classroom (yellow book)? It was a fun read, I prefer ed kisselev. Tho.

 

[symbolipoint]

And are you talking about geometry for the classroom (yellow book)? It was a fun read, I prefer ed kisselev. Tho.

I was referring to college preparatory "Euclidiean" Geometry as students study while in high school or the remedial course of comparable content at a community college.

 

[vanhees71]

However, there can be professors who are extremely brilliant, have created theories and useful research, however they can blow as educators.

I am experiencing this in my linear algebra class. The professor has written in countless journals, edits other people's research, and has multiple degrees (phd math, physics, masters engineering), the problem is he sucks as an educator. His test are basic, the problem is who have to teach yourself and we all have more than 1 class. There is literally 2 students in the class. He has a 90 percent failure rate for all classes. Surprised administration has not fired him.

This is a problem. Mastering the subject is necessary but not sufficient for good teaching. Of course, you must at least have some passion for teaching. Many professors see teaching as a annoying inconvenience and their main passion is research. If you'd fire such people, you'd get rid of some of the most brillant scholars. It's well known that people like Bohr, Pauli, Dirac, and Einstein were lousy teachers although they did groundbreaking research and their papers are also very well written and understandable. Only if it came to prepare lectures for nice teaching, they didn't care much. And even the most brillant mind must prepare his or her lectures to make them good for the students. Of course, there are also counterexamples like Planck, Sommerfeld, and Feynman who all were brillant teachers on top of being geniusses in research.

 

[Lowedown]

The last time I remember having a serious student/teacher conference it involved the parents, the dean, a guidance counsellor, a teacher rep from the NEA, and an administrator while I was almost lost in the crowd. The students have social media sites where they can vent against or rate teachers publicly. If you choose high school teaching be prepared to face that lack of support from the school administration.

 

[RaulTheUCSCSlug]

I have no idea if this adds to the conversation or not, but one of the reasons why I decided to study physics was my high school physics teacher. (Mind you he was my biology teacher, then later my conceptual physics, then my IB (AP equivalent kinda) Physics teacher) Little did I know how difficult and extremely rewarding this major would be. I still thank him for leading me down this treacherous, mentally straining path.

He was kind, very willing to do one on one, and didn't mind "flipping the classroom" every once in a while. I think that is why I responded to his teaching so well. While other students thought of it as a "lame" way of teaching, I was never not entertained, and now I have the pleasure of calling him my friend. So there is my... I guess experience with Physics teachers. He seemed stressed out every once in a while, but that was because he cared about his job, and now he is the science administrator for the high school, and wants to move on to the district later on.

 

[symbolipoint]

This is a problem. Mastering the subject is necessary but not sufficient for good teaching. Of course, you must at least have some passion for teaching. Many professors see teaching as a annoying inconvenience and their main passion is research. If you'd fire such people, you'd get rid of some of the most brillant scholars. It's well known that people like Bohr, Pauli, Dirac, and Einstein were lousy teachers although they did groundbreaking research and their papers are also very well written and understandable. Only if it came to prepare lectures for nice teaching, they didn't care much. And even the most brillant mind must prepare his or her lectures to make them good for the students. Of course, there are also counterexamples like Planck, Sommerfeld, and Feynman who all were brillant teachers on top of being geniusses in research.

If that is how the great researcher professors are, why are they allowed to teach or why expect them to teach? If a professor is bad, really bad at teaching, or if he really does not WANT to teach, then his teaching makes no sense.

 

[vanhees71]

That's a good point, but you need positions for that, and usually a professor at a university is expected and supposed to teach. Behind this is the very good tradition, established in the 19th cenctury (at least in Germany) that there should be a unity in research and teaching. Good teaching at university should aim at making the students fit for doing research, and this can be best done by a researcher, who knows what's needed and what should be emphasized even in very "classical" subjects. E.g., nowadays we teach classical mechanics in the theory course with a large emphasis on the Hamilton principle, the canonical formalism and (if it's a good lecture) Poisson brackets and Lie-group and -algebra approaches to physics. The reason is obvious: That's what prepares you best for quantum theory, which every physicist must master to have a chance to get into conbemporary research. I always wonder, how old-fashioned on the other hand, Electromagnetism is taught. Usually you go through the whole development from electrostatics, magnetostatics to the full Maxwell equations and only at the end you mention the relativistic approach. I'd put it right in the opposite sequence: Preparing for the space-time picture of (special) relativistic physics in the mechanics course and then start right away with electromagnetism in the relativistic formulation. That makes everything much more clear and easy than the old-fashioned approach!

 

[atyy]

Behind this is the very good tradition, established in the 19th cenctury (at least in Germany) that there should be a unity in research and teaching. Good teaching at university should aim at making the students fit for doing research, and this can be best done by a researcher, who knows what's needed and what should be emphasized even in very "classical" subjects.

In Germany, how are physics undergraduates that don't go on to research prepared for work? Here on PF one is seeing every week some thread that a physics major doesn't give one any marketable skills, especially in the post 2008 econonomic context. Do German physics departments have a philosophy on this, and what do their graduates go on to do?

The reason is obvious: That's what prepares you best for quantum theory, which every physicist must master to have a chance to get into conbemporary research. I always wonder, how old-fashioned on the other hand, Electromagnetism is taught. Usually you go through the whole development from electrostatics, magnetostatics to the full Maxwell equations and only at the end you mention the relativistic approach. I'd put it right in the opposite sequence: Preparing for the space-time picture of (special) relativistic physics in the mechanics course and then start right away with electromagnetism in the relativistic formulation. That makes everything much more clear and easy than the old-fashioned approach!

I haven't seen an introductory book that does it that way, but there are some that start with the complete Maxwell's equations. I think one can still justify a 3+1 approach since quantum field theory is properly formulated in 3+1D, not 4D (considering the Hamiltonian formulation more fundamental than the path integral). Here are some books that start with Maxwell's equations.

https://books.google.com/books?id=LIwBcIwrwv4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Essentials of Electromagnetism By David Dugdale

http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/
Electromagnetic Fields and Energy by Herman Haus and James Melcher

Purcell is an "old fashioned" text, but I think it has the most wonderful derivation of Lamor radiation that I haven't found elsewhere.

 

[ShayanJ]

nowadays we teach classical mechanics in the theory course with a large emphasis on the Hamilton principle, the canonical formalism and (if it's a good lecture) Poisson brackets and Lie-group and -algebra approaches to physics.

Can you mention a classical mechanics textbook with such an approach?(I know, Hamilton's principle and canonical formalism are easy to find in textbooks but I don't remember a textbook using Lie groups and Lie algebras!)

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

Usually you go through the whole development from electrostatics, magnetostatics to the full Maxwell equations and only at the end you mention the relativistic approach. I'd put it right in the opposite sequence: Preparing for the space-time picture of (special) relativistic physics in the mechanics course and then start right away with electromagnetism in the relativistic formulation. That makes everything much more clear and easy than the old-fashioned approach!

I would have loved that. In our intermediate EM class, we basically got told that magnetic fields are relativistic electric fields, without really an explanation of what that meant. In the curriculum at my school, interm EM is the 3rd class on EM you take, although the second that is dedicated explicitly to the subject. I also got a reference to a book that seemed to have little insight into the matter. I wish I could remember the name.

 

[symbolipoint]

That's a good point, but you need positions for that, and usually a professor at a university is expected and supposed to teach. Behind this is the very good tradition, established in the 19th cenctury (at least in Germany) that there should be a unity in research and teaching. Good teaching at university should aim at making the students fit for doing research, and this can be best done by a researcher, who knows what's needed and what should be emphasized even in very "classical" subjects. E.g., nowadays we teach classical mechanics in the theory course with a large emphasis on the Hamilton principle, the canonical formalism and (if it's a good lecture) Poisson brackets and Lie-group and -algebra approaches to physics. The reason is obvious: That's what prepares you best for quantum theory, which every physicist must master to have a chance to get into conbemporary research. I always wonder, how old-fashioned on the other hand, Electromagnetism is taught. Usually you go through the whole development from electrostatics, magnetostatics to the full Maxwell equations and only at the end you mention the relativistic approach. I'd put it right in the opposite sequence: Preparing for the space-time picture of (special) relativistic physics in the mechanics course and then start right away with electromagnetism in the relativistic formulation. That makes everything much more clear and easy than the old-fashioned approach!

I would like to better understand university teaching versus university research. Do faculty come to the position as professor and really view teaching as an annoying distraction to research? Does the department put higher priority on research than on teaching? Do professors really want a research job but hope to do as little teaching as possible? Maybe the class laboratory sections are too few hours per week and a big increase in class-time devoted to laboratory work or lab exercises could make students into better researchers.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

I would like to better understand university teaching versus university research. Do faculty come to the position as professor and really view teaching as an annoying distraction to research? Does the department put higher priority on research than on teaching? Do professors really want a research job but hope to do as little teaching as possible? Maybe the class laboratory sections are too few hours per week and a big increase in class-time devoted to laboratory work or lab exercises could make students into better researchers.

I think some do. Some, however, view research as a nuisance as well. At my school we have professors and continuing lecturers. Everyone is encouraged to do research, but only professors are required to have a research project. I think the idea is that after you get to know the teacher from class, then you do research with them, and you start to learn how to work with the big dogs.

Me personally, I am not necessarily planning on it, per se, but what I can see myself doing is working at a university to get research funding. I don't have a problem with teaching, though. I hang out here a good amount, I tutor, and the like.

 

[WWGD]

I think it may be a good idea to break things down into teacher vs professor. A teacher may most likely not be subject to the pressure of publish -and-perish ;), but without a PHD, you are less likely to get tenure. I think this is an important difference.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

I think it may be a good idea to break things down into teacher vs professor. A teacher may most likely not be subject to the pressure of publish -and-perish ;), but without a PHD, you are less likely to get tenure. I think this is an important difference.

PhD does not equal professor. We have a continuing lecturer (I'm assuming that's what you mean by teacher?) whom did their doctoral thesis on a nanotech project. He's been there for longer than I've attended. So he has a PhD, but will probably never get tenure as a continuing lecturer (actually I'm almost 100% sure of this).

 

[WWGD]

PhD does not equal professor. We have a continuing lecturer (I'm assuming that's what you mean by teacher?) whom did their doctoral thesis on a nanotech project. He's been there for longer than I've attended. So he has a PhD, but will probably never get tenure as a continuing lecturer (actually I'm almost 100% sure of this).

I was referring to the OPs' use of teacher, by which I assume is anyone teaching below college level,
or teaching at college level without a PHD. Maybe the OP could clarify what s/he meant by this.

I meant a PHD is , AFAIK, very often necessary ( though, like you said, not sufficient) for a tenured position, at least at college or university level *.

* I admit I still don't know the difference between the two.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

I meant a PHD is , AFAIK, very often necessary ( though, like you said, not sufficient) for a tenured position.

Although I don't know, I would not refute that fact.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I would like to better understand university teaching versus university research. Do faculty come to the position as professor and really view teaching as an annoying distraction to research? Does the department put higher priority on research than on teaching? Do professors really want a research job but hope to do as little teaching as possible?

I can only speak from my limited experience (public 4-year university): tenure-track faculty are expected to spend approximately 60% of their time teaching classes, 60% of their time doing productive research, and 10% of their time doing 'service' (running programs, sitting on committees, etc.). Non-tenure track faculty, and there are many flavors, are either expected to spend 100% of their time teaching (instructors, lecturers, <insert title here>), or 100% of their time doing research ('research faculty'). Note that research faculty generally are paid through 'soft money' = grant dollars, so if they can't pay their own salary, they have no salary. Or lab.

Now: institutions with only undergraduate programs will have different tenure requirements than so-called "RU/VH" institutions (I postdoc'ed at a RU/VH institution, am tenured at an RU/H institution).

As far as what individuals like to do, it varies according to the individual. However, when going up for tenure, the review panels typically recommend tenure based on research activities, not teaching activities. Similarly for promotion to full professor: it's often based on how much money the candidate has generated. As far as department/college/administrative pressure, it varies even within an institution.

 

[jtbell]

* I admit I still don't know the difference between the two.

Do you mean between "college or university"?

 

[WWGD]

Do you mean between "college or university"?

No, between college _and_ university. And would you also please chime in on whether a PHD is necessary (though of course, not sufficient) for tenure?

 

[jtbell]

Back in my student days (1970s and early 1980s): a "university" was a (usually) large institution that offered both undergraduate degrees and graduate degrees through the Ph.D., and performed a significant amount of research; whereas a "college" was a small institution (1000-2000 students) that offered only or mainly undergraduate degrees, possibly with a few masters degree programs, and focused on teaching.

(I did my bachelor's degree at a college with about 1000 students total, all undergraduates; then did my Ph.D. at U of Michigan with over 40000 students, including graduate students. Big difference!)

Nowadays the lines are a bit blurred, because many of those small schools have added masters-level programs, usually specialized ones such as business or nursing or other health-related areas, and have "upgraded" their names. Over the past 30 years, many of the nearby competitors of the college where I work have changed their names from "xxx College" to "xxx University." However, their main focus is still teaching, not research. I still think of these as "colleges" even with their new names.

At either kind of school, a Ph.D. (or other terminal degree, in certain fields) is normally required for a tenure-track position. My college has sometimes hired people for tenure-track positions who were "ABD" (all but dissertation), with the expectation that they would finish their dissertation and Ph.D. within a couple of years. At least a couple of them had to leave when they didn't actually finish their Ph.D.

University professors are usually evaluated for tenure and promotion mainly on the basis of their research. College professors are evaluated more on the basis of their teaching; their research has gotten more important than it used to be, but mainly as a way to provide research experience for students. The exact balance between teaching and research varies from one school to another, though. Some elite colleges (e.g. Williams or Swarthmore) have fairly high expectations for research.

 

[WWGD]

Thanks, jtbell, that was helpful.

 

[jtbell]

I'd better add that a "college" as described in my preceding post should not be confused with a "community college", which is a very different kind of beast that doesn't even offer bachelor's degrees.

And that both of these are basically American institutions. I think colleges of the American type are pretty much unknown elsewhere in the world. Community colleges might have equivalents (sort of) in some kinds of vocational schools, or some kind of intermediate school between secondary school and university.

 

[ShayanJ]

Back in my student days (1970s and early 1980s): a "university" was a (usually) large institution that offered both undergraduate degrees and graduate degrees through the Ph.D., and performed a significant amount of research; whereas a "college" was a small institution (1000-2000 students) that offered only or mainly undergraduate degrees, possibly with a few masters degree programs, and focused on teaching.

(I did my bachelor's degree at a college with about 1000 students total, all undergraduates; then did my Ph.D. at U of Michigan with over 40000 students, including graduate students. Big difference!)

Nowadays the lines are a bit blurred, because many of those small schools have added masters-level programs, usually specialized ones such as business or nursing or other health-related areas, and have "upgraded" their names. Over the past 30 years, many of the nearby competitors of the college where I work have changed their names from "xxx College" to "xxx University." However, their main focus is still teaching, not research. I still think of these as "colleges" even with their new names.

At either kind of school, a Ph.D. (or other terminal degree, in certain fields) is normally required for a tenure-track position. My college has sometimes hired people for tenure-track positions who were "ABD" (all but dissertation), with the expectation that they would finish their dissertation and Ph.D. within a couple of years. At least a couple of them had to leave when they didn't actually finish their Ph.D.

University professors are usually evaluated for tenure and promotion mainly on the basis of their research. College professors are evaluated more on the basis of their teaching; their research has gotten more important than it used to be, but mainly as a way to provide research experience for students. The exact balance between teaching and research varies from one school to another, though. Some elite colleges (e.g. Williams or Swarthmore) have fairly high expectations for research.

Nice explanation. Just to make it complete, what are the criteria in evaluating one's research? I mean, is it # of papers? # of citations? h-index? or what?