Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Teaching Paradox

December 29, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

SAN FRANCISCO -- A new survey of faculty members in English and foreign languages will challenge some assumptions about how and why women and men do not get promoted at the same levels or feel the same satisfaction in academe.

The Modern Language Association has yet to release its “associate professor survey,” which, its name notwithstanding, included both associate and full professors. But professors involved in the report, due out soon, revealed some of the key findings Sunday at the MLA’s annual meeting:

  • On every measure of job satisfaction, men are more satisfied than women in English and foreign languages.
  • The only area where women are overwhelmingly very satisfied (although still not at the same level as men) is their autonomy in the classroom.
  • Women spend an average of 1.5 hours more per week than do men on grading student work.
  • Men work an average of 2 hours more per week on research.
  • It takes women longer than men to earn the promotion from associate to full professor, the gap larger in foreign languages than in English.
  • Contrary to other reports and anecdotal evidence, male and female faculty members do not report differing levels of service requirements, although both men and women feel that these obligations are increasing.

The survey and a report on the results are being prepared by the MLA's Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession, and several of that panel's members shared their thoughts on the implications of the findings.

Sara Poor, an associate professor of German at Princeton University, noted that in addition to the statistical information, the report quotes from free responses submitted by many of the women who responded to the survey. These quotes suggest that professors "love their jobs" but "struggle to meet the various demands they face." She said that there was a "bittersweet quality" to many of the female respondents' answers.

Many women reported feeling hostility from many of their colleagues and a lack of support in research, even as many departments value it over teaching. This raises the potentially troubling question, she said, of whether women value teaching for the "magic" of the classroom or because "teaching can be a kind of refuge" in that the classroom is the place where women (and men) have the most control over their professional decisions.

Elizabeth Zanichkowsky, a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin at Waukesha -- one of the two-year campuses in the university system -- noted that the MLA survey had relatively few responses from two-year institutions, but suggested that the issue may play out in some different ways in that sector -- which, she noted, educates an increasing number of undergraduates.

She noted that the many women who teach at community colleges are effectively cut off from active research careers either because their course loads make it impossible to devote the time to research, because tenure and promotion committees won't value it, or because they lack time -- even in the summer -- to visit archives or to write. (She noted that she was using a more traditional definition of research here, and said that many community colleges encourage research on pedagogy.)

Thus many women at community colleges -- where in many cases they may find more hospitable environments than at research universities -- not only earn less than those at four-year institutions but often "lack intellectual food," she said. "Book ideas become journal article ideas become conference paper ideas become ... thoughts," she said.

Joycelyn K. Moody, the Sue E. Denman Distinguished Chair in American Literature at the University of Texas at San Antonio, said that what most troubled her about the responses was that women reported feeling shame about their interest and success in teaching. Women should be feeling pride in their success as teachers, she said, but are "perceiving themselves as performing below expectations," because they aren't doing more research.

It's time to "dismantle those institutional values," Moody said, so that the shame disappears.

Moody also said that the survey results will show how some discussions that have been going on for years in higher education have missed a key element: gender. She noted that Ernest L. Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered in 1990 "paid no particular respect to gender," even as it called for shifting the reward system in higher education to value research on teaching and to see curricular work as contributing to scholarship. To talk about "free floating anxiety" about the relative value of scholarship vs. teaching, without considering gender, she said, missed a key point.

The MLA's forthcoming survey, she added, shows that there are "intersections of shame and gender and power" that need attention.

One audience member suggested, to much support from those present, that one solution to these problems would be to eliminate faculty rank (while keeping tenure). Without the full professor promotion looming ahead, she said, departments might be better able to focus on the strengths and interests of members and not impose one, research-oriented model. "What's the point of rank?" she asked, adding that it is "a vertical, oppressive, competitive, invidious structure."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Teaching Paradox

  • Women's Committees
  • Posted by DFS on December 29, 2008 at 4:40pm EST
  • I'm a 52-year-old man. Throughout high school and college I have had nothing but women as English teachers.

    Perhaps it's about time for a "Committee for Men in the Profession?"

    "Many women reported feeling hostility from many of their colleagues...." Nowhere is it mentioned from whom they feel hostility, their male colleagues or their female colleagues. (I'm betting on the female colleagues. They hold any perceived grudge longer than do men.)

    Further, Professor Zanichkowsky reports that, the women teaching at CC's, "are effectively cut off from active research careers either because their course loads make it impossible to devote the time to research, because tenure and promotion committees won’t value it, or because they lack time — even in the summer — to visit archives or to write."

    Again, where is the opinion of the "Committee for Men?"

    This professor goes on to say that women at CC's earn less than women at 4-year institutions! Again, where is the opinion of the "Committee for Men?"

    Further, a distinguished chair is "troubled." Let it be known that some women (read: people) feel that they don't get enough job satisfaction by teaching instead of researching! (All right, now, "Committee for Men," where are you, dammit? Aren't you troubled, too? Remember, you don't even have some glorified "committee" to carry your water!)

    Just read the article again, interchanging men with women -- the reality, despite the intended thrust of the article -- and you get the actual picture.

    Enough enabling! Don't forget that we men feel the same things!

  • Attractive option
  • Posted by Chris Paris at University of the Incarnate Word on December 29, 2008 at 9:45pm EST
  • I'm attracted by elements of the author's last paragraph to "The Teaching Paradox." Contractual options are an alternative my own institution has entertained, also, but not with any seriousness, yet. There are values and advantages to options. By establishing separate tenure tracks--i.e., one scholarship oriented with appropriate and realistic teaching responsibility, the other teaching oriented as more student services oriented may prove highly advantageous to any institution. Consider, for example, the profound need for teaching excellence in an institution's general education. The future of all students happens right there from the time they walk in the door; and, they probably desperately need extended orientation and acculturation for at least two years. Scholarship oriented professors may not necessarily be personality equipped for the talents that acculturating general education students may require--especially with regard to mentoring them to student success, persistence, effective advising, approaching advising as also teaching--i.e., developmental advising, and even acquiring students' trust which is almost magical in itself. On the other hand, the dichotomous extreme is what I experienced, myself, many many years ago, as an undergraduate at SUNY Stony Brook--which was, then, an extraordinary institution, and I am profoundly thankful for having lived through, even with all its challenges as a product of the sixties. You all remember that, and all the moratoria. Yet, as an English major, I had one professor, for example, who was an internationally renowned literary critic; and I, indeed, felt priveleged to have been given the opporunity to have him as an upper-level undergraduate instructor. But, all he did was drape one arm over his chair, gaze out the window for the entire class session, and pontificate--substantively, of course, and with relevance to his devised subjects. My only motivations in that course were course-grade survival, and mythologizing to myself how august was my opportunity--which assisted in keeping my attantion along with pulling on my sideburns to keep myself awake. And, then, of course, we also have individuals dedicated to our endeavor who are talented or who love both qualifications and whose lifestyles and/or institutions' workplaces permit them to pursue both with equal gratification. One particular requirement of scholarship, however, is the availability of resources. Many institutions, although extraordinary in producing wonderful graduates are regrettably ill equipped with library and reseach resources for the pursuit of cutting-edge scholarship. Of course, that scenario is getting better digitally, but we ain't there, yet.

    Given the above, possibly two tenure tracks might make sense and better serve our students' needs as well as our institutions' needs. There is nothing to say, also, that as instructors evolve in their careers, that they cannot cross over. Why not? Our lives are not static, either.

  • titles/ranks and tenure track
  • Posted by LM on December 31, 2008 at 10:15am EST
  • I see two major issues in lack of rank/two tenure tracks: two tenure tracks = upper and lower. See the Canadian system: lecturers (less esteemed) teaching language courses vs. professors teaching literature.
    Second, I would argue for yet another rank. Too many people gun for full professor early and then do not contribute to the dept. or school after that last promotion, though they are around for 20+ years after it. Super-professor? I don't know, but there needs to be a third rank beyond associate and full.

  • Abolish the Rank, solve the problem
  • Posted by Dr. Pepper , Professor in Training on January 1, 2009 at 4:10pm EST
  • The problem here is Rank.
    Community college faculty are lower on the totem pole than research institutions. Adjuncts are even lower than that. The problem here is rank and the inherent caste system within the rank.

    There should be a new system put in its place that is place and rank agnostic. It shouldn't matter is you do research or not, if you teach at a research institution or not, if you are an adjunct or not. Your pay should be determined based on your work. Equal pay for equal work!

    There should be a formula that determines your pay, and this should include number of classes taught, the number of students in the classes, whether they are upper level or intro classes, whether you do research and so on. Research should not be viewed as the only holly grail, good instructors should be rewarded equally!

    The only difference between a tenured and an adjuncts should be whether you are a permanent or temporary employee

  • the lesser lecturers are the untouchables- fight back
  • Posted by phree , dr. on February 6, 2009 at 1:05pm EST
  • As Dr. Pepper notes above the gender issues identified in the article are rather ingrained in academia and create a caste system that effectively counts a segment of the community out based on "status" conferred by the elite tenured at research institutions. It is disconcerting, draining and causes many women to leave the profession if they are not able to find supportive "lesser" positions. As a graduate student I spent too much time adjunct teaching because I needed the income; that "mistake" gave me the ability to cultivate a dynamic classroom, but has made me a pariah in my area of research. Now after completing the Ph.D. (in a timely manner at a "good" school), I have been lecture-tracked because I work as an adjunct at a small state school and full time faculty member at a proprietary institution.

    Again, I take these positions to eat, not to fulfill some magical feminine teaching ambition. I teach alongside many single-mothers who share my situation. We are excluded from participating at many of the major conferences because we do not teach at prestigious schools and have teaching loads that that our more fortunate counterparts pity. I teach 16 sections a year on a quarter system and 2 at another semester based school. The school with the quarter system provides 4 weeks vacation per year and most of the faculty are burnt out quickly. Despite this extreme disadvantage, I write and submit to the conferences in my field. Often I work late into the night and early morning to make a scholarly escape from the academic ghetto. At major conferences, I see papers very similar to mine accepted from those who have connections or teach at the "right " schools. These works are not of higher quality or any more earth shattering than mine, but their authors have significant advantages. They have a connection/mentor who selects them for coveted panels. So the caste system will never change because those who are rewarded have no incentive to admit/assist their lesser colleagues. The stars will promote their, or an associate's, graduate students while most others will be left out in the cold, especially women and mothers who dare to teach at lesser institutions. We lecturers are the people who provide the elites with a sense of superiority and they, our masters from research institutions, exclude us so that they can mutually reinforce their superiority in the profession. (I can't wait for the reply that argues for ontological superiority.)

    If a young promising undergraduate came to me to discuss the possibility of going to graduate school in the humanities, I would refer him/her to Thomas Benton's article "Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go." It outlines the problems for both genders and realistically describes the convergence of elitism, exclusion and the rough job market (which hasn't changed much in 20 years and is only getting worse). We on the lower tier ought to form our own organizations and disengage from these elitist communities (which means not buying/citing/using their obstuse theoretical texts in our classrooms) until we are readmitted into the profession with dignity.

  • Posted by Adjunct George on March 7, 2009 at 11:45pm EST
  • How many adjuncts and lecturers were in the survey? Get rid of the cast system and much of the backbiting may disappear. The backbiting is worse in the university than in industry or in the military! Perhaps that is a major source of the unhappiness?