Suppose you are an ambitious, gifted college student with a passion for your major and the potential to become a world-class college teacher. You are precisely the person parents and taxpayers want to be teaching tomorrow’s students. Furthermore, private and public spending per college student has grown faster than median household incomes for the past three decades, suggesting that people are willing to pay more for your services. You want this career, parents/taxpayers want you to have this career, and they are willing to pay for it; what wonderful prospects!
During your undergraduate studies you were introduced to several luminaries in your field who receive considerable attention from the news media and are often on the lecture circuit. They are well-known for their six-figure salaries and commanding positions in your discipline. So far, it’s all good. Except …
Unfortunately, the luminosity of the luminaries has nothing to do with their teaching prowess; it is entirely due to their scholarship. There is a thriving market for senior scholars in higher education -- a market that brings plenty of release time from teaching, along with high salaries and fame.
There is no corresponding market for world-class teachers. No one in higher education becomes famous or well-compensated for exceptional teaching. How could this happen, since the students, parents, and taxpayers (those who pay the bills) have only a passing interest in research, but an abiding and personal stake in high-quality teaching?
Before we address that question, it is important to note there are many social benefits to be derived from an efficient market for senior scholars; the existence of that market is not the problem. Only spite and envy would ban the market for scholars as some ill-conceived “fix” for the imbalance between teaching and research. The correct response is to learn why we have a market for scholars and no market for teachers.
The critical reason why one market exists and the other does not is the information available to potential employers. Potential employers of professors have sufficient information to judge scholarly productivity, but virtually no information that would allow them to judge teaching productivity.
Institutions seeking to hire exceptional scholars can identify productive scholars at other institutions. The information they need is provided by outside sources that are independent of the scholar’s home institution, the scholar in question, and the potential employer. That information comes from the journals where the scholar publishes, books they’ve written, citations by other scholars, and their reputation among other scholars in the field.
None of this information exists for gifted teachers, and as a consequence, a potential employer seeking gifted teachers cannot identify those candidates. This creates a real problem for the potential employer. The teacher’s home institution may know who is an exceptional teacher and who is not, but too many institutions don’t even bother to find out.
If the potential employer makes an offer to a candidate and that candidate is in fact a gifted teacher, the home institution will make a counter offer. If the candidate is in fact a poor or average teacher, the home institution will not make a counter offer and the potential employer is likely to hire a poor or average teacher. This leads to what economists call “adverse selection” for job offers to potential teachers. Since the prospective employer knows it is likely to hire a poor or average teacher rather than an exceptional teacher, it does not make offers designed to attract exceptional teachers, and the market for exceptional teachers does not exist. Clearly, this problem is made worse by tenure, since tenure greatly increases the cost of making a bad hiring decision. In short, the “market for superior teaching” has unraveled due to insufficient information about teaching quality.
What does this mean for our prospective college teacher? First, he or she will not be able to find a Ph.D. program that specializes in preparing world-class college teachers; all the Ph.D. programs try to produce scholars, even when their own faculty members are not good enough to adequately train a new scholar. Most of these second- and third-tier Ph.D. programs could succeed in training teachers, but they do not because all the rewards in the faculty tenure and promotion process go to scholarship.
Second, the lack of a market for teaching creates a real dilemma for a new Ph.D. starting an academic career. If he starts his career on the teaching track, his future employment opportunities are limited to the teaching track since it is the information attached to research output that enables outside job offers and he will not have time to do research. Further, if he gets tenure through teaching, he will never be able to move to another comparable institution with tenure; the tenured teacher is stuck at his home institution and his employer knows he is stuck. On the other hand, if he starts on the research track, there is a chance he can move up the quality rankings, gaining more salary and fame if he succeeds as a researcher.
Now, suppose we have two fully informed young people: one aspires to be a world-class scholar and the other aspires to be a world-class teacher. They are about to make their career choices. The fully informed potential scholar chooses an academic career and the fully informed potential teacher decides to apply her talents to some other career. The few talented potential teachers who choose college teaching careers are those who derive significant personal satisfaction from teaching (despite the lack of public acclaim or financial rewards) or are very risk-averse (they crave the economic security provided by a tenured position).
What does this mean for college prices and quality? Since there are few rewards for teaching, faculty members focus too much on scholarship. Rather aspiring to be well-balanced teacher/scholars, faculty members become slaves to scholarship. We have a similar result for institutions. “Mission creep” among colleges and universities is partially due to the imbalance in the rewards for teaching and research. Colleges and universities try to become research institutions, rather than world-class undergraduate teaching institutions. As great teachers are discouraged from becoming professors, and as professors are discouraged from focusing on teaching, undergraduate teaching quality declines steadily over time.
Some may argue that an active research agenda improves teaching quality, but the evidence proves otherwise. A meta-analysis of the studies looking at the relationship between research and teaching by John Hattie and H. W. Marsh finds that they are completely unrelated. Nor is it hard to imagine why -- more research means less time for teaching.
Why has this obvious imbalance existed for so long? First, the average faculty member has nothing to gain from correcting the problem. This is obvious if the average faculty member is a scholar, but, it is also true if the average faculty member is a teacher, as the average teacher is by definition not a world-class teacher (out of the entire population of potential teachers, the current system weeds out a disproportionate share of good teachers and encourages the rest to focus on research, meaning that the current crop consists of below-average teachers).
Further, teaching institutions have little incentive to correct the problem. If they compete for students by publicly promoting their exceptional teachers, they run the risk of having those teachers hired by another institution, and they strengthen the teacher’s negotiating position with respect to the institution. In other words, recognizing the exceptional teachers increases their mobility and raises the probability they will be hired by others. Even among teaching institutions, colleges do not invest in the personal reputations of individual teachers; they always tout the high-quality teaching of their faculty as a group (everyone is above average). While there are a plethora of campus teaching awards and recognitions, they count for little outside their home institutions. Prospective employers know that most institutions do not make a serious attempt to measure individual value added and that leads teaching awards to be more political than they should be.
Even if the home institution sincerely wants to compete on the basis of high-value-added teaching, it has no way of changing the environment it operates in. If it is the only institution to identify and promote their exceptional teachers, those teachers can be lured away by other institutions, and the rest of the faculty will resent the recognition given to exceptional teachers (current teaching awards do not lead to this behavior because no one knows what a teaching award at different institution signifies).
What Can Be Done?
The “holy grail” of higher education reform should be the creation of a market for exceptional college teachers. The vigorous market for scholars provides the keys to this project. First, the information required does not have to be perfect in order for the market to be efficient (the information about scholars is not perfect). Second, the source of this information should be independent of the individual teachers, their home institutions, and their potential employers. There is great hope that the Web will be the requisite outside platform. Intercollegiate teaching tournaments are another possibility, as are digital course offerings.
The key requirement is a mechanism for excellent teachers to establish their reputations independently of those who have a vested interest in the outcome. Once that happens, teachers will no longer be filtered out of the pool of professors, as they are now. As a result, great teachers will enter the profession in greater numbers, and existing professors will have incentives to improve their teaching as well.
Robert Martin and Andrew Gillen
Robert Martin is emeritus Boles Professor of Economics at Centre College and author of The College Cost Disease: Higher Cost and Lower Quality (Edward Elgar, Ltd., forthcoming). Andrew Gillen is the research director at the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.
In these financially perilous times, campus administrators are looking for places to slash costs, whether that means a universitywide hiring freeze or axing the French department. Even if the measure saves only a few dollars, the act itself is significant. When stubborn trustees or even the uneducated public inquire what the college is prepared to sacrifice to stay afloat, the provost or her henchmen must have some answers.
This air of pragmatic desperation has certainly infected the atmosphere at U of All People, where Provost Jeanne Dark has begun all meetings with the invocation “Every crisis is an opportunity.” UAP President Lenny Grouper, the third school head in as many years, has indicated his nervous assent.
Just as desperate, departments and programs are coming to terms with negative raises and zero office supplies, even as they make their annual cases to deans and higher-ups for more money. These pleas are a curious balancing act of a forlorn tone to show need, and can-do optimism to avoid Provost Dark’s pulling the plug on the program. Below is a sampling of recent e-mails.
From: "Dirk Hartwell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 2011/02/14 Mon AM 09:53:21 EDT To: <email@example.com> Subject: 2011-12 budget
To Professor Moriarty, Dean of Humanities:
As you probably know, the psychology department converted its last remaining lab into a combined mail room and office space last year, selling off our pigeons and cages on eBay for a grand total of $352. Because of the increase in class size, from 25 to a cap of 120, we’ve had to bend our curriculum to fit. The good news is that we’ve inaugurated two new courses for the larger sections, Psych. Ed. and Mass Thinking, and though we have no one to teach them because of the untimely departure of Professor Spitch to U Hoo (where the cap on comparable classes is 27½ ), we’re soldiering on. I won’t even mention what we’ve done with our lab rats.
We all recall what happened to the French department last year during its fiscal crisis, so this isn’t exactly a plea for funds, just your solid support and perhaps a promise not to cut our last office staff member, Hilda Trupp, who’s thinking of getting married. If you want the larger picture, think of it this way: where would America be without psychology?
Date: 2011/02/14 Mon AM 10:18:21 EDT To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: music and money
To Dr. Mamon, Dean of the Arts:
Why, oh, why is music always the first in line during funding cuts? Our one concert grand is permanently out of tune, and our piano instructor is giving lessons on the side during class breaks just to make some extra money. The chorus needs funds to travel to Salt Lake City for its annual competition with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. At the very least, you could provide us with new instruments. The children -- I mean the students -- will be so happy!
On the plus side, we’re putting on five concerts this year. Be sure and show up on March 6th, when we’ll be playing your favorite, “For the Love of Money.”
From: "George Manly" <email@example.com>
Date: 2011/02/14 Mon AM 11:22:18 EDT To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: fiscal fitness
I know -- we all know -- that you’re looking to cut costs, but please don’t look in the direction of the business school, especially not as we’re just climbing out of the recession. You don’t want to cripple our recovery, do you? Shrinking enrollments shouldn’t be reflected in our take-home pay. As you’re aware, most of our faculty have deliberately chosen to teach in the academy (except Ben Krupt), when they could be pulling down six figures in private industry, if this were still 2007 and they had those jobs.
All I’m saying is that we need to pump some more money into the economy, starting with the full professors’ salaries. As for the others, the trickle-down effect will work if we just give it time.
From: "Johnny Feare" <email@example.com> Date: 2011/02/14 Mon AM 12:13:14 EDT To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: the usual
It’s that time of year again, and it’s the same song as last time. I’ll keep it real simple. We need $100,000 more for football recruitment. Maybe $25,000 more for incidentals. This is a small request. Did I say $25,000 extra? I meant $50,000. We had a real good season last year. We’re doing pretty damn well now, too, but we could be doing better. And you know what the alums will say if we let things slide. You want to keep your job, don’t you?
David Galef is a professor of English and the creative writing program director at Montclair State University. He also writes dispatches from U of All People for Inside Higher Ed.
Professors, particularly those in the senior ranks, might have a reputation for being leery of social media. But they are no Luddites when it comes to Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook and YouTube, according to a new survey scheduled to be released today.