« On "Robust Fluid Processing Networks" by Bertsimas, Nasrabadi and Paschalidis (2015) | Main | MicroMasters »

March 20, 2017

Comments

Great post. You've put your finger on a number of problems (and perhaps signs of hypocrisy) in the current university system. Having spent years teaching in a (theoretically integrated) MBA core, I can point to one of the biggest reasons for a lack of true integration. It's difficult and, for the faculty, time-consuming. If you are being judged primarily, if not exclusively, by research productivity, all that time spent on integration has a negative return to you, irrespective of the possible positive return to the students.

A second problem with integration is that time spent on integrative content/tasks is typically time not spent on some niche topic closer to the instructor's heart. (Seriously, how can we graduate MBAs who have not seen multiobjective nonconvex programming under uncertainty??) Also, integrative content is often somewhat foreign/less familiar/less enjoyable to the instructor. (Me? Talk about marketing?? )

Among many (most?) of my colleagues, there was a perception that teaching evaluations were more a popularity contest than a measure of actual teaching. I tend to agree with that. I never heard of, let alone saw, any sort of pre/post competency testing of students. So my colleagues felt much more confident about "objectively" measured research productivity (articles, articles in "A" journals, citation counts, ...). These are, to a large extent, as meaningless as teaching evaluations, but easier for faculty to believe. So we reward research but not teaching.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Creative Commons License

Aurelie on Twitter

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad