Rather than paying premiums to attract instructors with specific credentials, administrators regularly assigned faculty to teach new algorithms or to incorporate computer assisted instruction, often at an instructor’s personal expense in terms of time and effort. In secondary schools, biology teachers were expected to substitute for chemistry teachers as needed. On the university level, professors traditionally prided themselves on having taught across their discipline. The military continues to rotate members from field to classroom.
It is natural to want and expect that students be trained by the best, most proficient individuals available. Costs are prohibitive, however.
Seasoned educators will smile at the arguments presented here for introducing “renaissance” persons back into education. However, they might seriously consider this may be their best means of countering the increasing movement towards online and proprietary education.
Good students recognize when an instructor is skating on thin ice in delivering class material. However, motivated students generally buckle down, tackle the text, and learn.
Admittedly, weaker students are disadvantaged, as are those experienced teachers one grade up who must compensate for deficient skills in their incoming class — at least in the short run. Teaching is truly a team effort, and the resistance of teachers to being individually evaluated on student performance is understandable.
Corporations, obviously, prefer that employees arrive at their doors up to speed with highly specialized skills specific to their industry. Educational institutions are not equipped to provide this, and companies should not expect to cost shift proprietary training onto educational sponsors.
Meanwhile, deans and administrators can trim educational costs by appreciating the true value of available faculty and using these human resources most effectively.
Maryann O. Keating, Ph.D., is a resident of South Bend and an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation.