Steven B. Sample, president of USC, makes an interesting point in a recent online article. Universities, especially the elite research universities, make much of the accomplishments of alumni. University publications showcase what they’ve achieved, and celebratory events are scheduled when they return to campus. “What we do not want anyone to count, by contrast, is the number of our alumni under indictment or in prison. Liars, cheaters, evaders, invaders, wreckers, malfeasors of every stripe—their (typically) white collars sullied and tattered—embarras us.” Sample points out that most of the offenders in the news for financial scandals or personal transgressions went to “good schools.” Despite that, they missed learning some of the most important lessons they should have learned in college. How could that be?

Faculty who communicate intended learning outcomes help students to be more aware of their learning. The realities of “meta-learning” are that students gain practice in becoming more reflective on their experiences as learners—they start to see the why and how of education as it translates into knowledge and skills. Just as important is how they begin to view the educational experience in its entirety.

Hiring, promotion, and tenure activities are full of risk and potential landmines. Poor hiring decisions are not only costly, but the hiring process itself opens the institution up to litigation if everyone on the hiring committee is not trained properly.

I had lunch a couple of weeks ago with a group of about 20 math faculty, all of whom teach at a community college. The lunch was good but the discussion was even better.

The argument persists: teaching and research are complementary—each in some synergistic way builds on and supports the other. Standing against the argument is an impressive, ever-growing array of studies that consistently fail to show any linkage between teaching effectiveness and research productivity. Because administrators have a vested interest in faculty being able to do both well, the two sides continue to exchange arguments and accusations in a debate that has grown old, tired, and terribly nonproductive.

We want our students to learn what we have to teach them. We want them to retain it. In the best case, we want them to enjoy the work, assimilate the driving principles, and look forward to each opportunity to make their work better. We diligently gear up and learn how to use slick software that allows students easy access to a wide variety of materials.

Now that I’m one of those “senior” faculty, I hear a lot of digs about faculty who need to retire … deadwood, still standing but hopefully about to topple. The belief that the teaching effectiveness of most “seniors” declines is strong and persistent. Is it true or yet another one of those academic myths?

There’s a piece coming out in the February issue of the newsletter that highlights content from an article written by a political scientist who teaches quantitative content to math averse students. It’s a very pratical piece but also a great model—of pedagogical scholarship and of something we should all consider doing.

In “Social Dynamics of Online Learning: Pedagogical Imperatives and Practical Applications” (reference below) the authors write that “Failure to address the social and relational dynamics within online courses may result in greater feelings of isolation among the distance learners, reduced levels of student satisfaction, peer academic performance, and ultimately increased attrition. … More often than not, most students wait for the professor to ‘do’ something that magically knits or binds them with others in meaningful ways.”