Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

The Ethics of Teaching in a Small Department and Obligations to the Students

Brian Leiter

A young philosopher writes:

Here is a question on the ethics of teaching philosophy in a small department. I can imagine circumstances in which a philosopher only gets to teach one course a year in their specialism (because the department is small but it needs to cover as much of the whole cannon as possible). That one course might be the students' only exposure to your area. Do you have a duty to give a survey for that course too (even if this means you only get to give a single lecture, say, on the topic of your PhD—or whatever other topic most interests you personally)? 
The students' education might be better served by the survey course, but on the other hand it would only be the handful of students who take philosophy further that would be disadvantaged, and teaching what really interests you helps with your research and keeps you sane. 

Any thoughts?
Comments are open; please post only once, comments may take awhile to appear.

Leave a Reply to Corey Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

20 responses to “The Ethics of Teaching in a Small Department and Obligations to the Students”

  1. Kirk Ludwig

    Strike a balance: use the first 2/3rds of the course to provide a basic background in the subject and a survey of issues and problems and the last 1/3rd to look at some topic in more depth.

    Reply
  2. Tait Szabo

    "The students' education might be better served by the survey course…"

    I do not think that that is necessarily the case. A course that emphasizes depth may serve students better than one that emphasizes breadth, or at least they may each have advantages, with neither type being clearly better than the other.

    Reply
  3. Sam C

    I'm with Tait Szabo: I don't see why students' education would be better served by a survey course. I think of myself as helping students to develop philosophical skills and virtues, not as displaying philosophers' wares, and an in-depth course on something one knows and loves strikes me as a good way to do that.

    Reply
  4. Jeff Glick

    It seems to me that the issue is really about which sorts of reasons are more important than others. If the decision is between a) teaching a class that has the maximum benefit for your students, and b) teaching a class that interests you and prevents your own suffering, then type a reasons generally trump type b reasons. Our first duty is to our students and their education.

    It is possible that in teaching one's preferred material rather than a survey course, one actually is doing what is most advantageous to the students. That would be a fortunate coincidence.

    Reply
  5. Enzyme

    I'm partially with Tait on this, but I'd add that a lot depends on the level of the course and what else is available. If we're talking about people early on in their student careers, then a survey would seem to be important – and too much detail too soon would probably fly over their heads anyway. However, if you're dealing with students who're already pretty au fait with philosophical argument more generally, and who might reasonably be expected to be able to spot argumentative strategies and parallels from other areas of philosophy, then you can afford to be a bit more acute.

    Let's face it, though – you can always end the final lecture of the course with one of two formulae: either, "If you're interested in this and want to look at it in more depth, come back in the autumn to do our MA" or – better yet, "If you're interested in this and want to look at it in more depth, please do feel free to buy my utterly kickass and reasonably priced book."

    Reply
  6. Brian-not-Leiter

    There are pros and cons to teaching a focused course at a small school. The big con is that they're not fun, especially for students with modest interests or abilities in philosophy (which is, presumably, the majority of your students). The big pro is that they're far better at developing the skills of students. So, I disagree with young philosopher that you deprive students of a better education by teaching a focused course, rather than a survey. Indeed, I think it's quite the opposite. Ultimately, surveys and focused courses both offer students the opportunity to practice philosophy. In that respect, they're equal. However, surveys are superficial and move too quickly, so what students learn is usually trivial, taken-out-of-context, and soon forgotten, which isn't nearly as likely in a focused course. In the end then, like seemingly every other choice teachers face at small schools, it comes down to catering to the mass of mediocre or poor students who barely have an interest in your subject vs. catering to your few elite students who might be able to squeak into a program, despite coming from University of Nowhere. I realize that sounds cynical—enough so that another small school teacher will probably want to seize the opportunity to righteously chastise me—but it seems true nonetheless.

    Reply
  7. Grad Student

    I also agree with Tait Szabo. The special topic courses that I took as an undergrad were more beneficial than the broad survey courses. I felt that the latter courses were nearly equivalent to reading several Wikipedia entries on different issues whereas the former gave me the opportunity to grapple with one issue for the entire semester. The special topic courses also seem to be good preparation for graduate courses. Although graduate courses are more intensive, they share a similar structure, at least from my experience.

    Reply
  8. Eric Schliesser

    Different teachers have different strengths and students (with varying background and competence) react in different ways to their teachers and the material taught. Moreover, it takes a while for 'young philosophers' to figure out the relevant parameters on these matters. (Some never do!) A lot of this is trial and error. Sometimes it can be exhilerating for students to be part of their teacher's 'workshop'. So there are no a priori reasons to teaching one's developing research.

    Reply
  9. Allen Coates

    I doubt that there's a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. For example, it seems to me to be a bad idea to have an entire undergraduate course devoted to a particular approach to metaethics (expressivism, say), but a perfectly good idea to have an entire course devoted to a particular approach to normative ethics (utilitarianism, say). Students, I'm supposing, don't have a very strong grasp of the problems and issues in metaethics, and so a survey course would make more sense. But they may have a good enough sense of what a normative ethical theory is supposed to be, especially if they've had an introductory ethics course.

    But even in metaethics, Kirk Ludwig's approach could be very successful. For example, you could spend the first part of the semester surveying problems and positions, then finish with an in-depth treatment of expressivism.

    In general, I certainly think it would help students to see a theory or idea developed in some detail. And both you and your students would benefit if you play to your strengths and teach the theory or issue you know best. But whether to spend an entire semester on it or only part of a semester will probably depend on the particular theory or issue.

    Reply
  10. Another Grad Student

    Recently coming from a school that had three professors teaching for most of the time I was there, and where virtually no students move on to grad school, I can speak a bit about what was actually done in one case.

    We had four courses above the 200 (sophomore) level, split between professors, so usually a professor would teach a higher-level course in their area only once or twice every two years. The students even in those courses were majority non-majors.

    The professors would do a survey format, covering as wide a range as they could. Where they would get to their own interests was in specifics – so, we would usually spend a few weeks a semester covering particular articles or books of interest to the professor, as a way to get into greater depth with some issues. Other than that, though, there was little in the courses themselves that went into great depth. Enough was covered for survey purposes, and some idea of the subject in detail was demonstrated as well.

    Another point to be remembered is the option of directed studies. I myself took three (and wish I took more), and they happened quite often for other students in the past. It's a way for the professor to get as in-depth into subject matter as the student is capable of (which, given the relatively low interest in philosophy at my school, meant that only very interested students took part in them), and it was typically in the professor's research interests, as that's what they spent the most time teaching students in other courses. So there are a few options, even if only survey courses are typically done.

    Reply
  11. Olof

    I'm an undergrad student in a quite small department who recently finished an introductory course in what was called "non-analytic philosophy", which bascially is supposed to mean what is usually called continental philosophy (even though I suppose Eastern philosophy also could be covered under this name – it wasn't in this course, though). The course was almost completely focused on phenomenology, especially the phenomenology and general ideas of Brentano and his students, which I think was somewhat lacking – being quite new to the field, it would be nice to survey many areas so that I could see what is most interesting and where I could focus on further reading.

    For example, people like Hegel were only briefly mentioned in the course, and many philosophers such as Nietzsche, Schopenhauer or even Heidegger who did phenomenology himself didn't get covered at all. The thoughts of such people would – or so I'd suppose – be more relevant for someone new to the field than the finer points of Brentano's (quite absurd) mereology and philosophy of time (both of which we were taught) for the reason mentioned above.

    However, I also think it's a bit of a false dichotomy to say that a course either should be themed towards one area or be a general survey course. Surely, to take an example from the course I just read myself, it would be possible to drop e.g. the lecture we had on Brentano's metaphysics and add some major name such as Hegel while still retaining the general focus on phenomenology. A lecturer or teacher could also perhaps suggest material for further reading in their main areas of interest rather than devoting the course completely to these areas.

    Reply
  12. Heath White

    First, I think it is productive for philosophers to question the received wisdom about Who's Who in a given field and what "ought" to be covered. A noted philosopher once told me that the arrangement of a syllabus could be a significant contribution to knowledge and I think he was very wise. This is *not* the same as catering to specialized versus general interest, however.

    Second, I think "coverage" is overrated as a pedagogical goal. Especially without context, it is all likely to go in one ear and out the other. Students learn it for the test and then forget it.

    Third, specialized inquiries are pedagogically hopeless unless students have a pretty firm grasp about how it connects with questions they care about and understand. You can't *start* specialized, though you can end there.

    Fourth, I agree with several commenters above that one important pedagogical goal is developing philosophical skills rather than background knowledge. This is arguably more important for those who are *not* going on to further philosophical study: after all, they'll be fine if they never think about Spinoza again.

    To sum up: I think you have to put the interests of your students first in designing a syllabus. But that doesn't mean it has to be a survey syllabus, and after all the interest of the teacher is something that will benefit the students.

    Reply
  13. Tai Hon Truong

    This sounds like a personal question that could go both ways. On the one hand, one could easily give solid points for teaching a survey course (as opposed to teaching a specific topic/area) because it covers a wide area of topics with the intent of capturing student's interests but on the other hand, one could also argue that it is best to teach depth instead of breadth because not only do you want to capture student's interests but also retain them and motivate them to take other philosophy courses.

    There isn't any right or wrong answer for this question. The question itself largely (or perhaps solely) hinges on the person's opinion or belief(s) about duty. But as an instructor/professor, one does have the duty to teach the topic areas in such a manner that would make them understand them and motivate them to think critically about them. That is, to get them to think outside-the-box or to see things in a different perspective, such as arguing for a point or position that one does not necessarily agree with or personally believe. In addition, I believe it would be in the teacher's (as well as the student's) best interest to teach a subject area for which he or she has a strong interest in because then it would 'come out' in their teaching. It would show their enthusiasm and that, in turn, is more likely to motivate students to take further philosophy courses. And it is more likely for students to take more courses when the instructors/professors are enthusiastic about them because if they are excited by their teacher's enthusiasm, they are more likely to accept a teacher's offering or suggestion to take further courses.

    Furthermore, the subject area isn't as important as teaching students the fundamentals of philosophy, that is, to teach them how to think, as in how to analyze concepts, how to reason, and seeing things in a different light as well as to teach them how to write clearly, concisely, and persuasively. You may think of the subject areas/topics as a 'means' to an end. Once you give students the tools (that is, how to think critically), the subject areas are like their playground on which they may apply what they learned, which thereby, should help them realize and reinforce the importance of what they learned.

    Reply
  14. Recent philosophy graduate

    I finished a philosophy degree in the UK last year and there's one thing I cannot emphasise enough: it can be electrifying to be taught by a scholar excited and actually working in a field. The great courses I took were taught by people genuinely excited by what they were talking about. The very best one was taught by someone who was in the process of writing book about one quite narrow topic on political philosophy. On the other hand, the least exciting courses were the pretty standard ones that cast a wide net and seemed to be passed one from one professor to another, depending on who was available and could be bothered.
    Obviously in the first year, students need some basic foundations to build upon. But after that, a narrower but more exciting course if certainly to be preferred.

    Reply
  15. doris

    I agree that a more focused course is not necessarily pedagogically inferior to a broader course, and may in some instances be superior. In addition, if teaching a narrower course on your research is in your professional interest, I believe you may be justified in sacrificing — to some considerable degree — pedagogic advantages for this end. (Remember that for most people, the issue comes up for only a fraction of their courses.) Differences across institutions duly noted, administrations making personnel decisions are unlikely to view breadth of syllabi, or even excellence of teaching, as sufficient counterbalance to stalled research.
    -jmd

    Reply
  16. Alan

    There's a lot of wisdom on this thread, but I have to agree with the string first weaved in by my colleague Tait above. As I have long argued in presentations and publications, even the basic introductory course can be taught effectively as a restricted topic course. (Martin Benjamin used my pubs in his seminar on teaching for many years.) I began my career teaching the historical/topical surveys in 101, and I agree with Anon 9:24 that I quickly learned that the surveys were too shallow to be of any lasting worth especially to the majority of students who would take no more philosophy. So I developed what I called "the single-topic" approach to intro, and have taught it now for over 20 years. I've used several topics, but most of the near-100 sections of the course that I've taught have been based on free will, partly because it is a topic rich enough to allow the introduction of all sorts of "back-door" issues (ethics, law, science, religion, etc.) so that the students do get wider exposure to philosophy than just metaphysics and logic, but also partly because I'm just damned interested in free will. So every semester I'm still excited to teach my two sections of 101 because I'm constantly refining it in light of my ongoing research in the area. Will this approach work for every professor or any class? No. But since many in the profession are saddled with lots of intro, I thought I'd stick my two cents in on that.

    (Brian if this is a repeat post I apologize–I received an error message when I first tried to post.)

    Reply
  17. Jane

    Thanks for your detailed explanation of what happened at your school, Another Grad Student. I agree that the best way for professors in small departments to ensure that their graduate-school-bound students can reach the appropriate heights is through the offering of directed studies courses. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

    Reply
  18. Corey

    I teach at a small liberal arts college (in fact, I'm the only F/T philosophy professor). I agree that directed studies are an option for students considering graduate school in departments such as mine. However, I worry that this solution is an imperfect one, since faculty at my college generally take on directed studies in addition to our regular teaching duties. I often find myself doing directed studies in areas outside my research interests (and, in some cases, far outside my research interests).

    Since I basically cover all aspects of philosophy (both historical and systematic), I rarely get to teach courses in my areas of interest (once every other year or so on average). Luckily, my overall interests are broad enough that I can cover the historical courses adequately, as well as introductory surveys in logic and ethics. It's definitely not a boring job.

    Reply
  19. Gerard Murphy

    I am an undergrad at one of the ten smallest 4 year universities in the US. Maybe my experience can add another perspective to the discussion. My school has one philosophy professor and her specialty is outside the mainstream (Confucianism/Feminism). I have taken almost all of the philosophy courses that my school offers and I've taken quasi-philosophy classes outside of the philosophy department. A Political Science professor taught a political philosophy course, for example. My professor advised me to take summer courses at another branch campus of my university so I could get exposure to another perspective and teaching style.
    My philosophy professor and I did a directed study course in Confucianism which I found fascinating. I know that had I been at another university with more choices I would not have sought out a course on this topic. She was able to assign reading material from journals written the same year I took the course as well as the Confucian classics and modern text books that comment on them. Another student took a similar directed study the following semester and she read some slightly different works than I did. The course was challenging – I learned some basic Chinese and learned a lot about the different approaches to philosophy that developed in Asia. Some of my best undergraduate papers probably came from that course. I eventually did my senior paper on Law in Chinese philosophy.
    Later when I wanted to study Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness I was able to write my own syllabus, take lectures and notes from open sources like MIT's opencourceware, Stanford on itunes. I found my own textbooks and created my own assignments. She provided advice. She assured that my papers where philosophically rigorous and gave me some guidance on what direction I should take the papers. I know she has little interest in this topic but she was able to let me dive in as deeply as I wanted.
    The survey courses that I have taken have been OK but nothing special. Covering a new philosopher every week or two in ancient philosophy or existentialism didn't satisfy my desire to really dig deep into the topics. My classmates who were 90% non-philosophy majors got a taste of philosophy in these courses but obviously were not interested enough to switch majors. (i imagine that is the toughest part of the job- teaching student who are just trying to fulfill a requirement.)
    Both of the directed study courses and my senior paper provided me with a balance of guidance and independence that you just can't get in a survey course. I imagine the ability to explore a topic independently will be a great benefit when I am in grad school or law school or both. From a student's point of view directed studies are the way to go for both topics that the teacher specializes in and those that she is not interested in.

    Reply
  20. Becko Copenhaver

    I teach at a small liberal arts college that has excellent undergraduates, a few of whom continue on to very good graduate programs each year. Each of the faculty has the opportunity to teach one senior seminar a year on any topic. Though I did once offer one on Reid, the most successful senior seminars I taught were on topics about which I wished to learn more, either for research or for my own edification, e.g., Concepts, Embodied Approaches to Perception. Learning alongside your students can be really productive and energizing.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress