The Times on Harvard's Teaching
Sometimes the New York Times really is pathetic.
In late January, a committee on teaching led by Theda Skocpol issued a report recommending ways to improve teaching at Harvard.
Today, the Times runs a story on it.
Yes, that's right, folks: almost
four months after the report is released, the paper of record breaks the news.
Does it actually mention the date of the report's release? Nope. You can't very well suggest that something is important but simultaneously acknowledge that you're four months late in reporting it.
Here's how the Times fudges that embarrassing little fact; I've bolded the key words.
Headed by Theda Skocpol, a social scientist, the group has issued a report calling for sweeping institutional change....
And that's it—no date, no nothing.
But because of Harvard’s standing, its effort is being closely watched around the country.
Apparently not that closely watched, or it wouldn't have taken the Times (would it?) four months to get around to saying something about it.
One of the hilarious things about this story is that it pays all sorts of attention to Harvard's attempts to emphasize teaching...but barely acknowledges the fact that Yale and Princeton are renowned for their commitment to teaching, so really all that Harvard is doing is playing catch-up.
Which is not to say that it isn't a laudable goal; it is. And of course there are many skilled and devoted teachers at Harvard.
But still....it's a little silly to suggest that Harvard's new commitment to teaching is influential and everyone is paying attention to it when lots of other places already teach very well, thank you.
"It’s well known that there are many other colleges where students are much more satisfied with their academic experience,” said Paul Buttenwieser, a psychiatrist and author who is a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers, and who favors the report. “Amherst is always pointed to. Harvard should be as great at teaching as Amherst.”
I have a couple of reactions to this.
First, I think quite a few people who are paying tens of thousands of dollars a year to send their kid to Harvard will be disturbed to read the sentence, "Harvard should be as great at teaching as Amherst."
But Buttenwieser is actually quite savvy to use that college as his example, because Amherst and Harvard are apples and oranges; Harvard really doesn't compete with Amherst.
Imagine, though, if Buttenwieser had compared apples and apples.
Harvard should be as great at teaching as Yale and Princeton.
Now, that sentence would be more troubling, wouldn't it?
____________________________________________________________
A poster points me to this article in the Independent on the same subject.
Here's a hilariously snotty line from the Independent's commentary, by the way:
If the University of Sydney, in Australia, can introduce reforms to reward good teaching, so, too, can British institutions....
Old attitudes die hard, don't they?
