moving up in the academic world, slowly....

[mrbadger]

For a number of years now, as happy as I am being a simple lecturer I’ve been aware that I’m less happy being left out of having a say in how the courses that contain the modules I teach operate.

But as of today that changed. I finally had to accept that I’d need to take part in the course design process (prompted by my total rework of both my modules to better fit the online teaching methodologies my university is adopting).
It means promotions, which I do want, but not away from teaching.
I’m not doing that, teaching is my thing. I like research, but I can do that alongside teaching, and I just never want to be a manager, not again.

Well I’ll manage a course, but not people. Course managers still get to teach.

I’ve just been assigned to a course redesign team today, to work in a team that is reworking our Computing Degree, and I’m advising on the Computer Science Degree redesign as well. I have modules that sit in both courses, computing had the smaller team, so I decided to go with them as my main one.

I’m rather excited, it’s a big task, creating an entire degree course, in this case rebuilding more or less from scratch.

I'm rather excited, although it's going to be a lot of work on top of my teaching, given that I insist on substantially rewriting my modules each year.

[euclid]

Congratz mate !!

I'm glad you see it as a promotion. Usually they burden you with all sorts of "voluntary" jobs, from safety manager to lab class organizer - ofc not paid at all.

And concerning management duties, they will take more of your time once you're climbed the ladder from lecturer, senior lecturer, reader to professor.

Have fun

Cheers Euclid

[Morkonan]

...I'm rather excited, although it's going to be a lot of work on top of my teaching, given that I insist on substantially rewriting my modules each year.

Outstanding!

I think that being able to contribute directly in one's profession in such a broad, holistic, sense, can be a profoundly rewarding experience. It can be pretty humbling, too, considering that future students will be relying on your knowledge of the subject to guide their course of study, preparing them for "the real world."

Congratulations!

[pjknibbs]

Congratulations!

[red assassin]

As someone who has to interview a lot of "computer science" graduates who are mediocre Java programmers and have little to no interest in or understanding of how their computers work, if you could go ahead and redesign all of the computer science courses that would be wonderful...

[mrbadger]

I've just written what amounts to my position paper on the initial proposal which summarized is.

'give our students the skills they need to get jobs, stop trying to cater solely to the minute percentage of them who end up either going on to do further degrees or the even smaller percentage of that group who go on to enter academia.'

I already adopted this approach in my modules, which may explain the high approval ratings I get. Or it could be that I threaten them before they do the survey....

I'll see how my initial position goes with the other members of the team. But my feelings on this point are well known, so it's unlikely to be much of a surprise, it's probably why I'm in the core team, and not just an advisor.

[Morkonan]

...'give our students the skills they need to get jobs, stop trying to cater solely to the minute percentage of them who end up either going on to do further degrees or the even smaller percentage of that group who go on to enter academia.'...

Wait a sec... Are you seriously suggesting that "Practically expanding a student's ability to get a job in an applied field" is somehow going to be part of your curriculum?

It's... revolutionary!

I wish that had been part of my post-doc "Applied Anthropological Theory and Modern Fast-Food Deep Fat Fryers and Fried Potato Products."

Do they get fries with course completion? Asking the important questions, here...

Routes to academia and roles that expand a discipline's knowledge are important, no doubt. But, focusing a "results based" approach in terms of "empoyability" is darn critical, these days.

Anything one can do to limit the "you'll learn how to do real stuff when you get your first job" mentality is important. OTJ training is a fact of life, but "having a degree" is doesn't seem as important as "knowing the practical ins-and-outs of how to do stuff" in your general subject as far as employers are concerned. Interview questions do not revolve much around "how was your college experience" these days.

It's not like the old days, where "do you do computer" was the only question anyone asked.

Edit-Add: Course design goal: Increase the likelihood of graduates being hired into a discipline-related job by 30%. Sounds great! Enrollment should increase by 300%!

[mrbadger]

post graduation employment likelihood is actually part of our criteria now.

Working that into course design is our job, partly my job. Aside from the course director I'm the only member of the course team with a pre academia professional career, so this *might* end up being something I end up having the most input on, since I have a lot of experience to draw upon.

I hope.

[Mightysword]

post graduation employment likelihood is actually part of our criteria now.

I hope.

Have you thought about getting order/contract from companies to use it as a term project? It's a great exposure, and an excellent project (highly satisfied customer) can be a good gateway to jobs.

[mrbadger]

that's in my initial proposal, and pretty much all of the assessment in one of my current final year modules (open source development), where my students work with Mozilla.

[Morkonan]

that's in my initial proposal, and pretty much all of the assessment in one of my current final year modules (open source development), where my students work with Mozilla.

This sort of outreach and industry-partnership is really vital.

I don't know what sort of major players you have in your region, but having some discussions, perhaps in a conference setting, about what their needs and expectations are might be illuminating. It's not that it will always be relevant for the far future, but incorporating a system where the course revisits itself and make certain adjustments based on industry needs and trends might be helpful.

That's more in the way of a "technical school" sort of approach, I know. But, turning the course itself into a "living, breathing, evolving" sort of thing that, at its upper levels, tries to address the dynamics of employment demand would certainly be beneficial for students seeking to apply their knowledge in the commercial workplace. (Most disciplines have senior level courses that focus on such things, but your discipline evolves faster these days than most.)

[mrbadger]

I think some people worry that universities are moving too much towards the areas and methods normally covered/used by technical collages.

That probably is true, especially for the post-92 universities that used to be polytechnics themselves.

But that's just how the world is now.

More people want to go to university, and those people need useful degrees that they can use to get jobs with directly, not 'eventually'.

The government want 40% of school leavers to go to university, that can't happen unless we change to be more relevant to what those 40% need.

The current results say we, as a sector aren't relevant enough yet.

My university is better at it I think (we are at least trying hard), but we have plenty of work to do.

[Morkonan]

..But that's just how the world is now.
...

That's especially true in your discipline.

With several friends at advanced levels in IT, it has become apparent that the industry, or the "discipline" is evolving rapidly. There's also a huge impact in how commercial development effects employment needs.

I claim no true knowledge, here, but it seems as if it would be reasonable to assume that there's a huge difference between "applied IT" and "academic IT" studies.

Hey, if you're a COBOL or FORTRAN guy, NASA wants you! (I actually had a FORTRAN book back in high-school that I studied a bit. Don't remember a damn thing about it, though... Pity. )

"Got certs? In what? Sure, your degree is nice, but I don't care about that - I need someone with a Sun cert, you got one or not?"

"You got an HP-ASE cert? If not, don't apply, we run HP, here."

I remember junk like A+ and CNE. These days, the "engineering" side is almost completely commercially driven, it seems.

Programming and working in the guts of IT in development is, I assume, a bit different.

And, what is "research" in IT?

Things develop so quickly in whatever the discipline of "IT" is calling itself, these days. It's... so damnably broad.

Academia and research vs application and engineering? Just how many "paths" are there for someone to go?

A lot of questions, I know. But, it's very clear that it's not an "Amway Discipline", where students are doomed to either "teach it to others" or to "lock themselves in a garage" to study it, forever. (ie: Dead languages courses, most crap coming out of "psychology" compared to more respected and progressive "neuroscience." )

Again, I'm no "informed reader" here, and I sometimes tire of such disclaimers, but it appears that the discipline(s) is still evolving and you and your contemporaries are having to deal with how to structure "learning" in an extremely dynamic environment where practical application and the knowledge necessary, and gained from it, can change from month to month.

Imagine living in a world where the wheel was just invented and was taking off at a rapid pace. Or, perhaps, what if someone figured out that if they connected some gears together with a few leather bands, they could "transmit" mechanical power to wherever they wanted it? The invention of pasteurization, tin cans, refrigeration, internal combustion engine...

And, now, you get to figure out how to create people that are fluent in those things.

[philip_hughes]

Onya mate.

I hope this works well for you.