Question about Postgraduates teaching undergraduate seminars
Hello everyone,
I am currently in the middle of a debate with one of the departments at my university, regarding the use of PhD students teaching undergraduate seminars. I am a course rep, which means people tell me about concerns and then I deal with them, this issue seems to keep re-appearing and I myself am rather curious about this one. Some people in the dep. are being less than helpful with this issue so I wanted to compare this situation with others.
I study History and Politics at the University of York, I've just started my second year and this issue was raised last year when we realised virtually all of the History seminars that year were being taught by postgrads. In the end, we found out that they use them in the first year, limit their use in the second year (they have a system where they choose the best of the best to use past 1st year when needed) and basically guarantee a Dr/Prof for at least one of your modules and basically just use Dr/Profs in third year, which seem fair enough and we were happy with this, even though the standard of teaching from some of the postgrads through the year was quite disappointing really.
However, the Politics department seemed fine last year, most people had at least one Dr/Prof through the year, but most teaching was once again done by postgrads but in relatively small groups. We assumed that like History, their use would decrease over the years, which I have since discovered is not the case. For my modules, out of around 8/9 seminar groups, only one is being taught by a Dr and two PhD students are teaching the rest, teaching both modules. The size of the seminar groups have now also gone up, last year the max. was 13, this year some are now at 17, these deps. at York usually guarantees smallish seminar groups in all subjects compared to some other unis.
I know some are fine (some are better than Dr/Profs), but at open days/ in any university literature it fails to mention that postgrads teach so much, as not knowing anybody who went to uni before I went, I didn't even know this happened, I assumed the actual staff who did lectures/were at the uni full time did the teaching and now it seems as though they were keeping it pretty quiet about these PhD students teaching so much!
I was therefore just wondering how many seminars at other unis/on other courses are taught by postgrads, as it seems a quick way of saving money at the moment.
Thank you
I am currently in the middle of a debate with one of the departments at my university, regarding the use of PhD students teaching undergraduate seminars. I am a course rep, which means people tell me about concerns and then I deal with them, this issue seems to keep re-appearing and I myself am rather curious about this one. Some people in the dep. are being less than helpful with this issue so I wanted to compare this situation with others.
I study History and Politics at the University of York, I've just started my second year and this issue was raised last year when we realised virtually all of the History seminars that year were being taught by postgrads. In the end, we found out that they use them in the first year, limit their use in the second year (they have a system where they choose the best of the best to use past 1st year when needed) and basically guarantee a Dr/Prof for at least one of your modules and basically just use Dr/Profs in third year, which seem fair enough and we were happy with this, even though the standard of teaching from some of the postgrads through the year was quite disappointing really.
However, the Politics department seemed fine last year, most people had at least one Dr/Prof through the year, but most teaching was once again done by postgrads but in relatively small groups. We assumed that like History, their use would decrease over the years, which I have since discovered is not the case. For my modules, out of around 8/9 seminar groups, only one is being taught by a Dr and two PhD students are teaching the rest, teaching both modules. The size of the seminar groups have now also gone up, last year the max. was 13, this year some are now at 17, these deps. at York usually guarantees smallish seminar groups in all subjects compared to some other unis.
I know some are fine (some are better than Dr/Profs), but at open days/ in any university literature it fails to mention that postgrads teach so much, as not knowing anybody who went to uni before I went, I didn't even know this happened, I assumed the actual staff who did lectures/were at the uni full time did the teaching and now it seems as though they were keeping it pretty quiet about these PhD students teaching so much!
I was therefore just wondering how many seminars at other unis/on other courses are taught by postgrads, as it seems a quick way of saving money at the moment.
Thank you
Scroll to see replies
Original post by jazzsoph93
Hello everyone,
I am currently in the middle of a debate with one of the departments at my university, regarding the use of PhD students teaching undergraduate seminars. I am a course rep, which means people tell me about concerns and then I deal with them, this issue seems to keep re-appearing and I myself am rather curious about this one. Some people in the dep. are being less than helpful with this issue so I wanted to compare this situation with others.
I study History and Politics at the University of York, I've just started my second year and this issue was raised last year when we realised virtually all of the History seminars that year were being taught by postgrads. In the end, we found out that they use them in the first year, limit their use in the second year (they have a system where they choose the best of the best to use past 1st year when needed) and basically guarantee a Dr/Prof for at least one of your modules and basically just use Dr/Profs in third year, which seem fair enough and we were happy with this, even though the standard of teaching from some of the postgrads through the year was quite disappointing really.
However, the Politics department seemed fine last year, most people had at least one Dr/Prof through the year, but most teaching was once again done by postgrads but in relatively small groups. We assumed that like History, their use would decrease over the years, which I have since discovered is not the case. For my modules, out of around 8/9 seminar groups, only one is being taught by a Dr and two PhD students are teaching the rest, teaching both modules. The size of the seminar groups have now also gone up, last year the max. was 13, this year some are now at 17, these deps. at York usually guarantees smallish seminar groups in all subjects compared to some other unis.
I know some are fine (some are better than Dr/Profs), but at open days/ in any university literature it fails to mention that postgrads teach so much, as not knowing anybody who went to uni before I went, I didn't even know this happened, I assumed the actual staff who did lectures/were at the uni full time did the teaching and now it seems as though they were keeping it pretty quiet about these PhD students teaching so much!
I was therefore just wondering how many seminars at other unis/on other courses are taught by postgrads, as it seems a quick way of saving money at the moment.
Thank you
I am currently in the middle of a debate with one of the departments at my university, regarding the use of PhD students teaching undergraduate seminars. I am a course rep, which means people tell me about concerns and then I deal with them, this issue seems to keep re-appearing and I myself am rather curious about this one. Some people in the dep. are being less than helpful with this issue so I wanted to compare this situation with others.
I study History and Politics at the University of York, I've just started my second year and this issue was raised last year when we realised virtually all of the History seminars that year were being taught by postgrads. In the end, we found out that they use them in the first year, limit their use in the second year (they have a system where they choose the best of the best to use past 1st year when needed) and basically guarantee a Dr/Prof for at least one of your modules and basically just use Dr/Profs in third year, which seem fair enough and we were happy with this, even though the standard of teaching from some of the postgrads through the year was quite disappointing really.
However, the Politics department seemed fine last year, most people had at least one Dr/Prof through the year, but most teaching was once again done by postgrads but in relatively small groups. We assumed that like History, their use would decrease over the years, which I have since discovered is not the case. For my modules, out of around 8/9 seminar groups, only one is being taught by a Dr and two PhD students are teaching the rest, teaching both modules. The size of the seminar groups have now also gone up, last year the max. was 13, this year some are now at 17, these deps. at York usually guarantees smallish seminar groups in all subjects compared to some other unis.
I know some are fine (some are better than Dr/Profs), but at open days/ in any university literature it fails to mention that postgrads teach so much, as not knowing anybody who went to uni before I went, I didn't even know this happened, I assumed the actual staff who did lectures/were at the uni full time did the teaching and now it seems as though they were keeping it pretty quiet about these PhD students teaching so much!
I was therefore just wondering how many seminars at other unis/on other courses are taught by postgrads, as it seems a quick way of saving money at the moment.
Thank you
It's an incredibly common thing and it's unlikely to disappear anytime soon. The fundamental reasons behind it are that a) unis want to save money, so employ fewer Dr./Profs. (who need full salaries, offices, benefits etc.) and more PhD students (low or zero-hour contracts, hourly wages, etc.) - plus most of the PhD students will be paying the uni as more in fees than they are earning in teaching and b) funding for PhDs has been slashed, which means the PhD students need the low, insecure wages of seminar teaching in order to be able to survive and they need the experience in order to have any chance at a real job post-PhD. It's likely that some of the Dr.s, especially younger ones, are in fact closer to the PhDs than you think, on tiny wages and precarious contracts.
To be honest, you're lucky - at my undergrad uni no-one had a seminar taken by a permanent member of staff until 3rd year and in North America there are entire courses run and stafffed soley by PhD students. This is unfortunately the road the UK university sector is heading down. I don't think it's right though and if you're in a position to imporve the situation as a course rep, I wish you all the luck in the world, but it won't be easy convincing the uni to spend more money hiring more fully qualified staff: after all, there are more important things to pay for such as the £9m sports facilities that is the most prominant item on York's homepage or the VC's £236k salary. Who needs secure, fully trained, well-paid teachers when you've got those things, eh?
/rant
Original post by jazzsoph93
Hello everyone,
I am currently in the middle of a debate with one of the departments at my university, regarding the use of PhD students teaching undergraduate seminars. I am a course rep, which means people tell me about concerns and then I deal with them, this issue seems to keep re-appearing and I myself am rather curious about this one. Some people in the dep. are being less than helpful with this issue so I wanted to compare this situation with others.
I study History and Politics at the University of York, I've just started my second year and this issue was raised last year when we realised virtually all of the History seminars that year were being taught by postgrads. In the end, we found out that they use them in the first year, limit their use in the second year (they have a system where they choose the best of the best to use past 1st year when needed) and basically guarantee a Dr/Prof for at least one of your modules and basically just use Dr/Profs in third year, which seem fair enough and we were happy with this, even though the standard of teaching from some of the postgrads through the year was quite disappointing really.
However, the Politics department seemed fine last year, most people had at least one Dr/Prof through the year, but most teaching was once again done by postgrads but in relatively small groups. We assumed that like History, their use would decrease over the years, which I have since discovered is not the case. For my modules, out of around 8/9 seminar groups, only one is being taught by a Dr and two PhD students are teaching the rest, teaching both modules. The size of the seminar groups have now also gone up, last year the max. was 13, this year some are now at 17, these deps. at York usually guarantees smallish seminar groups in all subjects compared to some other unis.
I know some are fine (some are better than Dr/Profs), but at open days/ in any university literature it fails to mention that postgrads teach so much, as not knowing anybody who went to uni before I went, I didn't even know this happened, I assumed the actual staff who did lectures/were at the uni full time did the teaching and now it seems as though they were keeping it pretty quiet about these PhD students teaching so much!
I was therefore just wondering how many seminars at other unis/on other courses are taught by postgrads, as it seems a quick way of saving money at the moment.
Thank you
I am currently in the middle of a debate with one of the departments at my university, regarding the use of PhD students teaching undergraduate seminars. I am a course rep, which means people tell me about concerns and then I deal with them, this issue seems to keep re-appearing and I myself am rather curious about this one. Some people in the dep. are being less than helpful with this issue so I wanted to compare this situation with others.
I study History and Politics at the University of York, I've just started my second year and this issue was raised last year when we realised virtually all of the History seminars that year were being taught by postgrads. In the end, we found out that they use them in the first year, limit their use in the second year (they have a system where they choose the best of the best to use past 1st year when needed) and basically guarantee a Dr/Prof for at least one of your modules and basically just use Dr/Profs in third year, which seem fair enough and we were happy with this, even though the standard of teaching from some of the postgrads through the year was quite disappointing really.
However, the Politics department seemed fine last year, most people had at least one Dr/Prof through the year, but most teaching was once again done by postgrads but in relatively small groups. We assumed that like History, their use would decrease over the years, which I have since discovered is not the case. For my modules, out of around 8/9 seminar groups, only one is being taught by a Dr and two PhD students are teaching the rest, teaching both modules. The size of the seminar groups have now also gone up, last year the max. was 13, this year some are now at 17, these deps. at York usually guarantees smallish seminar groups in all subjects compared to some other unis.
I know some are fine (some are better than Dr/Profs), but at open days/ in any university literature it fails to mention that postgrads teach so much, as not knowing anybody who went to uni before I went, I didn't even know this happened, I assumed the actual staff who did lectures/were at the uni full time did the teaching and now it seems as though they were keeping it pretty quiet about these PhD students teaching so much!
I was therefore just wondering how many seminars at other unis/on other courses are taught by postgrads, as it seems a quick way of saving money at the moment.
Thank you
There's lots of reasons why postgrads teach. Firstly, with modules that have large lectures and several accompanying seminars, it would not be possible for the one lecturer to cover all seminars (unless they wanted to teach up to 24 hours a week, which NOBODY does!)
I'm not sure what you mean by a way of saving money - usually, all staff get paid their standard amount for the week (including PhD demonstrators/TAs) and so the seminar would "cost" the same no matter what 'level' of staff cover it.
I actually teach both first and second year classes...without this teaching I would be unable to fund my PhD and probably unable to get myself a lectureship in the future...
The thing is that many PhD researchers have this 'dual identity' in that they, like me, are a "PhD student" AND a "Demonstrator" - their student role is separate from their staff role - so the only real difference between a "Demonstrator" and a "Lecturer" is a few more years' experience and more research to their name!
If you're arguing against the use of postgrads as teachers, you don't have a strong case. On an individual level, if one postgrad is a terrible teacher, you can say that they shouldn't teach because they don't prepare or don't put enough effort in...but you can't say that they should teach because they're also a postgrad. It's kind of like saying "This guy can't work in the fish and chip shop because he also studies Maths at uni"...
This has always been the method of teaching undergrads. Its visible increase is one of the consequences of the 'uncapped places' leading to a substantial increase in student numbers in popular subjects. There has not been an immediate corresponding increase in resources, either in terms of academic appointment or other areas like library provision.
This is, in most Unis, being addressed, but you will ALWAYS have postgrads teaching undergrads, this isnt going to go away. Its what most established academics see as part of an academic 'apprenticeship' - learning how to teach. All academic posts and many postdocs will require evidence of University teaching experience - how else are PhD students supopsed to gain this (think carefully on this point as one day it could be you).
I was taught at under grad level by two students who are both now highly respected academics - I had the benefit of their early enthusiasm and amazing ideas. So don't assume that you are somehow getting second-best teaching - in fact you may be getting something far better, detailed and interested than any rushed academic might trot out at you. Be careful what you wish for.
This is, in most Unis, being addressed, but you will ALWAYS have postgrads teaching undergrads, this isnt going to go away. Its what most established academics see as part of an academic 'apprenticeship' - learning how to teach. All academic posts and many postdocs will require evidence of University teaching experience - how else are PhD students supopsed to gain this (think carefully on this point as one day it could be you).
I was taught at under grad level by two students who are both now highly respected academics - I had the benefit of their early enthusiasm and amazing ideas. So don't assume that you are somehow getting second-best teaching - in fact you may be getting something far better, detailed and interested than any rushed academic might trot out at you. Be careful what you wish for.
(edited 9 years ago)
Most of my teaching was done by PhD students at Oxford. Some were thick as **** (even my college tutor said this about one tutor, which was a bit disconcerting 
) and hopeless. Some were better than my college tutor and I consider myself lucky to have had these tutors 
At Goldsmiths, there were no seminars and all lectures were either done completely by tutors, or in conjunction with a tutor if there was a PhD student teaching.
At RHUL, I understand I could be invited to teach undergraduates from my second year onwards, if I make a good enough impression
I would be scared about this but very grateful for the opportunity because I find working with smaller groups (e.g. seminar groups) very rewarding 
As others have said, it's pretty common and there are good reasons for it
) and hopeless. Some were better than my college tutor and I consider myself lucky to have had these tutors At Goldsmiths, there were no seminars and all lectures were either done completely by tutors, or in conjunction with a tutor if there was a PhD student teaching.
At RHUL, I understand I could be invited to teach undergraduates from my second year onwards, if I make a good enough impression
I would be scared about this but very grateful for the opportunity because I find working with smaller groups (e.g. seminar groups) very rewarding As others have said, it's pretty common and there are good reasons for it
Original post by jazzsoph93
Hello everyone,
I am currently in the middle of a debate with one of the departments at my university, regarding the use of PhD students teaching undergraduate seminars. I am a course rep, which means people tell me about concerns and then I deal with them, this issue seems to keep re-appearing and I myself am rather curious about this one. Some people in the dep. are being less than helpful with this issue so I wanted to compare this situation with others.
I study History and Politics at the University of York, I've just started my second year and this issue was raised last year when we realised virtually all of the History seminars that year were being taught by postgrads. In the end, we found out that they use them in the first year, limit their use in the second year (they have a system where they choose the best of the best to use past 1st year when needed) and basically guarantee a Dr/Prof for at least one of your modules and basically just use Dr/Profs in third year, which seem fair enough and we were happy with this, even though the standard of teaching from some of the postgrads through the year was quite disappointing really.
However, the Politics department seemed fine last year, most people had at least one Dr/Prof through the year, but most teaching was once again done by postgrads but in relatively small groups. We assumed that like History, their use would decrease over the years, which I have since discovered is not the case. For my modules, out of around 8/9 seminar groups, only one is being taught by a Dr and two PhD students are teaching the rest, teaching both modules. The size of the seminar groups have now also gone up, last year the max. was 13, this year some are now at 17, these deps. at York usually guarantees smallish seminar groups in all subjects compared to some other unis.
I know some are fine (some are better than Dr/Profs), but at open days/ in any university literature it fails to mention that postgrads teach so much, as not knowing anybody who went to uni before I went, I didn't even know this happened, I assumed the actual staff who did lectures/were at the uni full time did the teaching and now it seems as though they were keeping it pretty quiet about these PhD students teaching so much!
I was therefore just wondering how many seminars at other unis/on other courses are taught by postgrads, as it seems a quick way of saving money at the moment.
Thank you
I am currently in the middle of a debate with one of the departments at my university, regarding the use of PhD students teaching undergraduate seminars. I am a course rep, which means people tell me about concerns and then I deal with them, this issue seems to keep re-appearing and I myself am rather curious about this one. Some people in the dep. are being less than helpful with this issue so I wanted to compare this situation with others.
I study History and Politics at the University of York, I've just started my second year and this issue was raised last year when we realised virtually all of the History seminars that year were being taught by postgrads. In the end, we found out that they use them in the first year, limit their use in the second year (they have a system where they choose the best of the best to use past 1st year when needed) and basically guarantee a Dr/Prof for at least one of your modules and basically just use Dr/Profs in third year, which seem fair enough and we were happy with this, even though the standard of teaching from some of the postgrads through the year was quite disappointing really.
However, the Politics department seemed fine last year, most people had at least one Dr/Prof through the year, but most teaching was once again done by postgrads but in relatively small groups. We assumed that like History, their use would decrease over the years, which I have since discovered is not the case. For my modules, out of around 8/9 seminar groups, only one is being taught by a Dr and two PhD students are teaching the rest, teaching both modules. The size of the seminar groups have now also gone up, last year the max. was 13, this year some are now at 17, these deps. at York usually guarantees smallish seminar groups in all subjects compared to some other unis.
I know some are fine (some are better than Dr/Profs), but at open days/ in any university literature it fails to mention that postgrads teach so much, as not knowing anybody who went to uni before I went, I didn't even know this happened, I assumed the actual staff who did lectures/were at the uni full time did the teaching and now it seems as though they were keeping it pretty quiet about these PhD students teaching so much!
I was therefore just wondering how many seminars at other unis/on other courses are taught by postgrads, as it seems a quick way of saving money at the moment.
Thank you
It's the same at my university, extremely similar with course reps
. The graduate students who took the seminars on the whole had previously taken that module and they really knew what they were doing, I never had a problem with it. Although, I can see why it's annoying - you're paying £9000 and a 'fellow student' is taking one of your classes. I guess to some extent it takes the edge off first year when you are understandably nervous and may feel better in a student-student environment. The only reason I think it has come to your attention in a negative light is if somebody has had a bad experience and it in some way be related to the fact that it was a MA/PhD student taking the seminar and perhaps it wouldn't have happened had it been their course convenor... I know it's your job to feed back but if it was a ONE OFF incident, maybe take it with a pinch of salt. We are advised that if it is a common problem then it should be raised by a course rep.
Also, sorry for posting again... But they wouldn't be in that position if they weren't deemed capable, kind of like what The_Lonely_Goatherd said. I'm a second year and I have been asked to take a lecture... It's just about how capable they are really.
It's a standard thing. Happens at Russel group and ex poly unis.
With respect are you sure you're not getting too hung up on a persons status rather than their ability to teach? People studying at postgrad level are used to doing a lot of reading around the subject and have a lot to offer as teachers....that has always been the case in my experience anyway.
With respect are you sure you're not getting too hung up on a persons status rather than their ability to teach? People studying at postgrad level are used to doing a lot of reading around the subject and have a lot to offer as teachers....that has always been the case in my experience anyway.
I was always lectured by a Dr/Prof throughout my degree (with the exception of a few guest lectures from PhD students who the regular lecturer clearly thought was excellent). For seminars and tutorials, I was taught by PhD students in all first year modules and some second year modules, and Drs/Profs in all final year modules.
Truth be told, so long as the PhD student is appropriately prepared and familiar with the material and have some teaching ability, I don't think that undergrads at early stages of their degree can actually derive any additional benefit from having seminars led by a full time academic - freshers just aren't that advanced. Then there are also the practical considerations - lectures tend to be larger towards the beginning of first year, and there are far too many attached seminars for that lecturer to manage alone. I had one first year module where there were 38 separate one hour seminars every week for that module alone. You need PhD students to teach in that situation!
Truth be told, so long as the PhD student is appropriately prepared and familiar with the material and have some teaching ability, I don't think that undergrads at early stages of their degree can actually derive any additional benefit from having seminars led by a full time academic - freshers just aren't that advanced. Then there are also the practical considerations - lectures tend to be larger towards the beginning of first year, and there are far too many attached seminars for that lecturer to manage alone. I had one first year module where there were 38 separate one hour seminars every week for that module alone. You need PhD students to teach in that situation!
Original post by jazzsoph93
Hello everyone,
I am currently in the middle of a debate with one of the departments at my university, regarding the use of PhD students teaching undergraduate seminars. I am a course rep, which means people tell me about concerns and then I deal with them, this issue seems to keep re-appearing and I myself am rather curious about this one. Some people in the dep. are being less than helpful with this issue so I wanted to compare this situation with others.
I study History and Politics at the University of York, I've just started my second year and this issue was raised last year when we realised virtually all of the History seminars that year were being taught by postgrads. In the end, we found out that they use them in the first year, limit their use in the second year (they have a system where they choose the best of the best to use past 1st year when needed) and basically guarantee a Dr/Prof for at least one of your modules and basically just use Dr/Profs in third year, which seem fair enough and we were happy with this, even though the standard of teaching from some of the postgrads through the year was quite disappointing really.
However, the Politics department seemed fine last year, most people had at least one Dr/Prof through the year, but most teaching was once again done by postgrads but in relatively small groups. We assumed that like History, their use would decrease over the years, which I have since discovered is not the case. For my modules, out of around 8/9 seminar groups, only one is being taught by a Dr and two PhD students are teaching the rest, teaching both modules. The size of the seminar groups have now also gone up, last year the max. was 13, this year some are now at 17, these deps. at York usually guarantees smallish seminar groups in all subjects compared to some other unis.
I know some are fine (some are better than Dr/Profs), but at open days/ in any university literature it fails to mention that postgrads teach so much, as not knowing anybody who went to uni before I went, I didn't even know this happened, I assumed the actual staff who did lectures/were at the uni full time did the teaching and now it seems as though they were keeping it pretty quiet about these PhD students teaching so much!
I was therefore just wondering how many seminars at other unis/on other courses are taught by postgrads, as it seems a quick way of saving money at the moment.
Thank you
I am currently in the middle of a debate with one of the departments at my university, regarding the use of PhD students teaching undergraduate seminars. I am a course rep, which means people tell me about concerns and then I deal with them, this issue seems to keep re-appearing and I myself am rather curious about this one. Some people in the dep. are being less than helpful with this issue so I wanted to compare this situation with others.
I study History and Politics at the University of York, I've just started my second year and this issue was raised last year when we realised virtually all of the History seminars that year were being taught by postgrads. In the end, we found out that they use them in the first year, limit their use in the second year (they have a system where they choose the best of the best to use past 1st year when needed) and basically guarantee a Dr/Prof for at least one of your modules and basically just use Dr/Profs in third year, which seem fair enough and we were happy with this, even though the standard of teaching from some of the postgrads through the year was quite disappointing really.
However, the Politics department seemed fine last year, most people had at least one Dr/Prof through the year, but most teaching was once again done by postgrads but in relatively small groups. We assumed that like History, their use would decrease over the years, which I have since discovered is not the case. For my modules, out of around 8/9 seminar groups, only one is being taught by a Dr and two PhD students are teaching the rest, teaching both modules. The size of the seminar groups have now also gone up, last year the max. was 13, this year some are now at 17, these deps. at York usually guarantees smallish seminar groups in all subjects compared to some other unis.
I know some are fine (some are better than Dr/Profs), but at open days/ in any university literature it fails to mention that postgrads teach so much, as not knowing anybody who went to uni before I went, I didn't even know this happened, I assumed the actual staff who did lectures/were at the uni full time did the teaching and now it seems as though they were keeping it pretty quiet about these PhD students teaching so much!
I was therefore just wondering how many seminars at other unis/on other courses are taught by postgrads, as it seems a quick way of saving money at the moment.
Thank you
Mine uses some Phd students for seminars although not as widely as others on here have described. In first year I had two Phd students (out of 6 different seminars) and actually they were better than one of the professors I had in another class. After that though I didn't have any more but I think some of my course mates did. As others have stated its simply not practical on large modules for a lecturer to take every seminar class. And I know in Science at my uni they are used as lab demonstrators.
We had this issue at my uni (well IMO it's not an issue, it's just people being petty about status) and it came to this: did we want bigger seminar groups taught by 'proper' Drs, or did we want smaller seminar groups, some of which would be taught by PhD students? And the vote came out for the latter. The smaller group is more important than who teaches it really, so that everyone can be heard. Saying that, I was only taught by a PhD student twice, and I didn't even realise they weren't 'lecturers' at that stage. If someone is a rubbish teacher, that is the issue, whether they are a PhD student or a professor. Not their status.
As long as you can go to the Professor and there is an actual concern by the department to get you a good education, I would not worry. A Professor would simply not be able to teach every student at the same time, unless you would make university a privilige for a tiny minority. Even with salaries it would be ridiculous to have that many professors at a university. And PHD students are in most countries not regarded at students, as they have degrees and are actual researchers from day one. They are often no real "students" and it is a shame, they have to pay to be able to work, but that is sadly the case in most subjects. 
Thus having a seminar in the field, the PHD is specialising in, might give you more insight into a topic, than the Professor can provide you, because the might have research in more areas at his department and is neither a specialist in every area nor can be. And as I said in the second sentence, as long as you have access to all kinds of academics, I would not worry.
At the end it depends also from the structure of the department, the ability of the Professor "to lead" his PHDs and post-docs and the teaching talent and motivation of the single person. (Sometimes you might be lucky to have the PHD and not the professor and the other way round.)
Thus having a seminar in the field, the PHD is specialising in, might give you more insight into a topic, than the Professor can provide you, because the might have research in more areas at his department and is neither a specialist in every area nor can be. And as I said in the second sentence, as long as you have access to all kinds of academics, I would not worry. At the end it depends also from the structure of the department, the ability of the Professor "to lead" his PHDs and post-docs and the teaching talent and motivation of the single person. (Sometimes you might be lucky to have the PHD and not the professor and the other way round.)
I don't like the obsession with Drs and Profs. The best lecturer in my department (Politics at Bath) is plain Mr.
I had no idea this was a thing or a common thing, all of my lecturers are Drs or Profs and I don't even go to a very "renowned" university.
Having said that, I see no reason why postgrad students can't teach just as well for certain aspects.
Having said that, I see no reason why postgrad students can't teach just as well for certain aspects.
I'm in the second year of my PhD and about to chair my first undergrad seminar. I'm preparing it with the programme leader, who is still responsible for ensuring that it fits the unit and has an appropriate level of preparatory reading and suggested discussion topics.
As a postgrad, the uni is expected to provide me with uni-level teaching experience. This is part of the uni's commitment to me as a PhD student, so it's standard for my organisation. However I'd be surprised at an entire module being delivered by postgrads unless there was a very large top-heavy postgrad community and/or a very large undergrad body with a low staff-to-student ratio (both of which scenarios are possible but essentially different issues).
As an undergrad student rep, you need to be comfortable that you are getting good quality teaching. It's perfectly possible for this to be delivered by postgrads rather than lecturers (as I've done a lot of reading around my seminar topic recently, the programme leader thinks that I'm actually better placed to lead it than they would be). Just because someone has a doctorate or professor's chair, doesn't automatically mean they're good teachers. I've known some incredibly well-qualified academics who have the communication skills of a fried egg sandwich.
You may not have a strong case for concern if you just go with a complaint that you're mainly being taught by postgrads rather than teaching staff. However if you find that the postgrads are weak, can't control a seminar or don't appear able to answer questions effectively, then issues like these should certainly be raised.
As far as saving money - it usually costs the uni more. Lecturers on permanent contracts will be paid regardless, and the postgrads will normally be paid a nominal amount per lecture.
(Mind you, a couple of years ago my uni declared that postgrad teaching was "Continual Professional Development" and thus a training activity which they shouldn't have to pay us for. Took a while to negotiate that one away.)
As a postgrad, the uni is expected to provide me with uni-level teaching experience. This is part of the uni's commitment to me as a PhD student, so it's standard for my organisation. However I'd be surprised at an entire module being delivered by postgrads unless there was a very large top-heavy postgrad community and/or a very large undergrad body with a low staff-to-student ratio (both of which scenarios are possible but essentially different issues).
As an undergrad student rep, you need to be comfortable that you are getting good quality teaching. It's perfectly possible for this to be delivered by postgrads rather than lecturers (as I've done a lot of reading around my seminar topic recently, the programme leader thinks that I'm actually better placed to lead it than they would be). Just because someone has a doctorate or professor's chair, doesn't automatically mean they're good teachers. I've known some incredibly well-qualified academics who have the communication skills of a fried egg sandwich.
You may not have a strong case for concern if you just go with a complaint that you're mainly being taught by postgrads rather than teaching staff. However if you find that the postgrads are weak, can't control a seminar or don't appear able to answer questions effectively, then issues like these should certainly be raised.
As far as saving money - it usually costs the uni more. Lecturers on permanent contracts will be paid regardless, and the postgrads will normally be paid a nominal amount per lecture.
(Mind you, a couple of years ago my uni declared that postgrad teaching was "Continual Professional Development" and thus a training activity which they shouldn't have to pay us for. Took a while to negotiate that one away.)
(edited 9 years ago)
I think you also have to be careful in assuming that your £9k of fees is spent exclusively on teachers, ie. we aren't getting getting value for money.
This is actually a minuscule part of the expenditure involved in providing your University experience. The provision of all the other stuff like subsidised accommodation, sports facilities, medical/health provision, cleaning, catering, admin staff, libraries, lawns & gardens, bike-sheds, bars and bus services is paid for out of your £9k as well. If you want to demand what you perceive as your entitlement to being taught by Professors, you might like to consider how much of all this other stuff, that most student understandably take for granted, you would have to immediately loose to pay for that. And also that if these Professors were all teaching umpteen hours a week, then they wouldn't have time to research, write journal articles and books, and all the other 'output' that made the University feature on League Tables etc - probably one of the reasons that many of you picked that University in the first place. Again, be careful what you wish for.
This is actually a minuscule part of the expenditure involved in providing your University experience. The provision of all the other stuff like subsidised accommodation, sports facilities, medical/health provision, cleaning, catering, admin staff, libraries, lawns & gardens, bike-sheds, bars and bus services is paid for out of your £9k as well. If you want to demand what you perceive as your entitlement to being taught by Professors, you might like to consider how much of all this other stuff, that most student understandably take for granted, you would have to immediately loose to pay for that. And also that if these Professors were all teaching umpteen hours a week, then they wouldn't have time to research, write journal articles and books, and all the other 'output' that made the University feature on League Tables etc - probably one of the reasons that many of you picked that University in the first place. Again, be careful what you wish for.
You don't have to have a PhD to teach at university. This has never been a requirement, and it's routine for universities to use postgraduate students as teachers. In my case I'm contractually obliged to do a certain amount of teaching under the terms of my PhD studentship. This is a common condition of university-awarded studentships. At my university, PhD students aren't permitted to teach in their first year (again, common) and there should be a vetting system in place to make sure that they are only assigned to teach appropriate modules that fall within their scope and expertise. At many universities (mine included) we aren't allowed to teach final-year modules, so all the undergrads are under the supervision of an experienced academic as they take their exams. We also receive some training in how to teach.
Usually the system works. When it doesn't, it's fair enough to complain. But that doesn't make the system itself wrong. You should bear in mind that many PhD students are preparing for a career in academia, for which they need experience and practice in teaching. Most post-doctoral positions ask for this experience, so teaching during a PhD is not only normal, but expected.
Usually the system works. When it doesn't, it's fair enough to complain. But that doesn't make the system itself wrong. You should bear in mind that many PhD students are preparing for a career in academia, for which they need experience and practice in teaching. Most post-doctoral positions ask for this experience, so teaching during a PhD is not only normal, but expected.
Original post by mrkl
Answer the question: How can anyone justify unqualified people teaching at university level ?
Because the majority of existing Lecturers and Professors have no teaching qualification at all. They aren't 'qualified to teach' either.
Their only 'qualification' is that that they wrote a thesis of 80,000 words or thereabouts, probably on a highly specialised research topic that has very little direct relevance to the topic they are now teaching you or lecturing on aside from that it is in the same ball-park subject area, and usually they did all of that writing a while back to say the least. Along with the floppy hat and doctoral degree does not come automatic 'ability to teach' like some magic bullet on the day you doff your cap.
PhD students are not 'students' in the conventional sense of the word so you can probably loose the idea that they are not 'qualified' to teach you because they do not yet have a completed PhD. In Europe most PhD researchers are employees on a salary, and are not described as students at all. The majority of PhD students who teach in the UK will have Masters qualifications and/or other postgraduate qualifications and/or work experience. All of which means they have the knowledge and intellectual ability to pass on knowledge to others on a pre-written course with clearly defined topics, reading, and tutorial themes, that are cross taught to hundreds of other students using the same format often repeated years on end. This does not require a degree in 'teaching'. It requires a brain.
Get over this idea of 'qualified'. Its meaningless.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by mrkl
Is the VC not an academic ? Of course he is .
Stop trying to red herring the discussion
Answer the question: How can anyone justify unqualified people teaching at university level ?
Stop trying to red herring the discussion
Answer the question: How can anyone justify unqualified people teaching at university level ?
That's not necessary the issue. It's more like what criteria you are using to judge them as unqualified.
I would be pretty annoyed if my lectures were given by PhD students, but things like seminars and lab assistance are somewhat different to that. I have had issue with tutorials during second year - for two of my tutorials I had university tutors (dr/prof) and the other a PhD student. The problem wasn't that he was a PhD student, it was that he wasn't studying in the area he was tutoring me on. It basically meant he couldn't clarify or answer my questions, other than really telling me what the answer sheet was. It wasn't his fault; they had assigned him to this, but for some reason they classified his area of research into this particular subject area and I disagree with that. That's a case where a PhD student shouldn't be tutoring. All the lab demonstrators I had were fantastic.
If PhD students didn't teach throughout their PhD then when they qualify ...they don't have any experience? The new departmental lecturer then is no better than the guy who just started his PhD...
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Postgraduate - Class Sizes
- Postgraduate study - FAQs
- Distance Learning/Online Mathematics Degree
- Warwick or RHUL for cybersecurity/information security MSC?
- Get into Teaching Adviser service
- Ask a YSJ Student Ambassador 2024!
- Postgrad Anxiety: Is 28 too old for a MSc?
- any advice welcomed
- PhD fully-funded scholarship
- University rankings don’t apply to undergraduate so how to decide
- I'm a postgraduate student at the University of Kent - Ask me anything!
- Msc Clinical Psychology
- is Hertfordshire university is better then Middlesex in Cybersecurity
- Royal Holloway
- SOAS experience
- Routes into teaching offered at CCCU.
- Durham or Manchester?
- Seminars
- What is the timetable and class sizes at Leeds art university ?
- Do you learn how to teach?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
Got a third in my second year and the highest I’ve achieved in third year was 55%Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
Got a third in my second year and the highest I’ve achieved in third year was 55%
