Read on Twitter
First of all, this is a great thread. I see similar problems in sociology but, while I definitely get the incentive narrative, I do think it is often overly charitable to (less junior) social science professors when discussing pedagogical practices. 1/ https://twitter.com/ScarletSijia/status/1357158556563218432
Why do I say that? Sure, soc. sci. professors are generally not incentivized to be good educators/mentors. But I was a schoolteacher for almost a decade. Teachers do backbreaking levels of work for students that they are *definitely* not incentivized to do. 2/
Why do pK-12 teachers do this w/o incentive while professors often don't? Pedagogical training helps. But it also helps to give a shit. I'm not saying that all professors don't care ... but many will straight up tell you, totally unashamed, that they don't care about teaching. 3/
This is where I think it gets even more interesting. I agree that a program like this would probably be pretty popular. Can any of us say the same for a pedagogy-intensive training? 4/ https://twitter.com/jenniferdoleac/status/1357303603531309058
Again, I come back to the "incentives" narrative. Yes, the incentive structure has an effect, but I think that effect is largely limited to more junior faculty who often have bonkers benchmarks to hit to earn job security. Seems to me that faculty w/ tenure are more insulated. 5/
So yes incentives. But I think it's couched in a broader cultural disdain for education and educators. And, like liberals who think their ideals make them incapable of racism, I think a lot of profs are blind to this disdain. "Of course I value education, I'm a professor!" 6/
Incentive structures don't encourage soc. sci. professors to improve their pedagogy but many couldn't care less about improving their pedagogy to begin with. Which, as new guards rise to leadership, is a big reason (not the only reason) why incentive structures never change. 7/7
