In his recent visit to campus, professor and New York Times blogger Stanley Fish spoke about his new book "Save the World on Your Own Time," in which he argues that professors should do what they're paid to do and not much else. Most simply, he believes that professors should teach, not preach.
That doesn't seem like such a terrible idea, but Fish doesn't stop there. In his view, teachers shouldn't seek to cultivate minds, to encourage creativity, or to inspire critical thinking. In fact, they shouldn't do a whole bunch of things because that's just not what they're paid or trained to do.
But I got to thinking about all this, and, inspired by Fish, I couldn't help but come up with my own list of what professors should and shouldn't do. So here it is:
Professors shouldn't act as mere encyclopedias or craft their lectures into glorified literature reviews. Instead, they should seek to challenge their students to grapple with new ideas, to engage with readings in a constructive way and to think creatively about what's been written before.
As such, professors have a responsibility not only to offer new knowledge but to make students engage with it in a meaningful way. Professors should aim not simply to summarize the current state of work in the field but also to help students challenge and question it.
In Fish's view, professors have two narrowly defined responsibilities, the first of which is to present students with new bodies of knowledge. That's a fine goal, but it's not even half the work. Students don't need a professor to learn about what's out there. All they need is an encyclopedia and a pile of dusty books.
Professors shouldn't teach like a how-to book for academic writing. Rather, they should encourage students to build up their own arguments, to contribute original ideas to their field of interest and to think in novel ways.
This means helping students not only to learn the analytical skills that they need in order to examine the soundness of academic arguments made in books and essays but also to acquire the kind of energy, drive and incisiveness necessary to build up their own ideas.
According to Fish, the second duty of a professor, beyond presenting new knowledge to students, is merely to offer them the tools they need to engage in analysis. He means giving them a methodology for analytical writing. This is a wonderful goal, but it's not the only end of teaching and learning.
What's the point of learning analytical skills if you don't know how to build up your own ideas and enter them into conversation with the work of others? Students simply cannot learn to be inquisitive, energetic or innovative from a how-to manual. Such attributes must be cultivated through a vibrant learning process in which students are challenged and engaged not as passive learners but as active contributors.
Professors shouldn't do merely what they're paid to do. The process of learning aims not at the formation of specialized workers but at the creation of informed and active learners. As such, its emphasis lies not in the learning of specific facts but rather in the process of learning itself.
Students and professors, equally engaged in this process, can only bring it to fruition if they do more than what is expected of them, and certainly only if they do more than they're paid to do.
Implicit in all that's been said, I hope, is that there are a lot more things professors should do than things they shouldn't. Perhaps most importantly, they should do what students need them to do.
This includes challenging their pupils to engage with learning materials in new and various ways, pushing their students not only to think analytically but also to make something meaningful of their analytic tools, and ultimately doing far more than they're paid or even asked to do.
If I had to suggest just one thing they shouldn't do, I'd say they shouldn't take Stanley Fish's advice.
Manuel Possolo '09 wrote this column for free.
