Skills needed by fresh PhDs for teaching undergraduate students

As I reflect on my undergraduate years, I can recall many of the competent teachers who guided us. One of them taught us morphology and syntax. He often highlighted his research work with Noam Chomsky and his PhD from the UK. But despite having this prestigious feather in his cap, all students try to make sense of his lecture. Firstly, I thought, the fault is within me, but the first- term result showed almost everyone got low grades, except one genius who successfully cracked the code. Eventually, it became clear that a big degree can overshadow the art of teaching. His degree was shining at the university, but his lecture delivery was not hitting the mark.

 In the west many universities are reconsidering the worth of a PhD in relation to undergraduate teaching.  Actually, PhDs are trained to explore the research topics for many years. In contrast, teaching the undergraduate is the ability to explain difficult ideas in simple, comprehensive, and practical ways. The great researcher may not automatically be a great teacher. Conducting the research and instructing the undergraduate is totally different. The quantity of your paper publication cannot justify innovative pedagogy skills.

This is the unpleasant reality that a PhD degree has become just professional need. In 2018, the Commission for University Education (CUE) in Kenya declared that only PhD holders will be appointed as assistant professors and professors in universities. Along the same lines, HEC has also claimed similar requirements for universities in Pakistan.

Let’s come closer to home__the phantom that a PhD makes a competent teacher is still in our minds. In Pakistan, a PhD degree is taken as a sign of authority and proficiency. But actually, many PhDs put the students in a fix while shading their PhD knowledge unnecessarily, particularly in undergraduate courses. Let me clear one thing, the major focus of a PhD is on research and thesis writing, there is no space for classroom management, students dealings or teacher training, etc. Now a new PhD scholar and undergraduate class students are totally two paradigms, having lots of expectations from each other. Such boundary lines create ego in teachers and low performance among students. So, it’s not that PhDs are impractical, but rather that a PhD should be relevant and go with pedagogical training if the aim is effective teaching.

Teaching is an art, let’s admit it. Practice, reflection, observation, creativeness, originality and passion are the foundation of this art. A PhD isn’t necessary for it, but instructions, mentoring, and classroom experience is needed. Universities should focus on training the teachers rather than just hiring the competent researchers if they are really serious about providing education.

Do not get me wrong, many of you might be thinking that I am against PhDs, but absolutely not.  However, teaching undergraduate does not need a PhD because the issues at that level are less complicated. I know that many universities want their first years taught by senior and passionate faculty in order to promote high quality and experience, but the benefits of a PhD can still be debated, especially for many departments and levels of education.

If you ask me about my feelings (in my student life) against PhD degree holder teachers, I have envy and regret at the same time. Envy in the sense that they are saturated with all needed knowledge and regret that, being a student I haven’t benefited from my PhD teacher, or they are not equipped properly to meet the needs of undergraduate students. This feeling always encouraged me to put more focus on my pedagogical skill and discouraged me from taking admission in a PhD.