Things I learned from teaching

I expect is not age, but experience that is significant. 6-7 years in the "real world" gave you the perspective to relate those classes to something meaningful that you didn't have before.

We leave our children in a weird bubble where they don't get to experience the world much beyond school during primary and secondary ages, and those who go on to university typically don't deviate from that bubble until graduation. Better life balance through youth, perhaps especially with more involvement in the workplace, seems like one potential solution.

The author writes about himself:

> Hi! I'm a PhD student studying computer science at Rice University.

This means that we are on the same career path (I am currently an assistant professor in theoretical CS in Europe). I wish you of course best of luck!

Here is the harshest truth about teaching I learned during my PhD:

If you are focusing on teaching too much, you are setting yourself up for failure.

This sounds cruel, and in fact I am much like you, I love teaching and I love self-improvement and it is quite easy for me to invest time into my teaching prep, presentation, and more and see measurable results in class quality and usually also student feedback.

However, at least in my neck of the woods (i.e. Europe), almost all gates and gatekeepers for you as a PhD student, and later postdoc, are checking your research. At some places they really do expect you to have K publications in the top 3 CS conferences or you will not be considered at all -- and it seems these thresholds are only getting higher. Here I mean for example invitation-only workshops, postdoc positions with top advisors, and later also permanent positions.

On the other hand, if you are a talented scientist, they usually only care that your teaching skills are at the bare minimum -- have you taught something? Yes? Great.

Now orator/presentation skills are critical and presenting a coherent lecture plan might be useful for a final presentation at an interview for a permanent position. But even there, it is more about you knowing what you want to teach and how it complements the department than about your past achievements (i.e., how much you have put in a course previously).

My PhD advisor usually said that he likes to dig into teaching when research is not going well. I agree with that -- teaching really is fulfilling to me and I love to improve my class and see people happy with it, and research is all about global ranking (which is tough on anyone's psyche) and generating progress which is the fun part but sometimes takes a long time. However, at your stage of your career, the research really can't go slow.

---

PS: If the author reads this, since it is a self-post, your class sounds really nice and it is actually one I would have loved to attend. My research is in online algorithms -- a field which you can rephrase as seeing some theoretical problems as two player games between a solver and an adversary -- and among other things I would like to consider utilizing all the techniques of chess solvers (which cannot evaluate the game fully, but "almost") and transfer it to other areas of online algorithms.

IMO the more fundamental problem is that the examinations typically won’t measure how much students have learnt independently. If you want to do well in most university exams, then you need to pay very close attention to exactly what the professor wants you to learn and make sure you’re learning exactly that.

It is possible to design exams that actually grade people on their knowledge of the subject in general, but most universities seem to leave exam design to the course leader, so quality varies drastically.

Although there is no way around the struggle, there is a way around how the struggle is perceived and experienced. A good teacher shows the struggle is worth it, but I believe a great teacher makes the struggle something you enjoy doing, and not something you have to put up with so you can enjoy the compensation at some point in the future.

Here are some things I tell young professors:

1. The students are not like you. For you, the topic is fascinating, and something you've pondered for much of your adult life. For the average student, the topic is moderately interesting, and likely quite confusing, in the first exposure that is this class.

2. Teach to the middle of the class. Be aware that the weakest students will be perplexed much of the time, and the strongest will be bored. This range is hard for you to comprehend, given your path. Note that the range is not something you can alter. It is established by the university Registrar, not by you and also not by the students.

3. Expose the students to your enthusiasm for the material. Be direct, and be personal. "The next topic is" will not motivate students as much as "Now we ready for the exciting part" or "This next bit is what I like best about this topic", etc.

4. Make the decision to enjoy your time with the students.