Qualified to Teach

Today I received the official note in my mail box: Dissertation Proposal accepted. That means I am what people often label ABD: All But Dissertation. Traditionally, the idea of being ABD is that you are fully "qualified to teach." So, many PhD students upon reaching ABD if they find a job, go and teach while they finish writing.

This raises a question for me, what qualifies someone to teach? After all, we have many many professors begin teaching who never even care to think about reaching ABD level that seem fully qualified to teach. Karl Barth never "earned" a doctorate the traditional way even though he was a professor for decades. Was he qualified? Clearly. So it isn't the courses per se, the degree as such, or the paper at the end. What really qualifies a person to teach?

Is it the passing of a short set of courses at a high level? Is it the reading of 500 or more pages a week? Perhaps it is the habit of asking good questions on the subject. Is it the ability to recount that information in chronological order? Is it the ability to make an extended intelligent argument using all of that material? Those are the sorts of things that are intrinsic to most PhD programs.

I am not sure those should be the only qualifiers. (I don't want to get rid of them) So here is my list of some other things I think are necessary to truly qualify someone to teach:

1. Teaching is its own goal. If teaching is a means to some other end, then I think it has been turned around. Teaching can, and should, bring many benefits. Salaries and benefits are nice, and should be given. Some time off is crucial for ongoing research. But if teaching is primarily a way to earn money, a platform for writing or speaking, or a stepping stone to prestige then the teacher isn't really qualified to teach. Teaching ought to be something that you would moonlight at for free if necessary. That doesn't mean the person only knows how to teach and is one of the irritating persons in the world that always tries to teach in every conversation. Quite the contrary, it simply means that teaching holds intrinsic value for the teacher.

2. Genuine love for students. Teaching requires two fundamental materials: teacher and student. For teachers who find students to be primarily obstacles and an irritations it does call into question whether or not the first requirement is really being met. More importantly, it misses the point of cultivation, formation, and education in the richest sense of those words. The students themselves, not the subject matter, are the subjects of teaching. 

3. The field of study must be a living question. Contrary to popular opinion perhaps, teachers who have figured it out and now merely want an expert soap box in the form of a lectern aren't really all that interesting, and they teach us little. A teacher is first and foremost a learner and a listener. Every teacher should expect at the beginning of the semester to say to the class in three months "I have learned a lot from you" and mean it. 

4. The teacher must clearly see the reason for teaching as the improvement of life.
The reason to teach is not merely preparation for production in society, passing down of traditions and data, or even the exploration of a field of thought. The reason for teaching is a deep desire to see life improved. Chemistry saves lives and enriches them. History does the same. Geography can do the same. There are numerous occasions where the truthful ring of a poem has saved lives and certainly enriched society. Teaching exists to improve life. As a Christian professor of course my thoughts are focused on my religion which I believe improves life, saves lives, and enriches all areas of existence when pursued. Otherwise, why would I teach it?

5. A life worth emulating. If the last point is true, it seems this one must be as well. If the improvement of life is the aim, then it must be more than transmission of data and knowledge. I submit that to be qualified to teach we need to live a life worth emulating. That does not mean there cannot be some quirks and failings. I say emulation not exact copying. Yet if there are no significant elements of our lives that stand out as particularly worthy of the emulation of our students then we have to wonder if our teaching really has begun to reach its goal in even our own lives. 

Of all the teachers I have respected, I respect the most those whose lives are worth emulating in some way. Some have been extremely generous, others remarkably patient, many extremely diligent in their work, most humble in spite of their wisdom, a cluster have been truly empathetic, and a rare handful have communicated deeply held respect and even loving concern. These taught more than data, they taught in a way that enriched life.

They are truly qualified to teach.

(c) 2009 David B. Ward All Rights Reserved.