If you go around the room having everyone comment on a passage, it should probably be the kind of passage where people would be comfortable openly taking either side.
Excellent advice. As for bringing in guest lecturers, they don’t need to lecture. You can do an interview or moderated discussion with them. Most people suck at presenting but can answer questions about themselves pretty well. Of course, that requires you to have interviewing/moderating skills.
If it is a lecture, I vet their slides beforehand (“Hmm, 300 slides, we made need to cut this down a tad”).
I'm teaching social psychology for the first time this semester, and your advice couldn't have been better timed. It's nice to be reminded of what effective teaching looks like amidst the whirl of first-time prep, LMS setup, and faculty meetings.
I find that even somewhat lame jokes usually get a laugh (but don't overdo it). The students are looking for any excuse to experience some comic relief.
This is a really good list, but #15 sticks out like a sore thumb, actually containing three pretty dubious recommendations all the while appearing to equate them.
"Don't be an ass" is fine advice--you shouldn't make fun of kids who get answers wrong or be excessively punitive." I agree totally.
But then you say that it's not the time to let students know about the game of thrones finale, when that's exactly the kind of small talk which you should engage in before class. Finally, you end #15 with 'Be professional.' Is your advice here that I should adhere to professional norms or standards whenever possible? Well, that conflicts with your view that cursing is sometimes permissible, doesn't it? Also, what does being a professional have anything to do with abusing one's power or making small-talk? These unrelated points should not be found under a single heading if they appear on the list at all.
Love this collection of loosely affiliated suggestions with gaps. So much better than "here's my system. You should do what I do." variety of advice.
I want to draw some lines connecting the feedback you report about #1 & #2 and #8.
I agree that projecting enthusiasm and expertise are important, but urge doing so in a way that communicates what philosopher Charles Peirce called "contrite fallibilism." Uncertainty and failure are essential to doing good science. Saying "I don't know. Let's figure that out." is a powerful pedagogical move, one that values curiosity and encourages engagement.
When I taught philosophy, these were the long-term messages I tried to convey:
• There are some big questions about reality, our place in it, and what we can know about it.
• It’s completely okay and can be fun to think hard about them, even as an adult.
• It’s completely okay and even partially liberating to not accept what your culture says about those questions.
• It’s completely okay and partially liberating to not let your views on those questions be dictated by your emotions, what feels right or comfortable or useful to you.
• It’s completely okay and useful to let your views on those questions be dictated by your evaluation of the evidence you know is out there.
• In fact, it’s a really good thing to let your opinions be determined by your evaluation of evidence instead of what feels right.
• It’s completely okay, partially liberating, and useful to say, in response to those questions, “I just don’t know. It’s really confusing and hard”.
• It can be fun and otherwise rewarding to think hard about these questions, even if you don’t reach any big conclusions.
I don't think students remember virtually any content, years later, but they sort of remember these lessons because they get internalized in the student. The students who get them start acting as though they agreed to them—even though neither I nor anyone else ever even articulated them. Part of the reason that this unspoken learning takes place is that I never provide any argument for any of them. Instead, I show them by example, in front of the classroom for the whole semester. Teachers are role models, regardless of whether anyone likes it or approves it. Like all role models, one teaches in virtue of the example one sets with one’s own behavior. It’s a bit similar to sports: the rookie often learns just by observing and imitating the veteran. The lessons the student learns guide their behavior implicitly, without virtually any thought behind it.
12. An anxious college professor (who knows thyself) takes a shot of vodka or a Xanax before every lecture to reach the Goldilocks zone - where they become a better lecturer.
You don’t see a problem with that.
I think you’re wrong.
Yet I agree with all of your other recommendations. This one strikes me as anomalous.
(And comparing alertness-enhancing caffeine consumption with the use of anxiolytics and depressants known to inhibit mental function seems especially lame in this educational context - though it wouldn’t be so in a purely social context for instance).
Are you being purposefully controversial? Are you seeking permission/approval for the actions of your colleagues?
I ask you and your readers to draw a limit, and to explain why your limit does not apply to the anxious professor.
Let’s assume the person in each of the following situations has an equally good handle on the dose of substance that gets them to the Goldilocks zone of anxiety.
In which of these cases would you recommend a dose?
- A brand new professor giving her first lectures
- A new PhD giving job interview presentations
- An anxious manager giving a reports at a zoom meeting
- An anxious graduate student giving presentations to an undergraduate class
- An anxious undergrad student wanting to speak up in history class
- An anxious high school senior valedictorian
- An anxious student trying out for school plays
- An anxious nurse on her ER shifts
- An anxious driver on his difficult commute
- A new member of a bridge club
If you have an objection to any of these scenarios, how does your objection not apply to your anxious professor?
If your allowance for the anxious professor is predicated on there being no alternative between inferior anxious lecturer and self-medicated superior lecturer, how do you manage the well-established effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy techniques like exposure? Are professors too old to benefit from non-drug interventions? Too lazy? Too busy? Are those reasons to promote Xanax?
You've raised a line-drawing problem, but every reasonable view will have such a problem.
You haven't offered a single solid reason why someone should not take a prescription anxiolytic to help them better perform their valuable job, if indeed it helps them. The mere fact that CBT is available isn't a reason against taking the anxiolytic. In fact--as everyone knows--the greatest benefits are achieved by the combination of talk therapy and drug therapy.
1. Benzodiazepines (like Xanax) have a high risk of dependence. That’s why they are only ever recommended for short-term relief of anxiety.
2. Benzodiazepines have a high risk of tolerance - an increased dose becomes required to achieve the same effect, which increases risk of dependence. It is not unlikely that the professor taking regular doses of Xanax before class is treating withdrawal effects instead of anxiety. They feel very similar.
3. Benzodiazepines have a high potential for unpleasant symptoms if withdrawn suddenly. Another risk of dependence.
4. Benzodiazepines cause memory problems, disordered sleep, and impaired coordination.
5. There are better alternatives. The studies that demonstrate greatest benefit with combination of medication and CBT do not use benzodiazepines but SSRI or SNRI medications which do not share many of the downsides of benzodiazepines.
If Paul Bloom was recommending SSRIs, I would not be wasting my time writing replies. If he recommended beta blockers, meditation, breathing techniques, yoga, radical acceptance, a glass of warm milk, a hot shower, calling a friend, a fuzzy blanket, a companion dog, rehearsal in front of a mirror, or jumping jacks, you would not hear from me.
If he presented his anecdotes of successful use of alcohol and Xanax simply as interesting anecdotes, I would be mum.
But he lists the use of alcohol and benzodiazepines as a RECOMMENDATION. This I cannot stand. It should not matter that I am a physician and psychotherapist. Any adult with access to chat GPT should be able to evaluate the merits of Paul Bloom’s recommendation number 12.
As for 1-11 and 13-19, I am fully, nay enthusiastically on board.
I love this! But regarding #7: although I agree with what you say, I think it would worth emphasizing that preparing too little is also a problem.
Students don't like it when you don't have your shit together. If you're disorganized on logistical things like deadlines, syllabus, etc., they start to get nervous. They don't know what's expected of them. This is especially important with undergraduates, and especially especially at less elite institutions for whom the whole college experience can be scary. For similar reasons, students get nervous if they don't understand your lectures, which can happen if the lectures are erratic or undisciplined or poorly organized, which can happen if you don't prepare. (For example, if you haven't thought carefully about a lecture, you may start talking about something and then realize it would have been better to skip it, or realize that some background information should have been presented first.)
The importance of preparation deserves emphasis because there are many ways in which we are tempted to *not* prepare properly. We are all familiar with the "disorganized professor" archetype, who wanders into class without a syllabus or notes, talks about whatever is on their mind at the time, and inspires everyone with their spontaneous genius; and there can be a powerful temptation to imitate such people (especially when we're fresh out of graduate school and remember being taught by such a person!) Although that approach can *sometimes* work in graduate seminars (though even there it's generally inadvisable), in undergraduate classes it's almost always a terrible idea. Also, some of our employers emphasize research to the exclusion of teaching when it comes to promotion, despite who ultimately pays our salaries.
So I think #7 should be accompanied by: Be prepared. Be organized. Be a professional.
(All of this is already implicit in your post - throughout you emphasize mindfulness about teaching, caring about the student's perspective, etc.. I'm just saying that it's worth making it explicit. I wish someone had said it to me - as well as saying everything that you say - when I was in graduate school.)
I also feel smug, because I think I'd already worked these things out for myself over the last 15 years, and taught accordingly. And now I am being endorsed by THE Paul Bloom.
[I shall here systematically disregard the possibility of ego-driven confirmation bias]
I am not an academic but I do a lot of speaking to large groups of people. I also suffer from social anxiety but calming meds tend to turn me into a bit of a spaced-out zombie. What I find works for me is drinking enough caffeine to smash through the boundary of my anxiety and do the talk in a hyped-up state of fight or flight, approaching mental collapse. It probably isn't good for my nervous system but I am routinely praised for my ability to hold an audience (esp during Q&A).
I was once given the advice (by a professor I like) to switch where I sit in each seminar (keeps them on their toes!). I laughed, but it does align with #3...
If you go around the room having everyone comment on a passage, it should probably be the kind of passage where people would be comfortable openly taking either side.
After 27 years in industry, I’ll be teaching my first class in the winter quarter. I’ll refer back to this list often, I’m sure!
Excellent advice. As for bringing in guest lecturers, they don’t need to lecture. You can do an interview or moderated discussion with them. Most people suck at presenting but can answer questions about themselves pretty well. Of course, that requires you to have interviewing/moderating skills.
If it is a lecture, I vet their slides beforehand (“Hmm, 300 slides, we made need to cut this down a tad”).
I'm teaching social psychology for the first time this semester, and your advice couldn't have been better timed. It's nice to be reminded of what effective teaching looks like amidst the whirl of first-time prep, LMS setup, and faculty meetings.
I find that even somewhat lame jokes usually get a laugh (but don't overdo it). The students are looking for any excuse to experience some comic relief.
Share your love for the subject: https://open.substack.com/pub/sandridge/p/the-professors-most-powerful-teaching?r=4acxal&utm_medium=ios
This is a really good list, but #15 sticks out like a sore thumb, actually containing three pretty dubious recommendations all the while appearing to equate them.
"Don't be an ass" is fine advice--you shouldn't make fun of kids who get answers wrong or be excessively punitive." I agree totally.
But then you say that it's not the time to let students know about the game of thrones finale, when that's exactly the kind of small talk which you should engage in before class. Finally, you end #15 with 'Be professional.' Is your advice here that I should adhere to professional norms or standards whenever possible? Well, that conflicts with your view that cursing is sometimes permissible, doesn't it? Also, what does being a professional have anything to do with abusing one's power or making small-talk? These unrelated points should not be found under a single heading if they appear on the list at all.
Good stuff. Can tell you’re a great teacher.
Love this collection of loosely affiliated suggestions with gaps. So much better than "here's my system. You should do what I do." variety of advice.
I want to draw some lines connecting the feedback you report about #1 & #2 and #8.
I agree that projecting enthusiasm and expertise are important, but urge doing so in a way that communicates what philosopher Charles Peirce called "contrite fallibilism." Uncertainty and failure are essential to doing good science. Saying "I don't know. Let's figure that out." is a powerful pedagogical move, one that values curiosity and encourages engagement.
When I taught philosophy, these were the long-term messages I tried to convey:
• There are some big questions about reality, our place in it, and what we can know about it.
• It’s completely okay and can be fun to think hard about them, even as an adult.
• It’s completely okay and even partially liberating to not accept what your culture says about those questions.
• It’s completely okay and partially liberating to not let your views on those questions be dictated by your emotions, what feels right or comfortable or useful to you.
• It’s completely okay and useful to let your views on those questions be dictated by your evaluation of the evidence you know is out there.
• In fact, it’s a really good thing to let your opinions be determined by your evaluation of evidence instead of what feels right.
• It’s completely okay, partially liberating, and useful to say, in response to those questions, “I just don’t know. It’s really confusing and hard”.
• It can be fun and otherwise rewarding to think hard about these questions, even if you don’t reach any big conclusions.
I don't think students remember virtually any content, years later, but they sort of remember these lessons because they get internalized in the student. The students who get them start acting as though they agreed to them—even though neither I nor anyone else ever even articulated them. Part of the reason that this unspoken learning takes place is that I never provide any argument for any of them. Instead, I show them by example, in front of the classroom for the whole semester. Teachers are role models, regardless of whether anyone likes it or approves it. Like all role models, one teaches in virtue of the example one sets with one’s own behavior. It’s a bit similar to sports: the rookie often learns just by observing and imitating the veteran. The lessons the student learns guide their behavior implicitly, without virtually any thought behind it.
Build suspense. It’s not hard, but it won’t happen unless you make a little effort and do a little planning!
12. An anxious college professor (who knows thyself) takes a shot of vodka or a Xanax before every lecture to reach the Goldilocks zone - where they become a better lecturer.
You don’t see a problem with that.
I think you’re wrong.
Yet I agree with all of your other recommendations. This one strikes me as anomalous.
(And comparing alertness-enhancing caffeine consumption with the use of anxiolytics and depressants known to inhibit mental function seems especially lame in this educational context - though it wouldn’t be so in a purely social context for instance).
Are you being purposefully controversial? Are you seeking permission/approval for the actions of your colleagues?
I ask you and your readers to draw a limit, and to explain why your limit does not apply to the anxious professor.
Let’s assume the person in each of the following situations has an equally good handle on the dose of substance that gets them to the Goldilocks zone of anxiety.
In which of these cases would you recommend a dose?
- A brand new professor giving her first lectures
- A new PhD giving job interview presentations
- An anxious manager giving a reports at a zoom meeting
- An anxious graduate student giving presentations to an undergraduate class
- An anxious undergrad student wanting to speak up in history class
- An anxious high school senior valedictorian
- An anxious student trying out for school plays
- An anxious nurse on her ER shifts
- An anxious driver on his difficult commute
- A new member of a bridge club
If you have an objection to any of these scenarios, how does your objection not apply to your anxious professor?
If your allowance for the anxious professor is predicated on there being no alternative between inferior anxious lecturer and self-medicated superior lecturer, how do you manage the well-established effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy techniques like exposure? Are professors too old to benefit from non-drug interventions? Too lazy? Too busy? Are those reasons to promote Xanax?
You've raised a line-drawing problem, but every reasonable view will have such a problem.
You haven't offered a single solid reason why someone should not take a prescription anxiolytic to help them better perform their valuable job, if indeed it helps them. The mere fact that CBT is available isn't a reason against taking the anxiolytic. In fact--as everyone knows--the greatest benefits are achieved by the combination of talk therapy and drug therapy.
I thought you’d never ask!
1. Benzodiazepines (like Xanax) have a high risk of dependence. That’s why they are only ever recommended for short-term relief of anxiety.
2. Benzodiazepines have a high risk of tolerance - an increased dose becomes required to achieve the same effect, which increases risk of dependence. It is not unlikely that the professor taking regular doses of Xanax before class is treating withdrawal effects instead of anxiety. They feel very similar.
3. Benzodiazepines have a high potential for unpleasant symptoms if withdrawn suddenly. Another risk of dependence.
4. Benzodiazepines cause memory problems, disordered sleep, and impaired coordination.
5. There are better alternatives. The studies that demonstrate greatest benefit with combination of medication and CBT do not use benzodiazepines but SSRI or SNRI medications which do not share many of the downsides of benzodiazepines.
If Paul Bloom was recommending SSRIs, I would not be wasting my time writing replies. If he recommended beta blockers, meditation, breathing techniques, yoga, radical acceptance, a glass of warm milk, a hot shower, calling a friend, a fuzzy blanket, a companion dog, rehearsal in front of a mirror, or jumping jacks, you would not hear from me.
If he presented his anecdotes of successful use of alcohol and Xanax simply as interesting anecdotes, I would be mum.
But he lists the use of alcohol and benzodiazepines as a RECOMMENDATION. This I cannot stand. It should not matter that I am a physician and psychotherapist. Any adult with access to chat GPT should be able to evaluate the merits of Paul Bloom’s recommendation number 12.
As for 1-11 and 13-19, I am fully, nay enthusiastically on board.
I love this! But regarding #7: although I agree with what you say, I think it would worth emphasizing that preparing too little is also a problem.
Students don't like it when you don't have your shit together. If you're disorganized on logistical things like deadlines, syllabus, etc., they start to get nervous. They don't know what's expected of them. This is especially important with undergraduates, and especially especially at less elite institutions for whom the whole college experience can be scary. For similar reasons, students get nervous if they don't understand your lectures, which can happen if the lectures are erratic or undisciplined or poorly organized, which can happen if you don't prepare. (For example, if you haven't thought carefully about a lecture, you may start talking about something and then realize it would have been better to skip it, or realize that some background information should have been presented first.)
The importance of preparation deserves emphasis because there are many ways in which we are tempted to *not* prepare properly. We are all familiar with the "disorganized professor" archetype, who wanders into class without a syllabus or notes, talks about whatever is on their mind at the time, and inspires everyone with their spontaneous genius; and there can be a powerful temptation to imitate such people (especially when we're fresh out of graduate school and remember being taught by such a person!) Although that approach can *sometimes* work in graduate seminars (though even there it's generally inadvisable), in undergraduate classes it's almost always a terrible idea. Also, some of our employers emphasize research to the exclusion of teaching when it comes to promotion, despite who ultimately pays our salaries.
So I think #7 should be accompanied by: Be prepared. Be organized. Be a professional.
(All of this is already implicit in your post - throughout you emphasize mindfulness about teaching, caring about the student's perspective, etc.. I'm just saying that it's worth making it explicit. I wish someone had said it to me - as well as saying everything that you say - when I was in graduate school.)
Yes! I agree with every point, 1 to 19.
I also feel smug, because I think I'd already worked these things out for myself over the last 15 years, and taught accordingly. And now I am being endorsed by THE Paul Bloom.
[I shall here systematically disregard the possibility of ego-driven confirmation bias]
I am not an academic but I do a lot of speaking to large groups of people. I also suffer from social anxiety but calming meds tend to turn me into a bit of a spaced-out zombie. What I find works for me is drinking enough caffeine to smash through the boundary of my anxiety and do the talk in a hyped-up state of fight or flight, approaching mental collapse. It probably isn't good for my nervous system but I am routinely praised for my ability to hold an audience (esp during Q&A).
I was once given the advice (by a professor I like) to switch where I sit in each seminar (keeps them on their toes!). I laughed, but it does align with #3...