Michael L. Satlow

Then and Now

Education

Judaism and the Economy: A Sourcebook

by

I am delighted to announce the publication of my (edited) volume, Judaism and the Economy: A Sourcebook.  Here’s the publisher’s description:

Judaism and the Economy is an edited collection of sixty-nine Jewish texts relating to economic issues such as wealth, poverty, inequality, charity, and the charging of interest. The passages cover the period from antiquity to the present, and represent many different genres. Primarily fresh translations, from their original languages, many appear here in English for the first time. Each is prefaced by an introduction and the volume as a whole is introduced by a synthetic essay.

These texts, read together and in different combinations, provide a new lens for thinking about the economy and make the case that religion and religious values have a place in our own economic thinking. Judaism and the Economy is a useful new resource for educators, students, and clergy alike.

The contributors, and their contributions, are tremendous.  So have your library order the hardback and you can order the (significantly less expensive) paperback.  It should interest anyone thinking or teaching about the intersection of religion and the economy.

Routledge: https://www.routledge.com/Judaism-and-the-Economy-A-Sourcebook/Satlow/p/book/9780815353232

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815353235?pf_rd_p=d1f45e03-8b73-4c9a-9beb-4819111bef9a&pf_rd_r=CV4JR1XXYWFEE62SKVSP

 

Lessons from the Semester….

by

My semester is winding down.  It is funny the way that it does this; it has mostly ended but there are stray bits and pieces that seem to drag on interminably.  Despite this, as at the end of every semester, I’ve started my own process of self-assessment to figure out with my teaching what went right, what wrong, and what I can do to be more effective in the future.  Here are my current thoughts, with the hope that somebody, somewhere might find something in them a little useful:

  1. Laptops and electronic devices:  I have known for some time about the research that argues that the use of laptops impede learning in class (see, e.g., here).  Yet I’ve always resisted banning them from my classes.  Over the past few years I’ve referred students to this research but let them make the choice – very few made the choice to close their laptops.  Laptops in class have undeniable benefits, allowing students to quickly access online readings and look up things that can contribute to the class.  And, remembering my own college days, I know that distraction can occur with or without a device.  This semester, however, I decided to try a “no-devices in class” policy.  I liked it – a lot.  Yes, some students were still distracted and once a while would even fall asleep (which always greatly bruises my ego).  But looking into faces and eyes, rather than the backs of screens, was great for me and for students who did not have to look past or over their own screens, not to mention the ten or fifteen others that might be somewhere in their peripheral vision, I think it made a real difference for the class atmosphere.  The engagement in this medium-sized class was far higher than it usually is and I think that some of this can be attributed to putting away the laptops, as well as the phones.  I will continue to use this policy in my classes.
  2. Course materials:  When I began teaching, I used course packets, which were convenient but expensive.  Now everything is online – but here is the rub with the no devices policy.  Since we spend time in many classes actually looking at some of these materials, I ask them to print out the materials and bring them to class since they cannot refer to them online in class.  I know that many are hesitant about the money, but the alternative – course packets – costs more and the cost of the other required materials for my course are not high.  And yet, a significant number of students do not print out and bring the materials, causing real pedagogic problems.  In the future I think that I will go back to required course packets.
  3. Peer reviews:  I had students do peer reviews for two of their papers; they each received four or five peer reviews (per paper) plus extensive notes from us (or, really, in this case, my TA) on these drafts.  I used to not grade these drafts but found that I needed to grade them at least a little so that students took them seriously.  They then revise and resubmit for a grade.  I design rubrics for the papers but it is hard to get students to give critical but constructive feedback to their peers; they tend to go very easy.  Yet while I am uncertain about the utility of these peer assessments, the students almost uniformly like the process and think that it improves their writing.  So I’ll continue to do this, but will also seek some ways to train students to be better peer reviewers.
  4. Note cards: Over the past few years I have increasingly used “minute papers” on note cards.  Students write, at the end of class (really for five minutes) on a 3X5 index card (1) their major take-away and (2) a lingering question.  This is the first year that I’ve given a class that meets twice each week this assignment for every class meeting.  I am upfront with them that the primary reason that they do this is for them: they need to develop the skill of self-reflection.  A bonus, though, is that it gives me feedback after every class.  I follow up each class with individual emails to a few students whose questions or comments could benefit from it.  A second bonus is that I save and sort them so each student receives back all of his or her cards at the end of the course, and thus have a record of their own takeaways.  This seems to have worked well and I will integrate it into more of classes.
  5. Personal Meetings: One of the things that I like most about my job is meeting students and getting to know them and watch them develop.  One of the things that I like least is waiting in my office pointlessly during office hours as few decide to visit and, when they do, it tends to be for transactional reasons (e.g., discussing a grade).  I have tried to address this by using Google Appointments.  I set aside blocks of time each week, moving them around from week to week, and tell students that they need to sign up in advance.  This has dramatically cut my time waiting pointlessly in my office but it has not increased the number of students who come to speak to me.  Next year I may require student conferences, but in the meantime I am grappling with figuring out if there are things that I can do (other than have office hours in coffee shops, etc., which have not been terribly successful) that would make me seem more approachable so that more seek out these meetings on their own.

Responses, as always, are welcome!

Leveling the College Playing Field

by

The New York Times recently published a piece that noted that the college admissions process is hardly equitable and that there are a number of things that can be done in order to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds better succeed at getting into and completing college.  The problem is real and significant and should trouble all of us who believe in the fundamental American dream and social contract that gives equal opportunity to all.  The Times just published my letter (at least in their digital edition) in which I make a small suggestion that primarily impacts selective colleges.  It is printed below.

 

To the Editor:

I have another suggestion that is relatively easy to put in place and that could quickly produce dramatic results in leveling the college playing field: Colleges, particularly selective ones, should aim to have their student populations mirror the relative percentages of private and public high school students.

In the Yale class of 2021, for example, among those who attended high school in the United States, 36.5 percent came from private schools; only 10 percent of all American high school students go to such schools. If one distinguishes between parochial and nonparochial schools, the numbers are even starker: Only 19 percent of the private school students admitted came from private religious schools, while such schools account for about 87 percent of all American private school students.

Private high schools, often with low financial aid and diversity, already begin to weed for economic, social and racial characteristics. That’s a potent pre-step in the elitist college pipeline.

MICHAEL SATLOW, PROVIDENCE, R.I.

The writer is a professor of religious studies at Brown University.

Evaluating University Teaching

by

At most colleges and universities, the granting of tenure and promotion is based on achievement in three key areas: scholarship, teaching, and service.  Measuring scholarship and service is not exactly straight-forward, but is still a relatively clear process that usually involves some combination of tallying things up and soliciting input from both external reviewers and those who can comment on a candidate’s contributions.  Measuring teaching, though, is particularly difficult.  Student evaluations, upon which many such recommendations are based, are after all one dimensional and notoriously difficult to parse.  Is there a better way?

Many institutions of higher education have grappled with this problem.  Some time ago I led an ad hoc committee commissioned by three academic units at Brown to consider how we might better, more fairly, and more transparently evaluate teaching.  I posted that report here.  It took a long time for those recommendations to wind themselves down into policy but recently one of the commissioning units of the original report did exactly that, revising its “Standards and Criteria” document (each academic unit has its own set of criteria for tenure and promotion) to accord with the ad hoc report.  In the interest of transparency (and should this be useful to anyone else) the revised section (very slightly redacted) is below:

B. Teaching
Assistant professors will be assigned an on going mentor with whom to discuss issues of pedagogy and personal development as a teacher. We recognize that excellence in teaching can take different forms. All candidates for promotion are expected to address in their statements their own goals, definitions of teaching excellence, and how they assess and reflect upon their effectiveness.
The following evidence will be used by the review committee to evaluate teaching effectiveness:
1) A teaching statement which includes the candidate’s teaching philosophy, classroom approach, and reflections on effectiveness;
2) Completed course evaluations from all the courses taught by the candidate since the date of hire or the last promotion;
3) Syllabi for all the courses for which there are course evaluations;
4) Teaching observation reports, to be completed at least once each year. These will follow a protocol: the faculty member whose teaching will be evaluated will attend a class meeting of the senior faculty member conducting the evaluation; an initial conversation between the two faculty members follows, including consultation about which course and course meeting to observe; then a review of the syllabus before the class meeting, the observation itself, the writing of the report, and the sharing of the report with the faculty member being evaluated;
5) A teaching portfolio that documents teaching effectiveness (including the candidate’s teaching statement, comments on student papers and revised papers, and annotated syllabi; Sheridan Center guidelines for the preparation of a portfolio might be consulted).
In their determination of the value of the candidate’s work submitted for evidence, the review committee will consider such matters as:
1) Quality of course design: Do the courses have appropriate learning goals and are they constructed in a manner that advances those goals? Do they demonstrate knowledge of the state of the field and do they include appropriate assessment techniques? The main evidence used for determination is class syllabi.
2) Contributions to curricular development: Does the candidate seek to create courses that contribute to our curriculum and/or that students might find attractive? Is the candidate willing to teach beyond her/his specialty if necessary? The main evidence used for determination is the candidate’s history of offerings and responsiveness to annual reviews.
3) Advising and mentoring: Has the candidate been willing to advise students on whichever levels are most appropriate? Has the candidate been an effective mentor and thesis advisor (where relevant)? Does the candidate mentor graduate teaching assistants? The main evidence used for determination is institutional data (i.e., the number of advisees); student evaluations; and the candidate’s statement.
4) Professionalism: Does the candidate demonstrate appropriate behavior in the classroom (e.g., comes to class prepared; does not belittle students)? Does the candidate treat graduate teaching assistants with respect? The main evidence used for assessment is student evaluations, classroom observation reports, and the candidate’s statement.
5) Professional development: Is the candidate self-reflective about his/her teaching and does she/he seek to improve it? The main evidence used for assessment is the candidate’s statement and (if provided) the teaching portfolio.
6) Effectiveness of teaching: We recognize that effective teaching and learning takes many forms and that it is very difficult to evaluate, especially in a relatively short time frame. Nevertheless, to the extent possible we would like to know whether students are learning in the candidate’s courses and the extent of that learning. Does the candidate teach in a manner that is inclusive? The main evidence used for assessment is the candidate’s statement; observation reports; student evaluations; and (if provided) the teaching portfolio.
7) Contributions to scholarship on pedagogy: This is not expected of all candidates but active participation in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) counts to the candidate’s credit.
8) Leadership: Does the candidate help to support and foster an environment that supports the learning and assessment of colleagues? While not expected of all candidates, activities that demonstrate leadership might include helping to observe others and/or organizing sessions about pedagogy.

It should be noted that in my opinion, at least, the goal of evaluation is not strictly evaluation: it is to help to  support a community of practice in which educators support each other in our common mission.  Teaching is hard and involves, in ways that scholarship and service don’t, making oneself vulnerable (a reflection on that here) and ideal work environment is one in which faculty feel free to discuss their failures and well as successes and to help each other to become better.  Evaluation, at its best, is simply a natural outgrowth of sustained reflection and practice.

Paying for College in 1803

by

When I pay our son’s college tuition I am given a variety of options, from full payment up-front to installment plans, but no matter how I pay I must use U.S. currency.  Which raises the question, before there was a standard U.S. currency, how did students pay their college tuition?

I have been reviewing the early laws and records of Rhode Island College (Brown University’s predecessor) and have found a number of unanticipated tidbits unrelated to the questions that I am researching.  One such tidbit concerns this issue of currency.  In the laws of 1793, most fees are payable in schillings and pence.  In the laws of 1835, standard U.S. currency is specified.  While the laws of 1803 though, mostly uses dollars and cents, it requires the payment of the tuition in advance of “one hundred ounces of silver.”

This raises two questions for me: (1) what was the status of U.S. currency in 1803, and (2) how much would this have translated into, in our terms?  As far as I can tell from the Wikipedia page, the Coinage Act, which established the U.S. dollar as our national currency, was passed in 1792.  It appears, though, that there was some suspicion about using the minted silver dollars for fear that they contained less silver than they should have.  It apparently took more than a decade to establish faith in the new currency, although a great deflation in 1802 certainly did not help build confidence.  According to the conversion chart also there, 100 ounces of pure silver would be worth approximately $118 at that time.  Using the formula found here, that equates into $1887 in today’s dollars (which is, curiously, very close to the spot price of 100 oz of silver today).  If this is right (could this really be right?) Brown would have been quite affordable to the middle class.  Of course, the gym was not as nice then.