ONE can pretend expertise by knowing things from A to Z. Or be an expert by knowing a field from AA to AZ.
It’s the same difference between knowing about, and knowing. The latter is what makes or breaks any faculty member’s aspiration to attain the rank of Full-Fledged Professor.
Whether in top-notch private or state colleges and universities, the criteria for full professorship are quite stringent.
Aspirants must have a high level of knowledge and enthusiasm in their chosen academic field, high aptitude for and output in research, excellent oral and written communication skills, leadership, and organizational and time management skills.
Reminds me of my first week in graduate school. I asked the visiting professor from UP Diliman, Dr. Jose B. Socrates, how he preferred to be called; “Doctor” or “Professor.”
“Professor,” he said, “because schools are crawling with Ph.D.’s who are not professors.”
So, last week was my fourth time around to be invited as a member of the Regional Accreditation Committee of the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges (PASUC).
Since accreditation cycles occur every three years, Cycle 6 expectedly drew in 30 applicants from Cebu, Bohol, Negros Oriental, and Siquijor.
And so they came, all doctoral degree holders, ready to present evidentiary documents proving their expertise, aptitude, interest, and potential.
Ready to become more than their doctoral degree, be Professor.
Thanks to PASUC regional chair, Dr. Marlon Lopez (CNU president) and the regional zonal center director, Dr. Daisy Palompon (CNU director for research, extension and publications), the committee was spared from validating each applicant’s academic degree claimed.
Rather, the zonal center did the pre-works and gave us summary spreadsheets. So we committee members spent more time on the interviews to discuss the applicants’ research works, and experiences in both classroom and administrative fields.
To show high level of expertise and depth of knowledge, premium was higher on consistent field focus in both masteral and doctoral studies. It was better, of course, if consistency started all the way at the undergraduate course.
The real eye of the needle was the research output. Was it published? If yes, was it internationally refereed, or did it see print in Ched-accredited journals or PASUC-recognized agencies?
If not research, were the creative works or technology registered, or the invention patented?
Moreover, Cycle 6 would consider only those outputs within the cycle from July 2010 to June 2013. Outputs outside of this period were not considered.
While we understood that getting published took many bodies and levels of review prior to approval, this is one area indeed that required good time management skills.
This element also mirrored the passion for publishing research and analysis, sharing with peers in the field, and contributing to the coffers of education.
Of the six criteria, the research output became an all or nothing. All the applicant needed was one indexed research, and he/she would get the full 30 percent maximum.
If not, the highest total possible was only 70 percent. Meeting the passing mean score of 80 percent immediately became Sisyphus-like.
r(lelani.echaves@gmail.com)