I think that the similarities between the French and American responses are indicative of the fact there are certain universal qualities that are indispensable for a professor to have. For me, a good teacher makes a world of a difference in how well I am able to absorb the material for a class. I have had many incredible teachers while at school at MIT, but I also had couple that were less than desirable last school year. They had many of the good qualities that were among the responses to this questionnaire, but they were lacking in one or two qualities. What that says to me is that it is very important for a good teacher to be well rounded and I would imagine that is true any school, regardless of what type of school it is and whether or not it is a prestigious school.

Même si les réponses américaines et françaises sont assez proches pour définir ce qui fait qu’un enseignant est un bon professeur, il n’en reste pas moins que les deux listes témoignent en réalité d’une conception très différente de la qualité d’un enseignant. En effet, si les réponses françaises valorisant ce qu’est ETRE un bon professeur (« intéressant », « passionné », « pédagogue », « patient », « drôle », « respectueux », « intelligent » ), les américains préfèrent s’intéresser à ce que doit FAIRE l’enseignant : « can explain material clearly », « can make any subject interesting », « cares about their students », « helps »…et on relève notamment cette distinction par la forte occurrence de verbes d’action dans la liste des élèves américains. Cette différence me semble être révélatrice d’une distinction profonde entre nos deux cultures. La France accorde beaucoup d’importance à ce qu’est une personne : sa place dans la société, ses diplômes, parfois son grade militaire…alors qu’à l’inverse, il me semble que la société américaine juge quelqu’un plus sur ses actes que sur ce qu’il est « soi-disant ». J’expliquerai peut-être cela par la longue tradition française qui, de part son héritage historique, a toujours valorisé le statut d’une personne plutôt que ses actes : car si nous avons guillotiné notre roi et si nous avons remplacé notre monarchie par notre république, nous soufrons toujours du manque de renouvellement de nos élites qui sont de fait devenus une nouvelle aristocratie dominante. Au contraire, il semble – mais je me trompe peut-être, à vous de me le dire – qu’aux Etats-Unis on puisse réussir plus facilement sur la base de son propre mérite, et c’est donc bien de méritocratie dont il est question. Pour paraphraser Simone de Beauvoir, il serait temps pour nous, français, de comprendre que l’on ne naît pas ce que l’on n’est, on le devient… Pour revenir à notre problématique, je m’étonne de constater que les élèves américains associent très rapidement l’image du bon professeur à un aspect affectif très important. En fait, les élèves français aussi le font mais pas sur le même registre : pour nous, la passion est celle du professeur (qui « aime », « est passionné »). Par opposition, il apparaît que, pour un américain, un bon professeur est celui qui va susciter une passion chez l’élève, passion qu’il transmet, partage avec son auditoire : « makes class exciting and fun », « makes their students excited about learning », « will learning fun »…Je pense que c’est une conception très française que de croire que l’on ne peut pas apprendre quelque chose de sérieux en s’amusant. Du reste, on peut s’interroger sur le fait qu’un élève américain emploie le terme de « child » pour désigner un élève : comme si l’on ne pouvait pas apprendre en étant un adulte ou bien, comme s’il fallait rester un enfant pour découvrir encore quelque chose. J’opterais personnellement pour la seconde hypothèse puisque, selon moi, l’étonnement – à l’image de celui que l’on retrouve chez les enfants - est une motivation, sinon la motivation la plus légitime, voire honorable, pour apprendre. Ainsi, un bon professeur pour moi, sera toujours celui qui arrivera à me faire garder un œil neuf, toujours étonné et à l’éveil, un regard d’enfant en quelque sorte, sur des sujets auxquels je n’aurai jamais pensé sans lui ou problématiser seul. Pour conclure, il est à noter que la liste française introduit naturellement et de façon plus ou moins implicite l’idée d’une hiérarchisation entre l’enseignant et l’apprenant : ce sont les rôles distincts du maître et de l’élève ; d’ailleurs ne parle-t-on pas, en France, de l’élève qui dépasse le maître ? Je n’ai pas réussi à retrouver dans les réponses américaines cet ascendant du professeur sur ses élèves et j’imagine que les rapports doivent donc être très différents de ceux qu’un français peut entretenir avec ses enseignants.

In response to Guillaume: You raise an interesting point saying that the grammatical style of expression between the French and American questionnaire responses is indicative of certain cultural distinctions. From what I’ve noticed as well as from talking with others, it seems that the reason most of the American responses have similar grammatical formats is a function of the prompt. Looking back on my own response, I think I did not choose to complete the sentence with adjectives because they would have made the resulting sentence sound peculiar to my ear and also because I would not have been satisfied with the clarity of my response without more than one word. In the end, this is probably even more telling of the differences between cultures. Going on to what you proposed as the reasoning behind this difference, you are correct in saying that actions are a key feature in defining who a person is in American society. A common expression is that ‘a man is defined by his actions.’ Titles and family may count for something but, in the end, I think most Americans like to believe that it is what they do that makes them the person that they are. - - - A professor may be very successful in their research and well known in academia, but whether or not they are a good professor, a good teacher, relies on how well they can actually teach. I think this is part of why American students make the distinction of what they do and how they are. I know plenty of people who are absolutely brilliant and very interesting to talk to but are horrible at teaching important concepts and explaining their ideas. The point being, the qualities of a good teacher are not intrinsic to just anyone who is passionate, knowledgeable and interested in a given subject. That person must be able to pass the excitement and comprehension onto their students. While you say that you define a good professor by the passion that they have for a subject you also say later that a good professor is someone who introduces you to things you’ve never thought about. In a way, I think that is a way of saying that what makes them a good teacher is their ability to guide and to excite the students, which is very similar to the idea that you attributed to the American responses. - - - Another thing that interested me is the way you phrased what it is to be a good professor according to the two lists in concordance to the use and sense of ‘être’ and ‘faire.’ I agree with your assessment of the use of the two verbs among French and American students. However, when you say that who a person is strongly associated with their place in society, degrees, and their military status, I would associate these titles with ‘avoir.’ They are names/titles that a person has. There is a quotation of Shakespeare that is commonly used that says: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." I think it succinctly expresses the idea that our cultures are very much concerned with a persons title, though we know they are only an abstraction and do not necessarily contribute to the true identity of an individual. - - - I realize this is getting long and I apologize, but I found a lot of what you had to say very interesting and insightful. There were a couple points that you asked about or said you were slightly confused about among the American responses. One was our use of ‘child’ in relation to the students of the good professor. I think the real reason that we often chose to refer to the student as a child is because we realize that a good, solid foundation to a person’s education is an invaluable thing. With a strong foundation hat you build up starting as a child you can be more successful later in life. I think that many of us feel that part of the reason we are able to attend a school as prestigious and demanding as MIT is because our previous education has sufficiently supported and prepared us. - - - Finally you also posed a question about the relationship between students and teachers and I would have to say that this varies very greatly from one situation to another. In this semester alone I have a couple teachers who are very different in the way they connect with the students. I have one teacher who encourages us to call him by his first name and another who is much more formal. In general I think the movement has been for more and more teachers to encourage a closer familiarity with there students. While it is important to respect your teachers, they themselves will also say that it important for a student to be able to question what a teacher says and to think creatively. One small example that comes up at least one a week in my mechanical engineering classes is when a teacher makes a mistake in their calculations on the board. Some teachers will make mistakes on purpose to encourage the students to correct them and have more confidence in doing so. As another interesting note, I’d like to mention that in a Quaker school that I attended near Philadelphia we called all of our teachers by their first name starting in elementary school and there were only a couple exceptions. This was not a form of disrespect for the teachers but, rather, a form of respect and encouragement for the students.