Teachers: Complex Intellectuals with Simple Emotional Needs

[lisab]

Hi Lisab! Actually, I agree with you, but you may not have read all the posts on this thread: I'm already employed as a software engineer, making an okay-ish living, so I don't have to worry about that. But yes, you're right, minimum wage sucks enough to motivate most people.

Yeah, you're right, I've been following this thread just on an off all day, as I was at work.

So are you tied (geographically or otherwise) to this particular college?

 

[farleyknight]

Yeah, you're right, I've been following this thread just on an off all day, as I was at work.

So are you tied (geographically or otherwise) to this particular college?

Actually, it's more of a financial tie. I started before I was doing software, and wanted to save money. But in the process, I've learned that it's a really crappy place to do much of anything, unless you're just going for a certification in nursing or something.. It's a 2-year school. If you're a Philly resident you'd know about CCP, I'm sure.

If/when I finish at this place, there is a 4-year school in the area (Temple University) where most of my courses will transfer. I was talking to a friend of mine who managed to finish up his courses and move onto to that school and told me that 1) the computer science faculty is much better (it's joke where I'm at) and 2) the physics guys are actually reasonable if physics isn't your major.

Actually he went Drexel, Temple & CCP, and told me that his intro physics classes where tougher at CCP than at Drexel, which practically floored me because Drexel is a brand name for you (physics) guys, I'm sure!

So I think I might transfer sooner rather than later.. But I'm not sure yet..

 

[lisab]

Actually, it's more of a financial tie. I started before I was doing software, and wanted to save money. But in the process, I've learned that it's a really crappy place to do much of anything, unless you're just going for a certification in nursing or something.. It's a 2-year school. If you're a Philly resident you'd know about CCP, I'm sure.

If/when I finish at this place, there is a 4-year school in the area (Temple University) where most of my courses will transfer. I was talking to a friend of mine who managed to finish up his courses and move onto to that school and told me that 1) the computer science faculty is much better (it's joke where I'm at) and 2) the physics guys are actually reasonable if physics isn't your major.

Actually he went Drexel, Temple & CCP, and told me that his intro physics classes where tougher at CCP than at Drexel, which practically floored me because Drexel is a brand name for you (physics) guys, I'm sure!

So I think I might transfer sooner rather than later.. But I'm not sure yet..

It might be worth the small application fee to go ahead and apply, even if you're not sure you want to go yet. If you're accepted, it will be an option that you don't have now.

 

[farleyknight]

Wow, that's some very good advice.. I had thought about that, but wasn't quite sure.. I'll probably give that a go next time I get a free weekday off.

Thanks for reading my horrible rant and giving me some level-headed advice!

 

[lisab]

Wow, that's some very good advice.. I had thought about that, but wasn't quite sure.. I'll probably give that a go next time I get a free weekday off.

Thanks for reading my horrible rant and giving me some level-headed advice!

You're welcome, and the best of luck to you.

 

[Pattonias]

Congrats on the fairly epic rant. I have one about how Matt Damon is one of the most overrated actors of all time. I think in future rants you should avoid trying to argue with the people who are trying to give you honest advice. It seems pretty obvious as this thread progressed that you had already decided on your course of action and did not really want or need any input.

As a college student, I feel a lot of similar frustrations. I think this will be a problem wherever you go though as these problems seem to be fairly typical. Eventually, you will need to just suck it up and drive on.

 

[Saladsamurai]

Congrats on the fairly epic rant. I have one about how Matt Damon is one of the most overrated actors of all time. I think in future rants you should avoid trying to argue with the people who are trying to give you honest advice. It seems pretty obvious as this thread progressed that you had already decided on your course of action and did not really want or need any input.

As a college student, I feel a lot of similar frustrations. I think this will be a problem wherever you go though as these problems seem to be fairly typical. Eventually, you will need to just suck it up and drive on.

I can reply for the OP on this one: "Oh yeah... I already know all that. I just <insert meaningless response here>"

I am seeing a pattern to all of his responses.

 

[arildno]

University courses are NOT just to hasten students through a standard curriculum; it is ALSO a winnowing process whereby active researchers become aware of students with particular potentials.

Science is NOT some objective, floating-about system; rather, it is composed of numerous RESEARCH GROUPS that through interaction on a daily basis are able to advance science a little bit within their primary field of research.

The PhD's are NOT generally lonely and neurotic, but they ared definitely out looking for someone they could prssure the university into employing as a new resource.

As long as the lecturer does not stray too far from the topic at hand, I don't see any problem with their techniques for checking out future colleagues.

 

[Moonbear]

I'll probably give that a go next time I get a free weekday off.

This is still sounding very non-committal. I think you have already made up your mind that you aren't ready or motivated for college and need time off. It comes through in every response you make here. So, you know yourself best...take the time off. Maybe you'll get a new outlook about education and change your mind later and go back, or maybe you'll just decide it isn't something you're really all that interested in doing and not return. I'm pretty sure you're just looking for validation of your decision, and I'll give it to you...if you really aren't motivated to learn what is being taught in your courses, you are wasting your time and money and denying a seat in the classroom for someone who is more motivated. So, drop out. Just don't blame it on the teachers, other students, or any other circumstances. Realize it is your decision based on what motivates you and interests you. There is no obligation to attend college, so if it isn't the right thing for you, don't do it.

 

[farleyknight]

Wow.. Thank you for your response Mr. Moonbear. But I feel like you're more replying out of emotions then a genuine critique. You seem to be skipping over some important points I've made like you did last time.. Regardless, even though coming back to this thread is like beating a dead horse, I feel I must respond..

This is still sounding very non-committal. I think you have already made up your mind that you aren't ready or motivated for college and need time off.

Well it shouldn't sound non-committal. I have physics 5 days out of the week, so I don't have a day off.. erg.. let me stop being hateful for a moment.

It comes through in every response you make here. So, you know yourself best...take the time off. Maybe you'll get a new outlook about education and change your mind later and go back, or maybe you'll just decide it isn't something you're really all that interested in doing and not return. I'm pretty sure you're just looking for validation of your decision, and I'll give it to you...if you really aren't motivated to learn what is being taught in your courses, you are wasting your time and money and denying a seat in the classroom for someone who is more motivated. So, drop out. Just don't blame it on the teachers, other students, or any other circumstances. Realize it is your decision based on what motivates you and interests you. There is no obligation to attend college, so if it isn't the right thing for you, don't do it.

Ok, just to restate one of my points, the purpose of this rant was to make it clear that academia is just as prone to politics and favoritism as is any other human institution. I know at least a few teachers who have cracked jokes on how stupid and corrupt business people are.. Well, guess what? So are teachers! Get off your high horse. Power corrupts, no matter where it is, even if it's worshiping logic instead of mammon.

But that said, if climbing the academic ladder is like climbing the corporate ladder, than I will just have to step back and rethink my approach, thus the need for time off. It's clear that "being smart" is only half the game to get where I want to go.

 

[arildno]

It's Ms. Moonbear, by the way!

 

[farleyknight]

It's Ms. Moonbear, by the way!

Whoops, sorry about that!

 

[BobG]

EXACTLY! I think the problem the OP is having is he hasn't decided yet if he'd rather be the wheat or the chaff. Let's see, university faculty teaching on subjects they actually research and know well, and teach current material rather than regurgitating the textbook you could have read for yourself...oh, the horror! Most people would be cheering to have the pleasure of such a course, not whining about it. You don't seem to be saying there's anything wrong with the exams, they all seem to cover material included in lecture or other assignments, and the chief complaint seems to be that they challenged the students. That's the POINT of exams, to challenge students, not just hand everyone an A for showing up.

No. If a professor gives you a question outside of the scope of the class in an exam, and you have other students who can confirm this, you have grounds to bring it to the attention of the chair of the department. I can't imagine this being acceptable in any department.

University courses are NOT just to hasten students through a standard curriculum; it is ALSO a winnowing process whereby active researchers become aware of students with particular potentials.

Science is NOT some objective, floating-about system; rather, it is composed of numerous RESEARCH GROUPS that through interaction on a daily basis are able to advance science a little bit within their primary field of research.

The PhD's are NOT generally lonely and neurotic, but they ared definitely out looking for someone they could prssure the university into employing as a new resource.

As long as the lecturer does not stray too far from the topic at hand, I don't see any problem with their techniques for checking out future colleagues.

Interesting cross section on what tests are supposed to accomplish. Actually, I agree with Pengwuino.

When you're developing a course, the first thing you should do is figure out what the objectives are; what the student should know or be capable of doing at the end of the course.

The second thing you should do is figure out how you can tell if the student has met the course objectives - in other words, write your tests.

After your tests are written, you should develop the lectures, labs, homework, etc with the goal of making sure the student is capable of meeting the objectives (provided he does the work, of course).

This doesn't mean the tests have to be simple regurgitation of facts, either. It just means the student should have seen similar type "challenges" long before the test came along. In other words, the tests shouldn't present anything new.

The "challenges" and "bait" for finding new talent is something that should be initially presented in labs, homework assignments, and projects - not the tests. In other words, they should take place in an environment where the student can do a little outside research or ask some questions.

Letting professors write their own tests is a recipe for disaster, and not just because the tests might be too hard. Within a specific program, some courses are prerequisites for the next course down the line. If the professor veers from the expected course objectives to teach their own favorite subjects, then the next professor is faced with a problem: spend time teaching his students material they should have learned last course or just plow ahead and tell the students they need to catch up on their own as quickly as possible? If the second class is also a prerequisite for another course, can the professor even afford to do the former without dooming his entire class to being unprepared for the next course?

And what does a professor do when a third of their class has already been taught half the material in the course, but is totally unprepared for the other half (the professor in the prerequisite course really, really liked some of the material, so they didn't have time for the other stuff)? A third of their class is just plain unprepared (a different professor in the prerequisite course was the "easy" professor that all the students liked)? A third of their class knows the basics, just as the course objectives were designed to do?

 

[arildno]

I might agree with the penguin that when it comes to the actual EXAMS, then a more conservative and standardized way of testing should be employed.

But, as I read the OP, it was not JUST about the exam per se, but also had grievances about the lectures and the interaction between the teacher and the students.

I don't see why the teacher can't use his lectures in a course to broach topics possible tangential to the core curriculum, but central to the research group(s) on that university

 

[NeoDevin]

Bob and Pengwuino,
The professor must cover the material of the course, yes, and the tests must test that material. On these I agree with you. But to say that a professor shouldn't be able to extend the material a little, give some applications from their own research I can't agree with. In my view, most of an exam should be devoted to covering the material in the course, with a small portion (say, 5-10% ish) for extensions. This allows the exam to differentiate between students who actually understand the material, and can apply it to new problems from those who just memorized the textbook.

 

[BobG]

Bob and Pengwuino,
The professor must cover the material of the course, yes, and the tests must test that material. On these I agree with you. But to say that a professor shouldn't be able to extend the material a little, give some applications from their own research I can't agree with. In my view, most of an exam should be devoted to covering the material in the course, with a small portion (say, 5-10% ish) for extensions. This allows the exam to differentiate between students who actually understand the material, and can apply it to new problems from those who just memorized the textbook.

We only have a difference of where those types of things should be presented, not on whether they should be presented. Is it a matter of "you understand the material or you don't" (the test option) or a matter of "here's an opportunity to build an understanding of what we've taught you" (presenting it on a lab, project, or extra homework problem)?

And I think labs, projects, and homework can be part of a student's grade, so there's still differentiation. And, believe me, even when presented in an environment where they could figure this out with some extra work, there's plenty of students that will just accept the lower grade. In fact, I think some would rather get the test option. Having the opportunity to figure something out and still accepting the lower grade just makes them feel like the losers they are.

I don't see why the teacher can't use his lectures in a course to broach topics possible tangential to the core curriculum, but central to the research group(s) on that university

If those topics are central to research groups on that university, the entire department ought to be on the same page. Students shouldn't be punished by the 'minority' research group searching for a little respect among the rest of the department.

In any event, it's not broaching tangential subjects that are the problem. The professor just has to have enough discipline that everyone (including the other professors) knows what to expect from students that complete his courses.

 

[Pattonias]

TBO I have never had a class that the problems you are describing were as severe as you say they are. Perhaps a different university would suit you better.

 

[farleyknight]

I might agree with the penguin that when it comes to the actual EXAMS, then a more conservative and standardized way of testing should be employed.

But, as I read the OP, it was not JUST about the exam per se, but also had grievances about the lectures and the interaction between the teacher and the students.

I don't see why the teacher can't use his lectures in a course to broach topics possible tangential to the core curriculum, but central to the research group(s) on that university

Actually, I don't see why they can't either. I'm glad you read my OP because while I am complaining, I have more to say than just "the tests are hard". Some people are making me out to be like some whiny baby. No, I'm a whiny adult!

Anyways, as far as research topics brought up in a sophomore level intro course, I actually can't say I completely disagree. It's just that, it seem counterintutive that when you ask the question "What do I have to do to well in the course?" The response ends up being "Screw that copy of Lang - Intro to Linear Algebra.. Go buy a copy of Abstract Algebra - Dummit and Foote!" And guess what, I like abstract algebra..! So I'm not so much complaining about should/shouldn't this material be brought up but more complaining about is it implicit/explicit that this will be brought up.

If I had known that elementary quantum theory was going to be on my physics test, I would have went out and bought some books on it and started reading it. Actually they mentioned a book briefly during the lecture, I can't remember the name of it, but it had to do with kinetic energy being negative because certain particles had velocities that were complex values, not real values in the macroscopic world. So the potential energy equation on the test looked like a wild animal compared to the stuff in our textbook.

It's one of those things: If you're quick on your feet and know the stuff like the back of your hand, you might know what's going on and probably pick up on the new ideas right away. On the other hand, the question wasn't some brand new original idea, just a standard question from a more advanced book you haven't read yet.. If you say that advanced textbook, you'd know exactly what the teacher was doing..

I hope that makes my position more clear.

 

[BobG]

TBO I have never had a class that the problems you are describing were as severe as you say they are. Perhaps a different university would suit you better.

What does TBO mean? To be objective? To be obnoxious? To be opulent? To be ornery? To be ordained? To be olfactory? To be obfuscutatory? (the urban dictionary is just no help on this one)

Actually, I'm surprised one person could come with as many examples as the OP did and some of those are kind of weak. Those sort of problems are definitely the exception, but you're really lucky if you've never seen it happen.

 

[farleyknight]

What does TBO mean? To be objective? To be obnoxious? To be ordained?

Actually, I'm surprised one person could come with as many examples as the OP did and some of those are kind of weak. Those sort of problems are definitely the exception, but you're really lucky if you've never seen it happen.

Perhaps they are weak, I agree.. I might be tearing a great big gap out of a very small pinhole. But nevertheless, this is what teachers use to gauge your level of ability.. and I take any measurement of that pretty seriously.

 

[Noxide]

I don't understand.

Are you surprised that people with Ph.D's in Organic Chemistry teach organic chemistry rather than the philosophy of basket weaving?

 

[Saladsamurai]

Go study already!

 

[NeoDevin]

I think there should be some extension type questions on the exam, though obviously not the majority. They should test the students' ability to apply the material in ways that they have not necessarily seen before. However, they shouldn't be what differentiates a good student from a poor one, but rather what differentiates a good student from a great one.

A poor, but basic understanding of the material should get a student a passing mark, C or B- or so. Knowing just the material presented in class, but knowing it really well should be enough to get ~B+ or A- or so, to get an A or A+, I would expect the students to be able to take that material and apply it to new situations.

Obviously this is with the caveat that the new problem types presented on the exam are actually solvable with the material covered in class.

 

[NeoDevin]

Anyways, as far as research topics brought up in a sophomore level intro course, I actually can't say I completely disagree. It's just that, it seem counterintutive that when you ask the question "What do I have to do to well in the course?" The response ends up being "Screw that copy of Lang - Intro to Linear Algebra.. Go buy a copy of Abstract Algebra - Dummit and Foote!" And guess what, I like abstract algebra..! So I'm not so much complaining about should/shouldn't this material be brought up but more complaining about is it implicit/explicit that this will be brought up.
...
It's one of those things: If you're quick on your feet and know the stuff like the back of your hand, you might know what's going on and probably pick up on the new ideas right away. On the other hand, the question wasn't some brand new original idea, just a standard question from a more advanced book you haven't read yet.. If you say that advanced textbook, you'd know exactly what the teacher was doing..

Put it this way, to do well in the course, you should know the Intro book well. To do exceptionally in the course, you should either know beyond that (study the Abstract Algebra book) or be able to apply the concepts in new situations as you go. Personally I have always assumed it was implicit that one or two such questions would be on the test.