Teachers: Complex Intellectuals with Simple Emotional Needs

[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.