Teachers: Easy College - What Do You Think?

[Pengwuino]

I disagree- for-profit schools explicitly advertise your ability to get a better job simply because you own a degree from said institution. Plus, there's a lot of general rhetoric along the lines of "a college education is essential to compete in today's job market". There's a clear link drawn between a 'college degree' and 'more personal income'- and data supports that conclusion..

That's not what I mean by "improving yourself". By improving yourself, I mean literally improving yourself. Becoming a better writer, more comfortable with math, a better public speaker, etc. I feel even without having entered the actual job force, I'm already being punished for having a poor grounding when it comes to writing (my statements of purpose for phd programs were a nightmare to compose). I'm lucky my father was an English student and kept me on my toes and writing on forums such as this gave me a kind of "essay exercise". However, I know I still could be a better writer. I also know that most student's writing is atrocious. I feel this is partly due to the fact that by getting a 3 on my AP literature course, I never had to take a single English class in college.

From my experience, people who have never gone to college feel that college educated people are smarter and all around more capable and skilled than non-college graduates. However, in my experience as a college graduate, quite the opposite is true! I know the truth - college is just a place to sit through a bunch of classes and try to memorize things. They don't really learn how to be... well, better!

For example, my group communications course was taught like we were all 4 year olds (which most of the students were maturity-wise). We learned very little about group communication. We had to do 2 group presentations which in general were awful and nothing from the course was actually forced upon us. They may have mentioned "this and this and this helps get a crowd reaction" or "never do this in a speech as it offends the audience" or things such as that, but it was never applied. We went up, gave a talk of the quality you'd see in a high school and that was that. A+ for all.

Incidentally, one of my favorite courses was my undergraduate condensed matter lab course which had an attached lab where we actually fabricated things in the department's machine shop! We were told how to do something, why it was done that way, told what tolerances had to be met, and we went and applied that knowledge. Use the wrong drill-type? Do it over. Are your holes threaded incorrectly? Do it again. Are you outside of the tolerances required? Do it over. We did it until we became good. All while at the same time knowing half the machines you worked on could rip your hand off if used incorrectly.

That was a great class for me! Not so much because I'm some machinist deep down (or am I?), but because I was taught how to do something, told to do it, and not allowed to stop doing it until I got it right. At that point I felt "hey, I can do something a vast majority of people can't!" and I knew if I for whatever reason felt like pursuing fabrication even further, I would be able to. In my eyes, all I see at my university is "here is some stuff, memorize it and if you cant, oh well, you still pass" or "try to do this, if you can't, oh well". No effort into getting students to really achieve anything.

Also, I hate when people feel being good at something is simply genetic or innate. "I'm just not good at math" or "I'm not a good writer" or "I can't speak in public". BLAH. I failed my first 2 calculus courses and after 4 years of just toughing it out, I ended up being better at math than almost every physics major and some of the math majors. I was also terrified of speaking publicly or in front of a class. I'm not great at it now (I still have issues losing track of what I'm saying) but I'm a hell of a lot better after teaching labs for 2 years.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I always tried to rethink the material every time I had to teach the same class, to keep it as fresh as possible. Or teach it in a different way. there are lots of approaches to a subject, although it does seem sometimes the most popular teachers are those who do it over and over and always the same way.

It is very hard to do but I always tried to think of at least one new insight I had never understood before and share it with the class. Or teach from a different book.

I know what you mean- until recently, I had no appreciation for the amount of mental effort required to teach effectively, even for the most basic material.

I struggle with making the material relevant to non-majors; I want to use everyday examples that illustrate the underlying concepts, but even the most basic device references topics well beyond an introductory class. Even the simple camera in cell phones goes beyond what I can talk about- I can barely discuss the hologram on credit/debit cards.

I've thought about introducing more demos during lecture- I know those can be *very* effective, but I'm concerned that I would have to reduce course content.

 

[Andy Resnick]

That's not what I mean by "improving yourself". <snip>

I appreciate what you wrote- although your experiences at school has been somewhat different than mine, I totally understand sucking at writing (and there are many reviewers who would be happy to provide evidence of that).

Maybe there should be a distinction between "education" (self-improvement) and "training" (learning to perform specific tasks). Both are needed in order to earn a degree, but sometimes there's too much emphasis on one or the other- too much "education" results in navel-gazing 4-year olds, while too much "training" results in lab zombies.

 

[Pengwuino]

I appreciate what you wrote- although your experiences at school has been somewhat different than mine, I totally understand sucking at writing (and there are many reviewers who would be happy to provide evidence of that).

Maybe there should be a distinction between "education" (self-improvement) and "training" (learning to perform specific tasks). Both are needed in order to earn a degree, but sometimes there's too much emphasis on one or the other- too much "education" results in navel-gazing 4-year olds, while too much "training" results in lab zombies.

I attend a second tier state school system. I feel systems like the one I am in are given too little attention compared to the vast numbers of graduates we put out into the world. The problem of emphasizing "education" vs. "training" is a moot point here where we don't really do either. All that seems to matter to students is "can i graduate in may?", "who's the easiest prof?", "can I miss 3 labs and still pass?". It's almost like how traffic school is seen by teenagers - get it out of the way so I can go drive already!

 

[dacruick]

I attend a second tier state school system. I feel systems like the one I am in are given too little attention compared to the vast numbers of graduates we put out into the world. The problem of emphasizing "education" vs. "training" is a moot point here where we don't really do either. All that seems to matter to students is "can i graduate in may?", "who's the easiest prof?", "can I miss 3 labs and still pass?". It's almost like how traffic school is seen by teenagers - get it out of the way so I can go drive already!

There is definitely an aspect of that. I'm attending university for physics right now, and I don't learn anything that I can readily apply into a field. I'm learning a lot of theory, so maybe there is a part of me that wants to get it out of the way so I can go "drive". The thing is, I know I have good problem solving skills and common sense, and I don't believe my physics degree will be much more than a certificate proving employers that I can learn the things they need me to.

 

[mathwonk]

there is always a tension between doing a good job and reducing course content. most people agree it is impossible to teach the standard curriculum in any course and do it thoroughly enough for most students to learn it, but it takes a lot of moxie, or foolhardiness to omit any sanctioned topics. that's why its more fun to teach number theory than calculus, you get to pick the topics and its ok to choose fewer of them. of course if the professional number theorists hear me say this they rise up and demand that i include more quadratic reciprocity or whatever their favorite topic is.

 

[mathwonk]

At a local state university, there was a recent change from giving only full letter grades, to also giving plus and minus grades. As result, a score of 72/100 that might have been a (low) C before, normally became a C-. However there was no change in the requirement that a student receive "at least a C" to pass certain requirements. hence a 72 went from satisfying that requirement to not satisfying it. Rather than change the stated requirement, the university began to suggest that some teachers may wish to redefine the meaning of the grades, so that what used to be a D on a standard scale now would become a C-.The current version of this situation is reflected, on a website where a range of "sample grade scales" are suggested for the instructors possible use. Almost half the suggested scales suggest giving a C- for what used to receive a D.

http://bulletin.uga.edu/bulletin/PlusMinusSampleGradingScales.pdfNote that one possible grade scheme discussed here is that of simply grouping the scores into coherent bunches, without regard to specific numerical values.Anyway it seems there is no firm uniform meaning to any particular letter grade. The primary requirement is simply that the initial class syllabus shall make it clear what the grade scheme will be.

 

[mathwonk]

A "politifact" article in today's paper analyzes a statement that the HOPE scholarship has made the state university one of the best regional schools. They interpret that in terms of US news ranking. They conclude that the scholarship has indeed attracted more qualified students to the school, but that those same students, in order to hold the scholarship, have taken weaker courses and easier majors, and that funding cuts to the university have simultaneously meant fewer professors to teach them.

They conclude that a situation in which fewer professors teach more students who take increasingly easier classes, has mostly indeed made the university better regarded, apparently because those students had higher incoming test scores, and conclude the statement is mostly true. If student / professor ratios were used as a measure, or numbers of science majors, or job placement success, one may ask whether similar conclusions would have been reached. I do not know the answer.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...ays-hope-helped-universities-become-some-bes/

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
Anyway it seems there is no firm uniform meaning to any particular letter grade. The primary requirement is simply that the initial class syllabus shall make it clear what the grade scheme will be.

Wow. When the administration acts this foolish, it's hard to blame students from trying to find the path of least resistance to a degree.

 

[physics girl phd]

At a local state university, there was a recent change from giving only full letter grades, to also giving plus and minus grades... the university began to suggest that some teachers may wish to redefine the meaning of the grades, so that what used to be a D on a standard scale now would become a C-.

Ouch. At our university (also an SEC state university) we went to +/- grading, but I didn't feel the pressure to give more C-'s rather than D's. In fact, until the first term of the new scale passed, I didn't know the +/-'s extended into the D range, so I didn't list that on the syllabus. I think some students were the happy I then gave D+'s (while I still gave the rest of the range D's).

 

[physics girl phd]

An update on "my" reading: I found Higher Education? trite, but have Academically Adrift next on my list, as this is the one my spouse found most interesting (of course it's written by a sociologist, and he's one).