Education rant, or "The Value of Knowledge."

Chase

Chase

CAGiversary!
Feedback
8 (100%)
I had a student ask me today, "Mr. Murata, Ms. So-and-so is giving me candy to do my work. What are you going to offer me?" He seemed serious in inquiry, so I replied, "I offer you myself, my time, and knowledge you may use to help fulfill the potential I see in you, and everyone in this class. I offer you sympathy if you perform less-than-desired, a second chance to prove to yourself that you are capable, and an environment to improve yourself as a student; to improve your mind. But I will not offer you candy, because knowledge is much more valuable than candy. If you remember this, progress as a student, and bloom in adulthood, you may very well end up swimming in an ocean of candy."

I lightened the mood with "Plus, Ms. So-and-so obviously doesn't have your health in her interests. Sugar decays teeth, causes diabetes, and other numerous problems. Tell Ms. So-and-so to instead offer you bottled water."

I have taught autistic kids who need the extra incentive to encourage them to work towards a goal. These are normal, middle school kids. When you offer a bribe in exchange for work, it skews a student's perspective as to what is important. It lessens the value of knowledge. What are the kids working for, candy or knowledge? Knowledge is a privilege. The reward is using all accumulated information to fulfill one's potential and propelling themselves forward as a competent, independent adult. Bribing is lazy teaching and an act of desperation. Teachers who use incentive post-elementary school need to have their licenses revoked as it is those teachers who help create people who think the world owes them everything.
 
People don't value knowledge, they value money and status. Most people wouldn't go to college if it wasn't required for more money (and there wasn't any booze or sex). Hell, most people wouldn't learn much of anything if it wasn't required of them to get a good job and get more money.

So essentially a teacher who pays a student with candy to do well in school is entirely in line with the general view of knowledge - you need it to get stuff, but it's otherwise useless.
 
education is the means to an end for some people, not the end itself.

I respect y'all who have to deal with children. I get to kick people out of my classroom. No principal's office, no detention, no nothin'. Just a "you don't need to be here if you don't want to be."
 
Yep. I'd never teach anything below college. And I don't even enjoy that teaching very much, at least from the couple classes I've taught since being ABD and the TAing I did before that.

But it's worth it for the flexibility and setting your own research agenda vesus working at a research firm etc. So I'm definitely going the academic route when I finish up my Ph D this year, need to get some applications mailed out in the next couple of days...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']education is the means to an end for some people, not the end itself.

I respect y'all who have to deal with children. I get to kick people out of my classroom. No principal's office, no detention, no nothin'. Just a "you don't need to be here if you don't want to be."[/QUOTE]

One of my fav teachers said something similar. First day of the year she said I am not here to babysit so dont come to class if you dont want to be here. She said she wouldnt fail anyone for not coming to class, if you ace the homework and tests then she doesnt care if your in class she doesnt want you here if you dont want to be ayways. Just as cool she said I am also here to teach not to read so read the text books on your own time. Class time will be all discussion of course materials and debate over important class issues since through this process you will learn.

Had a similar teacher but his class was ALL debate(it was a philosphy class)but instead of saying hey dont show up to class and I wont fail you. He said I dont want students in my class that dont want to be here so dont show up if you dont want to be here. But dont show up 3 times and I will instantly fail you. I liked his philosphy and teaching style but I couldnt keep the class because the guy was an egotistical asshole and I would have ended up arguing with him(and not in a good way)the whole semester.
 
1. Offer the students candy.

2. After the students consume the candy, advise all of the students that it was laced with poison.

3. Advise the students you have the antidote but only those scoring at or above 85% on the pop quiz get it.

4. Administer the pop quiz.

5. Grade the quiz on the spot.

6. Return the quiz while stating in your best Gauntlet voice, "Underacheivers are about to die!"

7. Administer the antidote to anybody scoring at or above 85%.

8. Continue teaching the class.
 
OP, I took a course as an adult and the instructor was handing out cheap candy for correct answers. I couldn't believe that grown adults, who can just go out and buy a freaking bag of gourmet candy if they want to, were clamoring to give the right answer and be teacher's pet.

I will say this - your answer sounded pretty egotistical and that would have turned me off. One thing I have always disliked about most teachers and professors is that they enjoy holding court and acting dismissive towards students. I've seen all sorts of techniques - cutting a student off at the knees, ridicule, the ambush, failure to compromise for students with health issues - I find it disgusting and not one of the teachers who acts this way would be a success in a real business.

By way of example - after a day the instructor from above compared our class to seals at the zoo begging for fish - because he was able to use candy to motivate some of the class members to answer questions. Oh that made me mad :bomb:
 
[quote name='camoor']OP, I took a course as an adult and the instructor was handing out cheap candy for correct answers. I couldn't believe that grown adults, who can just go out and buy a freaking bag of gourmet candy if they want to, were clamoring to give the right answer and be teacher's pet.

I will say this - your answer sounded pretty egotistical and that would have turned me off. One thing I have always disliked about most teachers and professors is that they enjoy holding court and acting dismissive towards students. I've seen all sorts of techniques - cutting a student off at the knees, ridicule, the ambush, failure to compromise for students with health issues - I find it disgusting and not one of the teachers who acts this way would be a success in a real business.

By way of example - after a day the instructor from above compared our class to seals at the zoo begging for fish - because he was able to use candy to motivate some of the class members to answer questions. Oh that made me mad :bomb:[/QUOTE]

Why not tell them to piss off then? Seriously though we should be respectful to teachers....only as long as they are willing to be respectful to students. Some teachers actually appreciate when a student stands up to them and lets them know they have crossed a line. Heh I actually had to take a day off class though a semester or two ago because the dean was coming in to ask what we thought of how the school and especially the department was being run......something told me that while standing up to a teacher is a good thing exploding at the Dean would be bad.
 
[quote name='camoor']OP, I took a course as an adult and the instructor was handing out cheap candy for correct answers. I couldn't believe that grown adults, who can just go out and buy a freaking bag of gourmet candy if they want to, were clamoring to give the right answer and be teacher's pet.[/QUOTE]

Human Resources Management, darlin'.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']1. Offer the students candy.

2. After the students consume the candy, advise all of the students that it was laced with poison.

3. Advise the students you have the antidote but only those scoring at or above 85% on the pop quiz get it.

4. Administer the pop quiz.

5. Grade the quiz on the spot.

6. Return the quiz while stating in your best Gauntlet voice, "Underacheivers are about to die!"

7. Administer the antidote to anybody scoring at or above 85%.

8. Continue teaching the class.[/quote]


Hahaha... I love it. :lol:
 
[quote name='camoor']OP, I took a course as an adult and the instructor was handing out cheap candy for correct answers. I couldn't believe that grown adults, who can just go out and buy a freaking bag of gourmet candy if they want to, were clamoring to give the right answer and be teacher's pet.

I will say this - your answer sounded pretty egotistical and that would have turned me off. One thing I have always disliked about most teachers and professors is that they enjoy holding court and acting dismissive towards students. I've seen all sorts of techniques - cutting a student off at the knees, ridicule, the ambush, failure to compromise for students with health issues - I find it disgusting and not one of the teachers who acts this way would be a success in a real business.

By way of example - after a day the instructor from above compared our class to seals at the zoo begging for fish - because he was able to use candy to motivate some of the class members to answer questions. Oh that made me mad :bomb:[/quote]


I help everyone, but am nice and friendly only to those who are nice and friendly to me. I think that's fair. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Human Resources Management, darlin'.[/quote]

Yeah most people are hard-wired to be suckers. That's why cash-in-hand works so well, as any vet CAG knows.

[quote name='Chase']I help everyone, but am nice and friendly only to those who are nice and friendly to me. I think that's fair. ;)[/quote]

That's cool - it's impossible to know someone's teaching style from one post. I admit I imagined you dressed in a tweed jacket, eyes piercing the candy craver through your pince-nez glasses as you lectured him on the dangers of cavities.:)

Seriously though, most of the issues I have had with instructors were in college. In HS I was shocked by the routine bad behavior of my collegaues, by-and-far American kids really are a bunch of out-of-control yahoos.
 
Yeah, the problem with college, at least at research universities, is that the teaching is just a burden.

It really doesn't help you get tenure--i.e. doing well doesn't do much for you in terms of getting tenure, and you have to have pretty rancid evaluations for it to do great harm to you.

So you really can't afford to put to much effort into it, over your research and publications which is what gets you tenure and promotions.

That said, there's no excuse for not being respectful to students. That's just common decency and takes no preparation time.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, the problem with college, at least at research universities, is that the teaching is just a burden.

It really doesn't help you get tenure--i.e. doing well doesn't do much for you in terms of getting tenure, and you have to have pretty rancid evaluations for it to do great harm to you.

So you really can't afford to put to much effort into it, over your research and publications which is what gets you tenure and promotions.

That said, there's no excuse for not being respectful to students. That's just common decency and takes no preparation time.[/QUOTE]

Papers, publications etc etc all need to be tossed. If someone teaches well that's all that should matter.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Papers, publications etc etc all need to be tossed. If someone teaches well that's all that should matter.[/QUOTE]

That's just not the way it is at research universities, especially the top ones.

Of course, tenure track faculty don't teach a whole lot either. Usually the teaching load is two courses in the spring and two in the fall. And a lot of the time courses get bought out with grant money (paying the university to hire someone else to teach it) so a lot of people get down to a 1:1 teaching load.

And for those that don't buy out courses, a lot of the time the two courses are just two sections of the same thing, especially if you're a young professor just getting started. Course prep takes a ton of time, so it's hard to prep to courses in the same semester and keep up on your research work.

The goal of research universities is to advance research, and increase their prestige through faculty getting big grants and publishing. Teaching matters, and students at these schools benefit from having access to leading scholars in their fields, but it's just impossible to put full effort on teaching when it's truly your secondary task.

It's just a question for students of whether they get a better education from busy professors in top fields who are leading scholars, or at teaching unversities where the faculty is less accomplished and many courses taught by adjuncts (though many are taught by adjuncts at research universities as well).

Personally, all my education (all 10 years of college and grad school!) has been at research unversities and I have no complaints. Most professors still do a good job of teaching (some are going to suck anywhere) and when it boils down to it a lot of college, and most of grad school, is learning done on your own outside the class room through your readings, research, writing etc.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah most people are hard-wired to be suckers. That's why cash-in-hand works so well, as any vet CAG knows.



That's cool - it's impossible to know someone's teaching style from one post. I admit I imagined you dressed in a tweed jacket, eyes piercing the candy craver through your pince-nez glasses as you lectured him on the dangers of cavities.:)

Seriously though, most of the issues I have had with instructors were in college. In HS I was shocked by the routine bad behavior of my collegaues, by-and-far American kids really are a bunch of out-of-control yahoos.[/quote]


I am just like Teddy Roosevelt except girlier, and kinder to animals and other races. ;) I jest.

I need to get pince-nez glasses now. Just for fun. :D

And yes, I only encountered kind, inspiring teachers up until college. Some of my college profs were insultingly arrogant and just outright rude. It made things rather uncomfortable. However, it did show me how I would never want to act or treat other people.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's just not the way it is at research universities, especially the top ones.

Of course, tenure track faculty don't teach a whole lot either. Usually the teaching load is two courses in the spring and two in the fall. And a lot of the time courses get bought out with grant money (paying the university to hire someone else to teach it) so a lot of people get down to a 1:1 teaching load.

And for those that don't buy out courses, a lot of the time the two courses are just two sections of the same thing, especially if you're a young professor just getting started. Course prep takes a ton of time, so it's hard to prep to courses in the same semester and keep up on your research work.

The goal of research universities is to advance research, and increase their prestige through faculty getting big grants and publishing. Teaching matters, and students at these schools benefit from having access to leading scholars in their fields, but it's just impossible to put full effort on teaching when it's truly your secondary task.

It's just a question for students of whether they get a better education from busy professors in top fields who are leading scholars, or at teaching unversities where the faculty is less accomplished and many courses taught by adjuncts (though many are taught by adjuncts at research universities as well).

Personally, all my education (all 10 years of college and grad school!) has been at research unversities and I have no complaints. Most professors still do a good job of teaching (some are going to suck anywhere) and when it boils down to it a lot of college, and most of grad school, is learning done on your own outside the class room through your readings, research, writing etc.[/QUOTE]

I know alot of people that feel like they learned more at community college then the big Universities exactly because of this issue. You can be the most established person in the world and if you cant connect with your students and convey the information to them in a way that they will understand it means nothing. Schools have gotten entirely too big, expensive and dull to really be that significant. I think some types of classes such as the higher level of sciences and grammar/English might benefit from the big established approach....but I think that far more benefit from the small casual environment with a quality teacher.

One of the best teachers I ever had was a guy that taught history at both the University of Michigan and the local community college. He told the class at the start of the year to seek the best teachers at the community college and get as much as we could out of them. That he teaches his class at the UofM and the CC the same things, we take the same tests and everything else is the exact same.....except he gets to know his CC students and have dialogue and discussion with them. That when you get a good CC teacher your getting the same information you would at a University, just now you get a teacher as well instead of a lecturer.
 
That's a fair way to look at it. You just have to evaluate whether you're a good self learner or not. If you are, then lectures from top people and learning more on your own will be sufficient. If you're not, a CC or a teaching university with smaller classes and faculty dedicated to teaching is probably a better fit.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's a fair way to look at it. You just have to evaluate whether you're a good self learner or not. If you are, then lectures from top people and learning more on your own will be sufficient. If you're not, a CC or a teaching university with smaller classes and faculty dedicated to teaching is probably a better fit.[/QUOTE]

I honestly think it varies greatly on the class type too. For instance I am a Political Science/Philosphy/Psychology kid. I think on all these 3 subjects the small classroom approach is superior since discussion spurs a thought process which is very important to these 3 fields. If you cant learn to think through things and debate with others.....then you might as well not even be in this field. Where as if your a Math/Science heavy profession then ya there probably is a damn good reason to have big classes with a bigger focus on lectures and really you better learn to figure shit out on your own anyways.
 
Totally varies by class type, not necessarily by school type though. Even at big universities there are still smaller, discussion oriened classes--usually for upper level classes in majors. But also sometimes for the lower level classes.

One thing I liked, at least as a TA, was that for our Intro to Criminology classes the students had 2 days a week of 1 hour lectures in a big 300 student lecture hall, and 1 hour a week in a discussion section with a TA in 30 student classes. So they got the lecture, and then an hour of discussion/in class assignments etc. to make sure they understood the material.

So there are ways to do it in university.

I'd disagree on your perspective on classes. I think math, stats etc. really need a good teacher who can explain things well and make sure students understand. Large classes for those topics aren't very conducive to them.

While large classes aren't ideal for psych, poli sci etc., it's still less of a problem with math as it's easier to understand readings that to figure out math on your own IMO. Especially for low level classes since teh intro to Poli Scy, Psych etc. is very basic and easy to follow IMO, while some people simply struggle with math.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's a fair way to look at it. You just have to evaluate whether you're a good self learner or not. If you are, then lectures from top people and learning more on your own will be sufficient. If you're not, a CC or a teaching university with smaller classes and faculty dedicated to teaching is probably a better fit.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dmaul1114']Totally varies by class type, not necessarily by school type though. Even at big universities there are still smaller, discussion oriened classes--usually for upper level classes in majors. But also sometimes for the lower level classes.

One thing I liked, at least as a TA, was that for our Intro to Criminology classes the students had 2 days a week of 1 hour lectures in a big 300 student lecture hall, and 1 hour a week in a discussion section with a TA in 30 student classes. So they got the lecture, and then an hour of discussion/in class assignments etc. to make sure they understood the material.

So there are ways to do it in university.

I'd disagree on your perspective on classes. I think math, stats etc. really need a good teacher who can explain things well and make sure students understand. Large classes for those topics aren't very conducive to them.

While large classes aren't ideal for psych, poli sci etc., it's still less of a problem with math as it's easier to understand readings that to figure out math on your own IMO. Especially for low level classes since teh intro to Poli Scy, Psych etc. is very basic and easy to follow IMO, while some people simply struggle with math.[/QUOTE]

Have to disagree. Math is something that yes you want the teacher to help you with, but in general even in a small class setting most of it is lecture and help comes after class through tutors, studying and TAs. Where as Poli Sci and Philosphy I find that if you have many more then 30 people trying to discuss it it becomes a cluster fuck. I also think with subjects like these its far more important to be able to learn the process for figuring things out then it is to grasp the material which is largely history that's not nearly as important.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Have to disagree. Math is something that yes you want the teacher to help you with, but in general even in a small class setting most of it is lecture and help comes after class through tutors, studying and TAs.
[/quote]

Smaller classes help as it's easier to ask questions in class, easier to judge if people are getting it if you're teaching etc. In a large class all the teacher can really do is lecture and hope people will raise their hand if they don't get it.

Where as Poli Sci and Philosphy I find that if you have many more then 30 people trying to discuss it it becomes a cluster fuck. I also think with subjects like these its far more important to be able to learn the process for figuring things out then it is to grasp the material which is largely history that's not nearly as important.
Click to expand...

I agree. My point was that even in large schools the upper level classes in those type of fields tend to be smaller.

For the intro classes, they're large, but you really can't have much good discussion with people taking a subject area for the first time anyway, so I don't think much is missed in the 101 classes being large. They're just to learn what field is about (grasp the material as you put it), and people who are interested can taking the more discussion oriented upper level courses.

But yes, discussion classes should be small.. That's why I've loved grad school, especially the Ph D courses. Most were in the range of 6-15 students which was ideal for seminar discussion courses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top