Students not learning much in college?

C

Clak

CAGiversary!
I wanted to post this because I think we've discussed it in other threads. The part that caught my attention the most, again because we've talked about it in the past, was this:
Arum and Roksa spread the blame, pointing to students who don't study much and seek easy courses and a culture at colleges and universities that values research over good teaching.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110119/ap_on_re_us/us_college_learning

I know we've discussed the differences in types of schools, and that, at least at research schools, professors are really hired more to do research and bring in money than teach classes. Was just wondering if dmaul or Myke in particular had any thoughts or opinions on this. Of course there's the only part of that quote, but we all know that happens, no surprise there.
 
This study doesn't really make sense to me. Why are they making broad based assumptions based upon a small sample size of 29 universities out of the hundreds in this country? Also I would like to know what universities they selected and try to look at where they stand academically as a whole. For that matter why do they only include four year universities in their analysis? From my quick reading of the article it seems the authors are trying to present a predetermined point of view and conveniently leaving out other areas that should have been studied as well. At the very least they are guilty of overarching hyperbole.

On a side not I wonder what test they used to measure for analytical reasoning.
 
It's not really so much up to the professors on that front as it is the students. If they're not studying and seeking easy classes etc., that's their own fault.

But yes, at research universities like I'm at, we're hired mainly for research, and teaching doesn't play much of a role in the tenure and promotion process. Your evaluation's get looked at, but unless you just totally suck you're going to get ok evaluations and not get much pressure on that front. But in my experience, even most research active faculty still care about teaching and try to do a good job--with exceptions of course.

But even that's not really tied to education quality IMO. College is more self learning from reading, listening to lectures and asking questions of professors etc. The professor's aren't teachers in that we aren't trained to teach (I've never had a class in education or teaching methods etc.)--and that's true of the majority of faculty of liberal arts colleges that aren't research focused as well.

So I see more of the problem being that culture and the economy has changed to make it where everyone "has" to go to college to get a job, that trade schools and blue collar work are devalued etc. So now you have bunches of students in college who just shouldn't be there--either because they lack the ability for that level of learning, or their like that quote mentions and lack the desire and just go for the parties, dating scene, sports etc.

So those kinds of students don't do well with the college setting where it's more self learning and taking the initiative to ask questions, go to office hours, take advantage of the TAs etc. and really learn. They need the type of hand holding the crappy US K-12 system provides, and that's just not what college has ever been about, nor should ever be IMO.

College is (or should be) about scholarship. I'm a scholar and I'm there to share my knowledge and expertise with young scholars. The problem is many students just aren't interested and being scholars and are just there because the have to get a piece of paper to start their career.
 
Well 29 schools isn't really too small a sample size. I can't speak to the rest of it, but some potential issues are removed at community colleges. For example, if the focus on research over teaching is an issue, it wouldn't be at community colleges as they usually do no research.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's not really so much up to the professors on that front as it is the students. If they're not studying and seeking easy classes etc., that's their own fault.

But yes, at research universities like I'm at, we're hired mainly for research, and teaching doesn't play much of a role in the tenure and promotion process. Your evaluation's get looked at, but unless you just totally suck you're going to get ok evaluations and not get much pressure on that front. But in my experience, even most research active faculty still care about teaching and try to do a good job--with exceptions of course.

But even that's not really tied to education quality IMO. College is more self learning from reading, listening to lectures and asking questions of professors etc. The professor's aren't teachers in that we aren't trained to teach (I've never had a class in education or teaching methods etc.)--and that's true of the majority of faculty of liberal arts colleges that aren't research focused as well.

So I see more of the problem being that culture and the economy has changed to make it where everyone "has" to go to college to get a job, that trade schools and blue collar work are devalued etc. So now you have bunches of students in college who just shouldn't be there--either because they lack the ability for that level of learning, or their like that quote mentions and lack the desire and just go for the parties, dating scene, sports etc.

So those kinds of students don't do well with the college setting where it's more self learning and taking the initiative to ask questions, go to office hours, take advantage of the TAs etc. and really learn. They need the type of hand holding the crappy US K-12 system provides, and that's just not what college has ever been about, nor should ever be IMO.[/QUOTE]
Everything has to change and evolve though. Maybe research and teaching should be separate careers? That way those with more interest in teaching can teach and those who enjoy their research more can focus on that. I know there are those out there who could teach but wouldn't want to do the research. Granted there are already those schools that don't do research, but I don't think potential students know what difference that may make.
 
[quote name='Clak']Well 29 schools isn't really too small a sample size. I can't speak to the rest of it, but some potential issues are removed at community colleges. For example, if the focus on research over teaching is an issue, it wouldn't be at community colleges as they usually do no research.[/QUOTE]

It's not really an issue. At community colleges and liberal arts colleges full time faculty are teach 4-6 courses a semester most times. Where us research faculty teach 2 a semester.

So it's not like they have any more time to spend on each class or each student than research faculty.

The only difference is maybe teaching evaluations get taken a tad more seriously. But again, evaluations tend to be pretty high as long as classes aren't too difficult or too boring and aren't vindictive that the students are learning--just that they're not disgruntled.

But conversely, you're getting taught be people who aren't as knowledgeable on the field as the researchers who are experts in areas in their field that you can learn from at a good research university.

So again, regardless of setting, it's really up to students. Put forth the effort to be a scholar, you can get a good education at a research university or a liberal arts college. Don't put the effort, and you're going to struggle.

That's not to say that they're aren't sucky professors. There certainly are. But I'd guess there's just as many crappy teachers in liberal arts colleges as at research universities.
 
We have over 2,000 4 year colleges in this country, I think using testing in less then 30 to make assumptions about the others is stretching it. But that may just be me.
 
[quote name='Clak']Everything has to change and evolve though. Maybe research and teaching should be separate careers? That way those with more interest in teaching can teach and those who enjoy their research more can focus on that. I know there are those out there who could teach but wouldn't want to do the research.[/QUOTE]

I'd sign up for it. I get decent teaching evaluations and to some degree like teaching (particularly at the graduate level), but I'd rather focus on research.

That said, again I think it's a huge false assumption that this would make things better. Most of the people I know that teach at community college or liberal arts colleges just aren't that knowledgeable on our field. They're not doing research, and they thus don't have incentive to keep up on knowledge in the field. Thus they tend to lecture out of the textbook and from what they learned in grad school years ago.

They also had ZERO training as a teacher as they have the same types of Ph Ds we do. They just didn't like research or just failed to land a tenure track job.
 
I just know that when doing statistical surveys that a sample size of around 30 should be sufficient. One of the few things I remember from that class.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']We have over 2,000 4 year colleges in this country, I think using testing in less then 30 to make assumptions about the others is stretching it. But that may just be me.[/QUOTE]

For sure. But there aren't that many research universities. Looks like around 250 from a quick google search.

It's still a tiny sample size in any case.

And a flawed study as the majority of educational achievement problems come from students not being ready for college (below college math and reading levels) from being pushed through the public schools systems, and/or not being mature enough to handle the self-learning/motivation environment of college.

Many more students flunk out for those reasons that from having crappy teachers. I mean the classes I teach are pretty easy. Average grade is usually a low B. That some students still get D's and F's just blows my mind. It's criminal justice classes for god's sake. It's pretty much straight remembering facts and passing exams, and writing well enough to not flunk simple paper assignments. But it's pretty much a lack of effort as the students getting below C's are always the ones missing a lot of classes, not turning in assignments etc. I've never had a student who made an honest effort get below a C. And even most of the C's are students who were mild slackers.
 
I would think this varies strongly from field to field. Though Gen eds are gen eds, people are going to take the easy ones. And that doesn't really mean you don't learn anything either. I took a really cool anthropology course on human evolution and learned tons about all the recent discoveries compared to what I was taught in highschool.

At the same time, a very large chunk of that lecture class failed the tests repeatedly -- which were essentially just multiple choice tests based on the power points. So in that respect, yes, tons of college kids are retarded.
 
[quote name='Clak']I just know that when doing statistical surveys that a sample size of around 30 should be sufficient. One of the few things I remember from that class.[/QUOTE]

That's just for the statistical distributional assumptions of certain statistical tests to hold--and as cindersphere noted it's fairly arbitrary.

You need much larger samples to have any generalizability to be able to make any kind of real inferences from the results. You need a decent size sample, and it has to be representative of the population you're trying to generalize the results to. i.e. if you wanted to do survey of a people in a city to make inferences about the cities opinions about whatever topic, you need a decent sized sample (no fixed size, just bigger the better for the most part)--and it would have to close match the demographics of the city on things like age, gender, race, socio-economic status and so forth.

So for this study, you'd want a larger sample of Universities and have it be a good mix of the types of research universities, liberal arts colleges and community colleges across the country if you wanted to make any strong statements about student learning in different types of colleges.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd sign up for it. I get decent teaching evaluations and to some degree like teaching (particular at the graduate level), but I'd rather focus on research.

That said, again I think it's a huge false assumption that this would make things better. Most of the people I know that teach at community college or liberal arts colleges just aren't that knowledgeable on our field. They're not doing research, and they thus don't have incentive to keep up on knowledge in the field. Thus they tend to lecture out of the textbook and from what they learned in grad school years ago.

They also had ZERO training as a teacher as they have the same types of Ph Ds we do. They just didn't like research or just failed to land a tenure track job.[/QUOTE]
I never really got that feeling, despite having taken lots of classes at a local community college. I remember the history and geography professors I had especially stayed up to date. But I'm sure that varies like anything else. I liked the smaller class sizes, made it easier to have discussions and things in class, hard to do with 100+ people in a room.

You aren't given any training because teaching isn't the school's first concern. Something that I think if people realized, they probably wouldn't like. I just think that a professors students should be their first concern, and if that much emphasis is placed on research I don't know if that can be possible. A person doesn't have to personally conduct research to stay up to date on a subject after all, let those researches do their research and it can be used to help teach the students of those who like teaching.

I realize a lot of this is caught up in politics and financial issues for schools too.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']For sure. But there aren't that many research universities. Looks like around 250 from a quick google search.

It's still a tiny sample size in any case.

And a flawed study as the majority of educational achievement problems come from students not being ready for college (below college math and reading levels) from being pushed through the public schools systems, and/or not being mature enough to handle the self-learning/motivation environment of college.

Many more students flunk out for those reasons that from having crappy teachers. I mean the classes I teach are pretty easy. Average grade is usually a low B. That some students still get D's and F's just blows my mind. It's criminal justice classes for god's sake. It's pretty much straight remembering facts and passing exams, and writing well enough to not flunk simple paper assignments. But it's pretty much a lack of effort as the students getting below C's are always the ones missing a lot of classes, not turning in assignments etc. I've never had a student who made an honest effort get below a C. And even most of the C's are students who were mild slackers.[/QUOTE]

That's the thing with the article, it never stipulates researching universities. There are, as you say, a smaller number of them but I wonder if the study makes this distinction in its experimental design. That is why I brought out the 2,000 university figure.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's just for the statistical distributional assumptions of certain statistical tests to hold--and as cindersphere noted it's fairly arbitrary.

You need much larger samples to have any generalizability to be able to make any kind of real inferences from the results. You need a decent size sample, and it has to be representative of the population you're trying to generalize the results to. i.e. if you wanted to do survey of a people in a city to make inferences about the cities opinions about whatever topic, you need a decent sized sample (no fixed size, just bigger the better for the most part)--and it would have to close match the demographics of the city on things like age, gender, race, socio-economic status and so forth.

So for this study, you'd want a larger sample of Universities and have it be a good mix of the types of research universities, liberal arts colleges and community colleges across the country if you wanted to make any strong statements about student learning in different types of colleges.[/QUOTE]
But they're clearly talking about 4 year universities, and while I guess you could adjust the wording of the title to make this a little more accurate, "college" to most people means a 4 year school. If you take only 4 year schools into account as they did, I don't think that invalidates the entire study.
 
[quote name='Clak']But they're clearly talking about 4 year universities, and while I guess you could adjust the wording of the title to make this a little more accurate, "college" to most people means a 4 year school. If you take only 4 year schools into account as they did, I don't think that invalidates the entire study.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't invalidate per se, but it should give you pause when considering whether or not to believe their conclusions are correct, and even relevant.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Sample size should never be less than thirty is the general rule. Although 30 is also a arbitrary number.[/QUOTE]
Not entirely, all other things being equal , a sample size larger than 30 usually doesn't improve anything. It isn't just a figure that was thrown out there and agreed upon.
 
Having looked at the article, rather than just the quote, I do have an extra comment.

They note about students not having courses requiring 20 pages of writing. Well a lot of that can get blamed on state governments that keep cutting funding. This has forced universities to cut non-tenure track teachers, increase enrollment, and thus result in much larger classes.

Long writing assignments aren't feasible in large classes as it's impossible to grade 20 pages of god-awful college student writing (seriously at least 3/4ths come in with little writing ability for even basic grammar and spelling) once classes get above 20-30 students. Much less when you're talking 100+ student classes.

But again, that points more to flaws of the public K-12 system. Students going to college should already have a solid foundation in grammar and writing, but they don't as the focus is on just pushing kids through high school these days.

And colleges just can't fix it. The money isn't their to offer enough small, remedial writing courses. Such students need to be going to community colleges and getting caught up before going to Universities with 20,000 plus students where they can't get the kind of remedial attention they need.
 
[quote name='Clak']Not entirely, all other things being equal , a sample size larger than 30 usually doesn't improve anything. It isn't just a figure that was thrown out there and agreed upon.[/QUOTE]
That's assuming your population will not suffer from heavy skewing, which when considering difference between the value of different colleges, it necessitates the sample size should be bigger than 30 to get a better picture. Which is not happening here, even though what they are studying would lend itself to skewing. 30 is just used because most statistical studies were normal distributions.
 
[quote name='Clak']But they're clearly talking about 4 year universities, and while I guess you could adjust the wording of the title to make this a little more accurate, "college" to most people means a 4 year school. If you take only 4 year schools into account as they did, I don't think that invalidates the entire study.[/QUOTE]

4 year schools don't have to be research focused. There are still a lot more 4 year liberal arts colleges out there than research universities. And even if you wanted to just focus on the 250 some research universities, a sample of 29 isn't necessarily representative.

But again, it's all moot. It just comes down to one thing---college is NOT for people that didn't learn all the should have in high school and is NOT for people who don't have the motivation and drive needed to have the commitment to studying and learning required to excel in college.

If they're not reading and writing at a 12th grade level, don't have 12th grade level math skills etc., then of course they're going to struggle and college. And it's not college's role to catch them up. That's what community colleges are for.

If they're not mature enough to put in the time to study, to actively ask questions of the professor and seek help when falling behind, they're going to struggle and that's their own fault.

And that's going to be true at research universities, teaching universities and liberal arts colleges. The college system isn't designed to teach the way K-12 does. The K-12 education should lay the foundation for people to be life long learners, college is the outlet for them to go and expand their knowledge and gain expertise in their major etc. Not to build up basic writing and math skills etc. that articles like this seem to focus on.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']It doesn't invalidate per se, but it should give you pause when considering whether or not to believe their conclusions are correct, and even relevant.[/QUOTE]
You could basically change college to university and solve the problem of not including community colleges. I won't argue over the wording, there are other things that are enlightening in the study. Like it's finding that those who study alone tend to do better. Now if you take a lot schools into consideration, they seem to promote people doing practically everything together. If you actually took the advice given in the article you'd be seen as an anti-social hermit or something. A lot of schools seem to be more like resorts for young people and socializing is a huge part of that.
 
[quote name='Clak']Not entirely, all other things being equal , a sample size larger than 30 usually doesn't improve anything. It isn't just a figure that was thrown out there and agreed upon.[/QUOTE]

The bigger you get, statistically you get the benefits of getting closer to a normal distribution.

But again, the key in terms of making inferences is whether the sample is representative of the population you're trying to generalize too.

And generalizability is always tricky is there's never any guarantee that what you find in one sample will be replicated in another sample. But the larger the sample, and the stronger the finds statistically, the more confidence you can have in your findings.
 
[quote name='Clak'] A lot of schools seem to be more like resorts for young people and socializing is a huge part of that.[/QUOTE]

That's not really a fault of the college system. It's just that many students go because they want to party and hang out with peers etc.

Besides, one can still study alone and still socialize and party. I hated group study and always studied alone through college and grad school. But I did a ton of socializing and partying--after my studies were taken care of. The problem is many students can't keep their priorities straight.

And again, they're adults. It's not the role of the college or professors to keep them in line on that. Some people just aren't cut out for it, and fuck it, society needs someone to flip burgers, scrub toilets, become plumbers and do other jobs that don't need college degrees.
 
[quote name='Clak']You could basically change college to university and solve the problem of not including community colleges. I won't argue over the wording, there are other things that are enlightening in the study. Like it's finding that those who study alone tend to do better. Now if you take a lot schools into consideration, they seem to promote people doing practically everything together. If you actually took the advice given in the article you'd be seen as an anti-social hermit or something. A lot of schools seem to be more like resorts for young people and socializing is a huge part of that.[/QUOTE]

The wording is important, because it has a direct bearing on how the data is interpreted and what is allowed to be blacked out. Your view of college is also anecdotal at best. How many colleges have you personally been to to experience. If you are relying upon others to fill you in, how do you know you are not selecting those who uphold your preconceived notion on college life.
 
Yeah, and the University label doesn't really mean much. Like the "University of Charleston" in WV mentioned in the article. That's not any kind of real research university--just all the "colleges" in WV changed their names to University several years ago for state funding purposes.

WVU and Marshall are the only two real research Universities in WV. The rest are teaching colleges that have a few people doing research here and there--and mostly low profile, lower quality research (not publishing in top journals etc.).

Anyway, I'm basically wasting my limited free time talking shop! So I'll bow out of this thread as I try to avoid wasting free time talking about higher education related stuff.
 
I feel this has digressed a little to far as well. I take this study with a grain of salt. The researchers seem to be legit, but there are too many questions I have about the study for me to believe that it is something truly significant. If you find it reinforces your preconceptions, that's fine.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']4 year schools don't have to be research focused. There are still a lot more 4 year liberal arts colleges out there than research universities. And even if you wanted to just focus on the 250 some research universities, a sample of 29 isn't necessarily representative.

But again, it's all moot. It just comes down to one thing---college is NOT for people that didn't learn all the should have in high school and is NOT for people who don't have the motivation and drive needed to have the commitment to studying and learning required to excel in college.

If they're not reading and writing at a 12th grade level, don't have 12th grade level math skills etc., then of course they're going to struggle and college. And it's not college's role to catch them up. That's what community colleges are for.

If they're not mature enough to put in the time to study, to actively ask questions of the professor and seek help when falling behind, they're going to struggle and that's their own fault.

And that's going to be true at research universities, teaching universities and liberal arts colleges. The college system isn't designed to teach the way K-12 does. The K-12 education should lay the foundation for people to be life long learners, college is the outlet for them to go and expand their knowledge and gain expertise in their major etc. Not to build up basic writing and math skills etc. that articles like this seem to focus on.[/QUOTE]
Well I agree with that, that having a lack of basic skills is going to hurt someone later in college, that seems obvious. Maybe it's just me, but I never really felt like what I was doing was self motivated, maybe I just never thought of it that way. I mean just doing what you need to to do well in something seems obvious.

Just think of it this way, if you're really self motivated to learn something you really don't even need someone to lecture you, you can do your own reading and research on the subject. So if that's the point, why is someone paying thousands of dollars to sit in a lecture hall and listen to someone lecture when they could have just read about whatever the professor is lecturing about. It's really only so you can take tests and prove your knowledge on the subject. I had an accounting professor who honestly didn't care if you showed up or not, and since one guy in the class had taken accounting classes in high school he knew most of the material, he just showed up for tests.

I guess my point is that unless having the professor there makes a difference, there really isn't much of a point in listening to them lecture versus simply reading about it yourself. Which in turn make me wonder what the point of the college system is.

Maybe I'm just still pissed about some of the teachers I've had in the past. Either way I'm going to end my rant here and go to bed before I really end up rambling.
 
[quote name='Clak']
I guess my point is that unless having the professor there makes a difference, there really isn't much of a point in listening to them lecture versus simply reading about it yourself. Which in turn make me wonder what the point of the college system is.
[/QUOTE]

One last reply.

The system is largely a farce. Unless you're going for something very specialized like engineering, or on to med school etc. there's not much one will learn that they couldn't learn on their own.

Even being in the social sciences, I'll freely admit that there's not much use in getting a bachelor's in social science. If you're not going on to get a Master's and or Ph D and work in research, you're really not going to learn anything that's going to help you in any career. And what you learned you could have learned on your own by reading the textbooks and reading the research articles that are lectured about etc. Other than maybe the stats and research methods, it's all pretty straight forward in classes like sociology and criminal justice etc.

Now for the very interested learner there's still benefit in having the professors around, as you have access to experts on topics to discuss the material with, ask questions etc. (assuming you're at a decent research university) and that can help with learning for sure. But very few students fit that description. Hardly any ask questions other than straight clarifications, and even fewer take advantage of office hours etc.

And, of course, not everyone learns the same way. Some people can read on their own and self teach. Others aren't as capable and need to read things, and hear concepts explained and ask questions etc. to fully understand a topic--particularly complex topics. So the lecture/professor has more utility for some students than others.

So to a large degree higher education is just a racket. Society has gotten to the point where even largely skill-less jobs like administrative assistant positions want college degrees. So the real purpose of colleges--especially the non-research ones-- is to make money by giving out those pieces of paper that are required to get many jobs. Even though what's learned often isn't of much help for those careers and many could have been done right out of high school.

At research universities, at least they have the main purpose of scholarship. Of generating new knowledge through research and moving fields forward, and in sharing that knowledge with young scholars who a few of which will also choose careers in scholarship and pick up where the last generation left off in moving knowledge forward.

But monetarily, research universities are also focused on making money by selling those pieces of paper that are all most students care about (as well as taking 50% of every external grant dollar spent by faculty on research in over head (i.e. if you want to do research that costs $1 million, you have to get a $1.5 million grant to cover overhead). So it's a nice racket still.
 
[quote name='Clak']
You aren't given any training because teaching isn't the school's first concern. Something that I think if people realized, they probably wouldn't like. I just think that a professors students should be their first concern, and if that much emphasis is placed on research I don't know if that can be possible. A person doesn't have to personally conduct research to stay up to date on a subject after all, let those researches do their research and it can be used to help teach the students of those who like teaching.
[/QUOTE]

I missed this post last night.

That's just not what research universities are about, and never what they will be about. Again, that's only like 250 of the 2,000+ 4 year schools in the country, so it's not like they're aren't plenty of other options out there.

If one wants professors who are only focused on teaching, don't go to a research university. But again, even that doesn't guaranteed getting good teachers or teachers who care. Teachers at a 4 year teaching college are just as busy as they're teaching way more classes and doing more service work, so they don't really have any more time to devote to each student.

At a research university our contracts usually specifiy our roles as something like 50% research, 40% teach and 10% service. So teaching isn't designed to be our main focus.

As I said before, research universities area all about scholarships. I'm a scholar, not a teacher. My job is to generate new knowledge in my field (research), and share my expertise with young scholars in the classroom (teaching), with the service crap related to both.

And that's just never going to change as this has been the design of the university system since they're inception.

And again, any student who goes to a university with the skills needed from K-12 AND has the motivation/self control to go to class, do all the readings, study hard, participate in class, ask questions of the professor etc. will get a wonderful education at a research university. Much more so than at a teaching college or community college as they have access to world experts in their field that you just don't get at the teaching focused schools.

If a kid is lacking skills or doesn't have that motivation, then yeah they're probably not going to learn a lot at a research university as they'll skip classes and party more than they study. Such people are probably better off going to a liberal arts college or community college where they'll have smaller classes and more hand holding from teachers.

As for the quality of instruction, you're right that one can read reaserach and keep up on it even if not doing their own. But 1), they're not going to be an expert scholar. You learn more by doing than just reading and teaching. 2) They're not likely to keep as up on things as a research professor. Reading research is boring, and it's not really required to teach undergrad courses. You're more likely to get a lot more lectures from the textbook at such colleges etc. from my experience.

Now, a limitation of research universities is with budget cuts fewer classes are getting taught by tenured faculty. Us tenure track faculty on at 2 course a semester teaching load generally get 12.5% of our salary per course. We're strongly encouraged to get research grants and buyout our teaching (pay the university 12.5% of our salary per course to buyout from the grants) as they can then higher a lecturer to teach the course and pay them $3-4K a class, which ends up making the university a lot of money.

Add in a lot of grad students teaching classes, and a big part of problem that we have addressed is that a lot of the "professors" students are taking classes from at research universities are not really professors but are just part time instructors and students working on their Ph Ds. So some of the points I make about access to experts in the field vary wildly across university and majors within universities depending on how much tenured faculty is actually teaching undergraduate courses.

But again, this is just the way things work. Research universities are never going to put teaching as the highest priority. The other 2,000 or so 4 year schools out there fill that need. Research universities exist as the leading beacons of knowledge generation in the world, and always have and always will serve that purpose.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's not really so much up to the professors on that front as it is the students.[/QUOTE]

I'll go about 70/30 with you there. As you noted in the same post, you (and a helluva lot of other phds) never received formal training to teach. So I wouldn't say professors are blameless here. At the same time, students are a bloody lazy, distracted bunch.

It's college, yet students are willing to miss class, not pay attention in class, email professors at 3am about something due the next morning, not to the required work, etc. When it comes to writing, there are a number of tired tricks virtually all use (wide margins, big fonts, 5-6 lines in the header so as to pretend to fill space).

College students readily and rapidly discharge their obligations they commit to by accepting a course syllabus and not dropping. Yet they would never think of doing the same thing for a party or party opportunity.

Don't get me started on the death of libraries and the growth of google as a viable tool for discovering sources for papers. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK ME.

I put a lot on students, but also on teachers (primary/secondary) and professors (college) that are afraid to fail students that are lazy, disrespectful, and put together shitty work.

OH! Let's not forget the academic publishing industry! I got an email from a publisher the other day asking me to review this as potential in-class material:

SERIOUSLY.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32877/Sample Pages.pdf

So fuck publishers while we're at it.
 
Oh I agree. There are bad professors out there that don't give a crap. And teaching is part of our job, so we have an obligation to try to do our best at it within our time constraints etc. And I certainly do that, though I acknowledge that many don't. Though I don't think it's as wide spread as many like Clak think, and that a lot of the bad professors out there that people bitch about having had were probably a lot of adjuncts and grad students rather than full time tenured faculty.

But my point still stands, if students come to class and put forth the effort, they are going to pass and learn what they should. College profs shouldn't need formal teaching training, as students should be scholars by the time they get to college and take the initiative in learning and not need to be "taught" so directly. And we all have training on presenting information clearly etc. since presentations are such a key part of our jobs. And even without formal training, we've been in classes observing teachers our whole lives (from age 5 to 30 by the time I finished my Ph D) so we no doubt pick up the basics anyway.

But yes, a big part of the problem is that the public school system pushes people through. I don't see it much in college--plenty of students flunk out and I've seen few professors who have problems giving F's--though some are too lenient with giving extra credit etc.

But it's a huge problem in K-12 with just pushing kids through who don't have the skills or work ethic to succeed. It seems extra bad in my state since there's a lottery funded scholarship for any student who gets a 3.0 or above in high school to go to any state college for free as long as they stay above a 3.0 in college. So there's definitely some grade inflation in high school as we get a lot of kids who are on that scholarship and bitch about losing it as they weren't anywhere near 12th grade levels in reading, writing, math etc. and thus can't keep that 3.0 at the college level.

And again, it's just not the job of college faculty to teach up basic skills. They need to get that in high school, and go to community college first if they're not at or above the 12th grade level before college.

So yeah, it's on us to some degree. But it's much more on the students to put forth the effort.

Again, I've yet to have a single student who was always in class, engaged and putting forth the effort, get below a B in any of my classes. And I think most profs would say the same, outside of classes like upper level math and hard sciences which are things that some people just can't grasp (I was one of them, bombed calculus as an undergrad despite trying).

But for most college courses, if they're doing all the reading (and not just skimming it), coming to class and paying attention and taking good notes, engaging the professor when they have questions, and putting proper effort into papers and studying for exams, then there's no reason they shouldn't be getting good grades and learning what they should be learning in 99% of college courses--even with less than great professors.

If they're not willing to do that stuff, I really don't give a shit. They're adults, it's not my job to hold their hands and make sure they do their work and give their best effort. All I can do is present the material clearly and in a manner that tries to get their interest. It's up to them to commit to putting forth the effort. And my evaluations are always very high on being my being very knowledgeable and presenting material very clearly and being willing to answer questions and meet with students outside of class etc., so I know I'm doing my part. It's up to students to do theirs--which most do given my average grades tend to hover right around an 80% (and I don't give extra credit).
 
If I could do it over again I'd choose to learn a lot less in college. I had very challenging and time-consuming majors and most of my friends were taking all the bullshit stuff and it didn't really make that much of a difference financially.
 
[quote name='javeryh']If I could do it over again I'd choose to learn a lot less in college. I had very challenging and time-consuming majors and most of my friends were taking all the bullshit stuff and it didn't really make that much of a difference financially.[/QUOTE]

But at the same time, your post shows a huge problem with the college scene today.

Students aren't learning as much as they don't want to learn. They just want that piece of paper that will get them a decent paying job.

That's the crux of the problem, and why learning outcomes are down. The way classes are taught etc. hasn't really changed at all over the past several decades.

What's changed is college has gone about going to learn and get and education and better yourself to people just wanting a piece of paper to get a job. If most students are going in with that attitude, then of course learning outcomes are going to decline over time.

The goal of college should be to turn people into capable scholars. People who love to learn, are good at learning and will spend their lives learning. Not just to give a degree that gets a job--that should be the icing on the cake, not the whole cake.

And being a scholar will help in most any profession. If one wants to move up in a field they have to be excellent at learning their profession, keeping up with changes so that they can excel or rise to the top. That or just be a shitbag who brown noses their way to the top.

People who aren't interested in that kind of learning really shouldn't go to college unless they want to be a lawyer or doctor or something that just absolutely requires degrees.

If money is the only goal, they can make more money sooner, retire younger etc. by going to a trade school and becoming a mechanic or plumber or electrician. Or even just getting a 2 year certificate in IT etc. (though jobs are harder to get in that field than others).
 
I freely admit to being a poor college student. I did exactly what a large portion of students do, which is get ready to leave high school and go to college simply because it's the 'next step'. Halfway through my freshman year, I stopped going to class. I got kicked out (obviously), went to community college (where I also didn't go to class), and then took a year off. One of the things that I always took away from that is the simple fact that, not just academically, a lot of students just aren't socially or personally ready to go to college.

In a lot of ways, it's a broken system. As many of you pointed out, one of the driving forces of going to college now is to 'just get the piece of paper'. It now seems to be questioned a lot more when people don't immediatly go to college after high school, where it used to be something that wasn't expected. Echoing something that dmaul brought up, I was a social science major, and it really didn't net me a ton of skills that landed me a job. Really, the help was truly that I could apply for jobs that required a degree. Most of the skills that were valued in what I did (research, writing, presentations) were things that I've always had an innate ability to do, so aside from honing my skills, it didn't offer me a lot.

When I did decide to go back, I was a much better student, and most of what I truly enjoyed about college was the interaction with professors and actually discussing things pertaining to my major. It wasn't relevant job-related stuff, but it's something I liked delving into, both inside and outside of class. Which, really, goes back to the point... it's all about what you put into it.

Now that I deal with high school students every day, it's painfully clear that a large majority of them are either not ready for college (in many ways), or aren't headed into it with the right intentions. However, as brought up earlier, the system is about getting students to school, so no one takes any of that into account anymore. As the college choice became more of a 'right' than a privilege, it diluted it to a point where the students that *want* to be there is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage.

I could also go into the rant that it's symptomatic of how students are brought to be, but that's entirely too much to go into right now. Quickly, though: My friend relayed a story to me yesterday after his first day of permanent subbing for 8th grade students. He walked in, and one of the students immediatly stood up and asked 'Who the fuck are you?'. Do I think the chances of that student growing up to be a good college student are good? No. Do I think he'll definitely attend college directly after high school? With every certainty.

At the end of the day, a big part of the problem is just how many schools there are, and which one you attend. The more competetive schools likely have less issues, but what about the number of institutions that exist for no other reason than to cater to 2.5-3.0 GPA students with SAT scores of less than 1000? It's not a real pretty trend, and I haven't seen it going in a positive direction.

Right, not sure if any of that made a lot of sense, but hey.
 
At my old employer, I worked out with this hilariously insane emeritus economist. I really like him, even when we disagreed on things.

He often said that, if money is a factor, people should take the $80K they're going to sink into college, gather that together with 4+ other friends, and buy/mortgage rental property on an island. The returns are better than college, people can still teach themselves, and the fucking around is perfectly fine.
 
[quote name='007']
When I did decide to go back, I was a much better student, and most of what I truly enjoyed about college was the interaction with professors and actually discussing things pertaining to my major. It wasn't relevant job-related stuff, but it's something I liked delving into, both inside and outside of class. Which, really, goes back to the point... it's all about what you put into it. [/quote]

Exactly. That's what it takes to get the most out of it. Many think professors don't care. But truth is, we do (the vast majority anyway) and are THRILLED when students take initiative to participate in class, talk to us after class about the topics or our research, come to office hours etc. After all, we're in this profession as we are passionate about our fields, thus we love to talk about it with people who are interested.

But students have to take that initiative. And many don't. I even ask students who get below a C on exams to please set up an appointment to come see me and try and figure out what went wrong. Usually only about half actually make an appointment and show up. Where as I get more frequent visits from A and B students who are still worried about their grades, or just curious and want to learn more.

At the end of the day, a big part of the problem is just how many schools there are, and which one you attend. The more competetive schools likely have less issues, but what about the number of institutions that exist for no other reason than to cater to 2.5-3.0 GPA students with SAT scores of less than 1000? It's not a real pretty trend, and I haven't seen it going in a positive direction.
Click to expand...

I've found it doesn't matter that much. I got my Ph D and did some teaching at a tier 1 public university that has pretty high admission standards.

I know teach at a tier 3 or 4 type school that happens to have a fairly strong department in my field--but admission standards are much lower (though they've been steadily rising, as has enrollment size).

There really isn't much difference in student effort between the two schools. About the same percentage A/B students and the don't care D/F students at the two schools.

There was some difference in ability. I get a lot more just terribly written papers at this school than the other. But in terms of effort and caring about learning (which matters more at the end of the day in my classes) it's about the same.



[quote name='mykevermin']At my old employer, I worked out with this hilariously insane emeritus economist. I really like him, even when we disagreed on things.

He often said that, if money is a factor, people should take the $80K they're going to sink into college, gather that together with 4+ other friends, and buy/mortgage rental property on an island. The returns are better than college, people can still teach themselves, and the fucking around is perfectly fine.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. If money is the primary concern, their are many more efficient paths to making money sooner than going to college. Particularly if one is taking on student loan debt to go to school.

But at the same time, with these kids not mature enough to handle college, most of them probably aren't mature enough to start a career and excel at that age either.
 
I didn't know there was another legitimate reason to go to college other than to get that piece of paper so I can become a drone like the rest of society. There's no way at 18 I would have passed it up even knowing that the money would be better spent elsewhere (starting up a business, investing it, etc.). Looking back though I should have gone to a trade school and opened up my own contracting business or something with the money I would have spent at college. I'd be much happier and probably much better off financially.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I didn't know there was another legitimate reason to go to college other than to get that piece of paper so I can become a drone like the rest of society. [/QUOTE]

Most people don't these days, as that's what the image of college has became.

In the past, before it became something that everyone was more or less expected to do, it was a bastion of intellectualism where people went to learn, develop their intellects and better themselves. With career benefits as the icing on the cake.

The plus is now most everyone can go to college, where as before it was really an elite thing limited to the upper middle class and above. The downside is that the point of the experience has gotten watered down to "I got to get a degree so I cans make me some monies, yo!"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']At my old employer, I worked out with this hilariously insane emeritus economist. I really like him, even when we disagreed on things.

He often said that, if money is a factor, people should take the $80K they're going to sink into college, gather that together with 4+ other friends, and buy/mortgage rental property on an island. The returns are better than college, people can still teach themselves, and the fucking around is perfectly fine.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a smart man.



I still maintain that most institutionalized modern learning is the greatest defended financial scam on the planet, second only to central banking.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Don't get me started on the death of libraries and the growth of google as a viable tool for discovering sources for papers. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK ME.[/QUOTE]

As long as the internet source is properly cited, is there something wrong with citing online sources?
 
[quote name='IRHari']As long as the internet source is properly cited, is there something wrong with citing online sources?[/QUOTE]

Depends on what the source is. Wikipedia, for instance, is never a viable source for facts since anyone can edit it. Nor are personal websites, blogs etc.--if you're just citing something as an example or something it may work. But not in a research paper which is mostly what Myke and I are assigning.

For those you should be using scholarly sources. Peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books etc. If a student is writing a paper for my class on the effectiveness of a certain police tactic in fighting crime, then the cites need to be empirical studies of said tactic. Not blog opinions, newspaper columns, wikipedia entries etc. Those might could be used to make some point, but not as the crux of their argument.

And I make that very clear by explaining what scholarly sources are and requiring at least a certain number in to be cited in the assignment rubrics I give out etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bingo. News sites are troublesome, too. I've seen too many students fail to give due diligence and use www.examiner.com for a source in the past. Which is all user-generated content; it is a paper that lacks a fact-checking and an editor, and everything goes straight to the presses. Few students are able to tell the difference.

And that's just one example.
 
I learned more in community college than the last 2 years. Although I studied harder then.

I didn't learn much my last 2 years of school. Then again, the head of my program got fired, as did one of the instructors.
 
I wish I could find it on NPR's site, I beleive Richard Arum was actually on talking about this sometime last week, I only caught the end of it in the car. The article comes off a little judgmental maybe, but he explained it himself I think much better. If I find the audio I'll post it.
 
no surprise, most university professors are liberals

also, much of the first 1-2 years of college is spent reviewing/learning what should have been taught in high school. - Thanks Teacher Unions.


Shown once again, liberal policies are bringing this country down.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']We have over 2,000 4 year colleges in this country, I think using testing in less then 30 to make assumptions about the others is stretching it. But that may just be me.[/QUOTE]

Actually, when making statistics about the US, a sample size of about three or four thousand people is large enough for our 311 million, so I would assume 29 is enough for 2,000.
 
[quote name='tivo']no surprise, most university professors are liberals

also, much of the first 1-2 years of college is spent reviewing/learning what should have been taught in high school. - Thanks Teacher Unions.


Shown once again, liberal policies are bringing this country down.[/QUOTE]

That's true, because Bob Jones and Liberty University are two of the top institutions with all their conservative professors. Oh wait, they're not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top