I always laugh when I hear about "liberal professors" if peeling away the BS from issues is liberal, then I guess many are. I guess a conservative history professor would have to ignore dirty little bits in history like slavery and the destruction of native peoples. Cause acknowledging those things happened is somehow liberal.
Students not learning much in college?
- Thread starter Clak
- Start date
It still depends on whether the 29 are representative of the 2,000 colleges. i.e. a mix of research universities (and the different tiers of them), liberal arts colleges etc.
The bigger issue is control variables. Student achievement likely has much less to do with type of college they go to as it does variables such as their abilities out of high school (did they control for GPA, test scores etc.), their class attendance, their study habits, etc.
As I said earlier, in most any course students that go to class motivated to pay attention and learn, do the readings, ask questions when they have them and put sufficient effort into studying and assignments will get good grades and learn what they're supposed to learn. And that's equally true at tier 1 research universities or tier 4 ones where teaching is more emphasized, or at liberal arts schools where teaching is the main emphasis.
Again the college model just isn't based on the model of teaching of K-12 where it's solely the teacher's and schools responsibility to motivate students and force the to come to class and learn. It's our responsibility as professors to present information clearly and in a manner that doesn't put students to sleep (which some profs do fail at). But it's on the students to come to class, do the readings, study hard, ask questions and put in the effort required to learn. They're adults, not kids who need their hands held and forced to do things every step of the way.
My take/hypothesis on the notion of learning objectives being met at lower at research universities is that it's confounded by the atmosphere of these schools. A lot of the tier one research school are big state universities. They have great academic programs, but also have a huge party scene, the big time sports focus etc., so a lot of distractions for students that pulls grades down. Which you don't see at say the tier one research ivy league universities where students are more focused and less distracted by parties, big time sports etc. Same with small liberal arts schools.
Another thing I'd say about the issue of research profs not being good or devoted teachers is that where I've been those faculty tend to get pretty good teaching evaluations from students (with some exceptions, there's always bad apples). Where we have problems is with the part time instructors, the non-tenure track full time teachers etc. who aren't doing any research. For whatever reason some of them get slammed in evaluations and leave us looking for replacements. Of course some do great, get great reviews and stay on teaching for years.
At least with the research profs you've got people who are very passionate about their field, are experts on sub-areas of it, and have been in academia their whole lives and have picked up a thing or two about how to teach along the way even despite not getting formal training on teaching. Which again I think is irrelevant in most classes as it's a simpler form of teaching in most college classes where it's just sharing and discussing knowledge.
Vs. teaching in K-12 and having to teach people read and write and do math etc. Obviously, the college classes in writing, math etc. are closer to that and ideally need people who know how to teach those things. But not so much for history, or criminal justice or anthropology or political science classes etc.
Another interesting article I read recently about criminal justice education recently is that many programs are focused to much on just teaching the nuts and bolts of what the CJ system is, what police do, what courts do etc. and not getting into teaching critical thinking about issues about crime, criminological theory, research in the field etc. that is really needed by people working in the field to day with the rise of things like problem-oriented policing today.
That nuts and bolts focus, in my experience, is much more common at community colleges and in the classes taught by part time instructors in my department etc. Us tenure track faculty teach mostly the critical thinking issues, the role of research in shaping policy and all that stuff as that's what we do in our careers. The nuts and bolts stuff is boring to us so we cover it quickly and get into more substantive issues. The faculty teaching CJ at a liberal arts college and not doing research don't have that knowledge and perspective on things. Especially at places where the profs don't have Ph D's even, which is a lot more common than you'd guess.
So I really think the notion of research profs of being bad teachers and not caring about teaching is a myth. Part of it is people take classes and don't know who's a real tenured track professor and who's an adjunct or a teaching only professor or a doctoral student teaching the course. Part of it is remembering the bad apples who you had bad experiences with, rather than the classes that were good or great etc. The truth is most research profs I've worked with (including some of the top dogs in my field) put a ton of effort into teaching. They may only teach one or two courses a year as they buyout to focus on research, but they put a lot of effort into those courses and they enjoy teaching as they're passionate about the field and their work and love sharing it with others.
Anyway, just my two cents on it. There are bad professor our there for sure--but I don't think there are more of them among tenured faculty at research universities than at liberal arts schools etc. At the end of the day the onus is on the students to have the needed basic skills when entering college and to stay focused on studies and go to class, do the readings, study, ask questions etc. Only when the student is doing all that and still failing does it become an issue of the professor's ability IMO.
And that does happen with some bad profs, but it's relatively rare. As I said before, I've never had a student who did all that get below a B in any of my classes, and the one's that get D's and F's are those that miss a ton classes, clearly don't do the readings (clueless when you call on them in class), never ask questions when in class, don't pay attention in class etc.
The bigger issue is control variables. Student achievement likely has much less to do with type of college they go to as it does variables such as their abilities out of high school (did they control for GPA, test scores etc.), their class attendance, their study habits, etc.
As I said earlier, in most any course students that go to class motivated to pay attention and learn, do the readings, ask questions when they have them and put sufficient effort into studying and assignments will get good grades and learn what they're supposed to learn. And that's equally true at tier 1 research universities or tier 4 ones where teaching is more emphasized, or at liberal arts schools where teaching is the main emphasis.
Again the college model just isn't based on the model of teaching of K-12 where it's solely the teacher's and schools responsibility to motivate students and force the to come to class and learn. It's our responsibility as professors to present information clearly and in a manner that doesn't put students to sleep (which some profs do fail at). But it's on the students to come to class, do the readings, study hard, ask questions and put in the effort required to learn. They're adults, not kids who need their hands held and forced to do things every step of the way.
My take/hypothesis on the notion of learning objectives being met at lower at research universities is that it's confounded by the atmosphere of these schools. A lot of the tier one research school are big state universities. They have great academic programs, but also have a huge party scene, the big time sports focus etc., so a lot of distractions for students that pulls grades down. Which you don't see at say the tier one research ivy league universities where students are more focused and less distracted by parties, big time sports etc. Same with small liberal arts schools.
Another thing I'd say about the issue of research profs not being good or devoted teachers is that where I've been those faculty tend to get pretty good teaching evaluations from students (with some exceptions, there's always bad apples). Where we have problems is with the part time instructors, the non-tenure track full time teachers etc. who aren't doing any research. For whatever reason some of them get slammed in evaluations and leave us looking for replacements. Of course some do great, get great reviews and stay on teaching for years.
At least with the research profs you've got people who are very passionate about their field, are experts on sub-areas of it, and have been in academia their whole lives and have picked up a thing or two about how to teach along the way even despite not getting formal training on teaching. Which again I think is irrelevant in most classes as it's a simpler form of teaching in most college classes where it's just sharing and discussing knowledge.
Vs. teaching in K-12 and having to teach people read and write and do math etc. Obviously, the college classes in writing, math etc. are closer to that and ideally need people who know how to teach those things. But not so much for history, or criminal justice or anthropology or political science classes etc.
Another interesting article I read recently about criminal justice education recently is that many programs are focused to much on just teaching the nuts and bolts of what the CJ system is, what police do, what courts do etc. and not getting into teaching critical thinking about issues about crime, criminological theory, research in the field etc. that is really needed by people working in the field to day with the rise of things like problem-oriented policing today.
That nuts and bolts focus, in my experience, is much more common at community colleges and in the classes taught by part time instructors in my department etc. Us tenure track faculty teach mostly the critical thinking issues, the role of research in shaping policy and all that stuff as that's what we do in our careers. The nuts and bolts stuff is boring to us so we cover it quickly and get into more substantive issues. The faculty teaching CJ at a liberal arts college and not doing research don't have that knowledge and perspective on things. Especially at places where the profs don't have Ph D's even, which is a lot more common than you'd guess.
So I really think the notion of research profs of being bad teachers and not caring about teaching is a myth. Part of it is people take classes and don't know who's a real tenured track professor and who's an adjunct or a teaching only professor or a doctoral student teaching the course. Part of it is remembering the bad apples who you had bad experiences with, rather than the classes that were good or great etc. The truth is most research profs I've worked with (including some of the top dogs in my field) put a ton of effort into teaching. They may only teach one or two courses a year as they buyout to focus on research, but they put a lot of effort into those courses and they enjoy teaching as they're passionate about the field and their work and love sharing it with others.
Anyway, just my two cents on it. There are bad professor our there for sure--but I don't think there are more of them among tenured faculty at research universities than at liberal arts schools etc. At the end of the day the onus is on the students to have the needed basic skills when entering college and to stay focused on studies and go to class, do the readings, study, ask questions etc. Only when the student is doing all that and still failing does it become an issue of the professor's ability IMO.
And that does happen with some bad profs, but it's relatively rare. As I said before, I've never had a student who did all that get below a B in any of my classes, and the one's that get D's and F's are those that miss a ton classes, clearly don't do the readings (clueless when you call on them in class), never ask questions when in class, don't pay attention in class etc.
[quote name='Clak']I always laugh when I hear about "liberal professors" if peeling away the BS from issues is liberal, then I guess many are. I guess a conservative history professor would have to ignore dirty little bits in history like slavery and the destruction of native peoples. Cause acknowledging those things happened is somehow liberal.[/QUOTE]
It's true that professors lean toward the liberal side.
But I think most do a good job of keeping those views from slanting how they present material.
In CJ I have to cover stuff like the death penalty and other things that are highly politicized. I stick to the facts about what research says about it's deterrent impacts, have students write short papers outlining both the pros and cons of it so they have to think about both sides of the issue, then we have in class debates over the issue where they can hash out the differences themselves.
I care about sharing factual knowledge and helping them learn to see both sides of the issues and think about things critically on their own. Not trying to sway them to any one side of any issue. I want them to become critical thinkers who look at empirical evidence and come to rational conclusions. If anything I try to de-politicize them rather than force political views on them despite being very liberal myself.
It's true that professors lean toward the liberal side.
But I think most do a good job of keeping those views from slanting how they present material.
In CJ I have to cover stuff like the death penalty and other things that are highly politicized. I stick to the facts about what research says about it's deterrent impacts, have students write short papers outlining both the pros and cons of it so they have to think about both sides of the issue, then we have in class debates over the issue where they can hash out the differences themselves.
I care about sharing factual knowledge and helping them learn to see both sides of the issues and think about things critically on their own. Not trying to sway them to any one side of any issue. I want them to become critical thinkers who look at empirical evidence and come to rational conclusions. If anything I try to de-politicize them rather than force political views on them despite being very liberal myself.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
^ winner winner chicken dinner.
Being liberal at the ballot ≠ being liberal in the classroom.
Teaching students that there are multiple philosophies of corrections, and that the very notion of deterrence is questionable would be considered politically loaded to conservatives.
I overheard callers on a political talk radio program offering up opinions on the results of a research study (though I can't recall the study, for some reason). Callers were saying "I agree with the study" or "I disagree with the study" and fighting back (or supporting it) with personal experience and anecdotes. That's the sort of thing that professors and teachers should be dealing with. Personal experience is well and good, but when you're studying a science, you gotta deal with the science. You have to study and understand research methods and statistics. Yeah, your dad was a cop, or you protested at this meeting of mega-corporations. That does not absolve you of your intellectual responsibility to challenge the research as research, rather than fighting it with mere observations of an uncritical mind.
Being liberal at the ballot ≠ being liberal in the classroom.
Teaching students that there are multiple philosophies of corrections, and that the very notion of deterrence is questionable would be considered politically loaded to conservatives.
I overheard callers on a political talk radio program offering up opinions on the results of a research study (though I can't recall the study, for some reason). Callers were saying "I agree with the study" or "I disagree with the study" and fighting back (or supporting it) with personal experience and anecdotes. That's the sort of thing that professors and teachers should be dealing with. Personal experience is well and good, but when you're studying a science, you gotta deal with the science. You have to study and understand research methods and statistics. Yeah, your dad was a cop, or you protested at this meeting of mega-corporations. That does not absolve you of your intellectual responsibility to challenge the research as research, rather than fighting it with mere observations of an uncritical mind.
[quote name='mykevermin'] That does not absolve you of your intellectual responsibility to challenge the research as research, rather than fighting it with mere observations of an uncritical mind.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. If there's one thing I want students in my classes to come away from my course with, and I tell them that at the outset, it's just that.
Learning to be critical thinkers who can look at evidence and facts (and be critical consumers of evidence and facts and look out for BS) and come to informed opinions and positions on things.
Rather than relying on feelings, beliefs, anecdotes etc.
That's a huge part of what the college experience should be. Generating intelligent, critical thinkers who challenge everything and try to see both sides of every issue before forming an opinion.
Not mindless ideologues who don't care about science or evidence and only see things through their on ideological world view.
Exactly. If there's one thing I want students in my classes to come away from my course with, and I tell them that at the outset, it's just that.
Learning to be critical thinkers who can look at evidence and facts (and be critical consumers of evidence and facts and look out for BS) and come to informed opinions and positions on things.
Rather than relying on feelings, beliefs, anecdotes etc.
That's a huge part of what the college experience should be. Generating intelligent, critical thinkers who challenge everything and try to see both sides of every issue before forming an opinion.
Not mindless ideologues who don't care about science or evidence and only see things through their on ideological world view.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Access_Denied']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]
They are barely meeting the test threshold for 2000 colleges. However just because they meet this doesn't mean the data is giving a whole picture. Not saying the did, but the data could be taken from only one area of colleges, say they only took the data from colleges in Texas. Though they meet the threshold it would say little to nothing about colleges in the rest of the states, which have different books, and levels of academic vigor in k-12. Too little info was in the article to gain any understanding, maybe this will be cleared up in the book but statistics can, and are, distorted intentionally and unintentionally.
They are barely meeting the test threshold for 2000 colleges. However just because they meet this doesn't mean the data is giving a whole picture. Not saying the did, but the data could be taken from only one area of colleges, say they only took the data from colleges in Texas. Though they meet the threshold it would say little to nothing about colleges in the rest of the states, which have different books, and levels of academic vigor in k-12. Too little info was in the article to gain any understanding, maybe this will be cleared up in the book but statistics can, and are, distorted intentionally and unintentionally.
I don't normally post here, but I'd like to chime in here for a bit- as a college student.
I think the big reason a lot of students take "easy" classes is that they are fearful of having a low GPA, because it can ruin the odds of getting into grad school, etc. I'm currently in my 4th semester, and I will admit, aside from one Calculus class I took (and to an extent, the Intro to Chemistry course that same semester), I really haven't found any "hard" class yet. And really, the only reason that the Calc class was "difficult" was because the TA on Thursday taught/quizzed on entirely different subjects than we learned in the lectures on M/W, which killed a lot of people's grades.
I do go to a large, public, research-oriented university, and more often than not the "professor" for my class is merely a grad student, and not in just the Gen Ed courses. Every lab course I've had was taught by a TA as well. It wouldn't bug me as much if the TAs didn't seem clueless half the time or didn't seem to care.
As for the coursework- I've taken 3 Humanities classes and an Ancient Mythology class- all that were supposed to be literature based- and the worst assignment in any of them was writing a 5-6 page paper at the end of the course, which pretty much amounted to me saying that women weren't equal to men in the stuff we "read" over the course of the 6 week long class over and over and over (I ended up getting I believe a 98).
Honestly, all a lot of students here care about is maintaining a good GPA- especially if they're on a Florida Bright Futures scholarship- and graduating.
Not sure if that's a good post or not. I tried at least. Plus, if it sucked, think of it as proof that the study was right
.
ETA- Something I wanted to add that I forgot.
The link has a few students that say that their first semester of college was pretty much a review of high school. I might not be the best judge of that (I graduated HS with 42 hours of college credit already, from Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate/Dual Enrollment, and generally was in "college prep" courses) but so far a lot of my courses are reviewing what I learned in HS or at best are just expanding upon what I learned. Thinking critically so far has been a pretty foreign concept in a lot of my courses.
Okay, officially done. I think.
I think the big reason a lot of students take "easy" classes is that they are fearful of having a low GPA, because it can ruin the odds of getting into grad school, etc. I'm currently in my 4th semester, and I will admit, aside from one Calculus class I took (and to an extent, the Intro to Chemistry course that same semester), I really haven't found any "hard" class yet. And really, the only reason that the Calc class was "difficult" was because the TA on Thursday taught/quizzed on entirely different subjects than we learned in the lectures on M/W, which killed a lot of people's grades.
I do go to a large, public, research-oriented university, and more often than not the "professor" for my class is merely a grad student, and not in just the Gen Ed courses. Every lab course I've had was taught by a TA as well. It wouldn't bug me as much if the TAs didn't seem clueless half the time or didn't seem to care.
As for the coursework- I've taken 3 Humanities classes and an Ancient Mythology class- all that were supposed to be literature based- and the worst assignment in any of them was writing a 5-6 page paper at the end of the course, which pretty much amounted to me saying that women weren't equal to men in the stuff we "read" over the course of the 6 week long class over and over and over (I ended up getting I believe a 98).
Honestly, all a lot of students here care about is maintaining a good GPA- especially if they're on a Florida Bright Futures scholarship- and graduating.
Not sure if that's a good post or not. I tried at least. Plus, if it sucked, think of it as proof that the study was right
.ETA- Something I wanted to add that I forgot.
The link has a few students that say that their first semester of college was pretty much a review of high school. I might not be the best judge of that (I graduated HS with 42 hours of college credit already, from Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate/Dual Enrollment, and generally was in "college prep" courses) but so far a lot of my courses are reviewing what I learned in HS or at best are just expanding upon what I learned. Thinking critically so far has been a pretty foreign concept in a lot of my courses.
Okay, officially done. I think.
But again part of your post is proving my point--that it's a lack of student effort.
They could be challenging themselves, but they choose to take it easy and boost their GPA instead of taking courses that challenge them to work and learn new things.
You also point out some definite shortcomings of the system too like classes taught by grad students etc. Those are fine if they're advanced Ph D students (who should be just as knowledgeable a brand new assistant professor). But at some places they can be master's students or first year Ph D students who really shouldn't be teaching that early in their studies.
They could be challenging themselves, but they choose to take it easy and boost their GPA instead of taking courses that challenge them to work and learn new things.
You also point out some definite shortcomings of the system too like classes taught by grad students etc. Those are fine if they're advanced Ph D students (who should be just as knowledgeable a brand new assistant professor). But at some places they can be master's students or first year Ph D students who really shouldn't be teaching that early in their studies.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
I think that this study and a lot of the comments in this thread do not give enough creedence to the fact that college is essentially about experimentation with drugs, especially weed.
Smoking weed was one of the cornerstones of my college career. Especially as a philosphy major. In conclusion, college is for partying and smoking weed. The cream will rise to the top amidst a cloud of THC.
Smoking weed was one of the cornerstones of my college career. Especially as a philosphy major. In conclusion, college is for partying and smoking weed. The cream will rise to the top amidst a cloud of THC.
Oh no, I'm not challenging that. For the most part, I fully agree it's the students' faults. However, in a lot of these courses some things that the professors go over they "just hint at" or "just teach the basics" or whatever they call it, due to a time constraint.
I also think that a lot of it is due to the system. Students can't afford to take a difficult class and get a C in it without their GPA being impacted, which is a pretty big factor in grad school applications.
I wouldn't mind the grad students teaching if, like I said, they didn't all seem clueless half the time or, in a lot of labs, they didn't seem to care. I'm pretty sure actually that both the grad students that are teaching a course I'm in are Master's students. I'm about 90% sure that the one that just got replaced today was a Master's student.
I also think that a lot of it is due to the system. Students can't afford to take a difficult class and get a C in it without their GPA being impacted, which is a pretty big factor in grad school applications.
I wouldn't mind the grad students teaching if, like I said, they didn't all seem clueless half the time or, in a lot of labs, they didn't seem to care. I'm pretty sure actually that both the grad students that are teaching a course I'm in are Master's students. I'm about 90% sure that the one that just got replaced today was a Master's student.
Well it's on students to own up and do the work required to get As and Bs in hard classes. For grad applications we look at what they take. We'll take people with lower GPAs who took harder classes (particularly in things related to research like research methods, stats, math and science classes) over people with higher GPAs who didn't take those kind of classes.
And a lot of the hitting the basics is the nature of undergrad classes. There's only so much you can cover, and you have to hit the basics in the intro classes. The upper level classes in the major should get more in-depth though.
As for the TA thing, a lot of it isn't caring as much as it is they have no teaching experience, not much knowledge in the field yet and are nervous etc. Many of them just aren't ready to teach, and I'm a firm believer that only doctoral students who've passed their comps/qualifiers should be able to actually teach.
Lower level students should be getting experience leading TA discussion sections, labs etc. where they're working under the supervision of a professor, not teaching the actual course independently. They're just not ready for that, I know I wouldn't have been at that point of my career. Thankfully where I went to grad school you couldn't teach until after comps. Unfortunately where I work now we had first semester Ph D students teaching, despite objections from many of us on the faculty.
And a lot of the hitting the basics is the nature of undergrad classes. There's only so much you can cover, and you have to hit the basics in the intro classes. The upper level classes in the major should get more in-depth though.
As for the TA thing, a lot of it isn't caring as much as it is they have no teaching experience, not much knowledge in the field yet and are nervous etc. Many of them just aren't ready to teach, and I'm a firm believer that only doctoral students who've passed their comps/qualifiers should be able to actually teach.
Lower level students should be getting experience leading TA discussion sections, labs etc. where they're working under the supervision of a professor, not teaching the actual course independently. They're just not ready for that, I know I wouldn't have been at that point of my career. Thankfully where I went to grad school you couldn't teach until after comps. Unfortunately where I work now we had first semester Ph D students teaching, despite objections from many of us on the faculty.
Is that really that big a deal for first semester level classes though? I mean english comp is english comp, if you can compose papers correctly you can teach those classes.
I was thinking about something yesterday, does anyone else think that with the practical requirment of college to have a good career, that the line between 12th grade hgih school and first year college might begin to blur a little? I mean with AP classes I guess it already has somewhat, but I just imagine some low level college classes like say the english classes i mentioned being taught in high school as standard classes.
I was thinking about something yesterday, does anyone else think that with the practical requirment of college to have a good career, that the line between 12th grade hgih school and first year college might begin to blur a little? I mean with AP classes I guess it already has somewhat, but I just imagine some low level college classes like say the english classes i mentioned being taught in high school as standard classes.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
This really should be, "Teachers Forced to Babysit High Schoolers Instead of Teaching Leads to Unprepared Under Educated College Students."
The education system in America is progressively getting worse and that is because teachers spend most of their time dealing with behavioral and disciplinary problems instead of teaching. This leads to many college students coming in with under developed knowledge bases in the first place compounded by the fact that they most likely didnt develop proper study/research habits.
Americans dont seem to care about education until they have to pay for it at the secondary level when it just cost them 20k to find out they dont have the skills to preform well.
But even with that there is nothing that can prevent a person who is truly motivated from preforming very well in college and learning a lot. Its no secret its just hard work and contrary to the old saying, in real life when the going gets tough the tough find something easier to do.
My wife is a teacher, I am a coach and a lot of our friends our teacher, one of which as taught in China for the last 3 years. She says it the greatest thing in the world because he actual teaches for 8 hours a day. No behavioral issues, no begging and pleading for kids to learn, they show up ready to learn. Now I am not saying we should be so strict they kids are assigned numbers and suits but it must me nice.....
The education system in America is progressively getting worse and that is because teachers spend most of their time dealing with behavioral and disciplinary problems instead of teaching. This leads to many college students coming in with under developed knowledge bases in the first place compounded by the fact that they most likely didnt develop proper study/research habits.
Americans dont seem to care about education until they have to pay for it at the secondary level when it just cost them 20k to find out they dont have the skills to preform well.
But even with that there is nothing that can prevent a person who is truly motivated from preforming very well in college and learning a lot. Its no secret its just hard work and contrary to the old saying, in real life when the going gets tough the tough find something easier to do.
My wife is a teacher, I am a coach and a lot of our friends our teacher, one of which as taught in China for the last 3 years. She says it the greatest thing in the world because he actual teaches for 8 hours a day. No behavioral issues, no begging and pleading for kids to learn, they show up ready to learn. Now I am not saying we should be so strict they kids are assigned numbers and suits but it must me nice.....
[quote name='Clak']Is that really that big a deal for first semester level classes though? I mean english comp is english comp, if you can compose papers correctly you can teach those classes.
[/QUOTE]
For something like that it's more ok, but they still have to deal with nerves, and learning how to present material etc. as it's their first time.
For things even like low level intro to sociology or criminal justice classes it's an issue as they don't have much knowledge if they're a master's student etc. and thus can't do a lot more than lecture out of the textbook.
[/QUOTE]
For something like that it's more ok, but they still have to deal with nerves, and learning how to present material etc. as it's their first time.
For things even like low level intro to sociology or criminal justice classes it's an issue as they don't have much knowledge if they're a master's student etc. and thus can't do a lot more than lecture out of the textbook.
[quote name='Soodmeg']
Americans dont seem to care about education until they have to pay for it at the secondary level when it just cost them 20k to find out they dont have the skills to preform well.
But even with that there is nothing that can prevent a person who is truly motivated from preforming very well in college and learning a lot. Its no secret its just hard work and contrary to the old saying, in real life when the going gets tough the tough find something easier to do.
My wife is a teacher, I am a coach and a lot of our friends our teacher, one of which as taught in China for the last 3 years. She says it the greatest thing in the world because he actual teaches for 8 hours a day. No behavioral issues, no begging and pleading for kids to learn, they show up ready to learn. Now I am not saying we should be so strict they kids are assigned numbers and suits but it must me nice.....[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Obama pretty much nailed it in his state of the union speech with his comments about how as a country we need to re-emphasize the value of education and that we put far to much emphasis on worshiping athletes and celebrities etc. to where we have fewer people preaching education and idolizing careers as engineers, doctors etc.
Unlike other countries were the value of education is much more valued and emphasized. There's not much the school system can do if kids aren't showing up ready and motivated to learn and their parents aren't reinforcing the importance of it everyday at home.
Americans dont seem to care about education until they have to pay for it at the secondary level when it just cost them 20k to find out they dont have the skills to preform well.
But even with that there is nothing that can prevent a person who is truly motivated from preforming very well in college and learning a lot. Its no secret its just hard work and contrary to the old saying, in real life when the going gets tough the tough find something easier to do.
My wife is a teacher, I am a coach and a lot of our friends our teacher, one of which as taught in China for the last 3 years. She says it the greatest thing in the world because he actual teaches for 8 hours a day. No behavioral issues, no begging and pleading for kids to learn, they show up ready to learn. Now I am not saying we should be so strict they kids are assigned numbers and suits but it must me nice.....[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Obama pretty much nailed it in his state of the union speech with his comments about how as a country we need to re-emphasize the value of education and that we put far to much emphasis on worshiping athletes and celebrities etc. to where we have fewer people preaching education and idolizing careers as engineers, doctors etc.
Unlike other countries were the value of education is much more valued and emphasized. There's not much the school system can do if kids aren't showing up ready and motivated to learn and their parents aren't reinforcing the importance of it everyday at home.
What's the general consensus on Community Colleges?
I think they're much better than research colleges
-Professors, while some only have Masters, are there to teach, not publish research
-Smaller classes - no 1000 person lecture halls
-You get a degree after 2 years with something to show for all that tuition money
-Much cheaper than big colleges
I'm sure most people and academics look down on them as (in Adam Currola's words "High School with ashtrays")
I think they're much better than research colleges
-Professors, while some only have Masters, are there to teach, not publish research
-Smaller classes - no 1000 person lecture halls
-You get a degree after 2 years with something to show for all that tuition money
-Much cheaper than big colleges
I'm sure most people and academics look down on them as (in Adam Currola's words "High School with ashtrays")
Community colleges are fine, and I think many people would be better served there than in a university.
As I've said, universities are a great place to learn for people who have all the K-12 skills they should have learned AND who are self motivated to go to class, do the readings, ask questions and participate in class, go to office hours etc.
But classes are larger and there's little hand holding etc. so you're not going to get as much attention from the professors--especially if you aren't asking question and seeking out the professors. We're all happy to help any students who need it, but its on the students to speak up and seek us out. That's why we have office hours, tell the class to e-mail for appointments if those don't work etc.
Anyway, I don't look down on community colleges at all and think they should be promoted more. As I've said throughout the thread I don't think the people teaching there on average are "better teachers", but the style of teaching with small classes etc. works better for some people. Again they aren't necessarily any more focused on each student outside of class as they're probably teaching 4 or 5 classes a semester (or working full time and just teaching in the evenings) so they're stretched just as thin as University professors who are teaching 1 or 2 classes a semester and spending more time on research etc.
And as you note, being 2-year programs they are better served for people who just want a piece of paper to help them get a job and aren't interested in becoming a scholarly type--as those are the types that go to college and take easy classes, goof off and party all the time and lead to articles like the one in the OP that try to blame the university system rather than unmotivated students.
As I've said, universities are a great place to learn for people who have all the K-12 skills they should have learned AND who are self motivated to go to class, do the readings, ask questions and participate in class, go to office hours etc.
But classes are larger and there's little hand holding etc. so you're not going to get as much attention from the professors--especially if you aren't asking question and seeking out the professors. We're all happy to help any students who need it, but its on the students to speak up and seek us out. That's why we have office hours, tell the class to e-mail for appointments if those don't work etc.
Anyway, I don't look down on community colleges at all and think they should be promoted more. As I've said throughout the thread I don't think the people teaching there on average are "better teachers", but the style of teaching with small classes etc. works better for some people. Again they aren't necessarily any more focused on each student outside of class as they're probably teaching 4 or 5 classes a semester (or working full time and just teaching in the evenings) so they're stretched just as thin as University professors who are teaching 1 or 2 classes a semester and spending more time on research etc.
And as you note, being 2-year programs they are better served for people who just want a piece of paper to help them get a job and aren't interested in becoming a scholarly type--as those are the types that go to college and take easy classes, goof off and party all the time and lead to articles like the one in the OP that try to blame the university system rather than unmotivated students.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that for the vast majority of students, community colleges are great ideas. For me it didn't really make sense because I was starting college with 3 semesters' credits already, and could begin my major pretty much right away (minus the leftover Gen Ed stuff that I cleared out first semester).
However, if you're one of those students that graduated HS with no (or maybe 1-2 classes' worth) credits for college, you might have a less than stellar GPA, among other things, Community College is a great idea. I'll admit that of the two classes I took one summer at the local Community College while I was in HS, I felt that both were taught much better than their HS equivalents.
Honestly, it's one of the main reasons that I didn't take two classes this semester, and instead I am waiting to take them this summer at that community college. Not because it's easier (although it pretty much is) or anything, but because I won't be taught by some professor who is more worried about being published in something I'm never going to read- the professor will be focused on teaching.
However, if you're one of those students that graduated HS with no (or maybe 1-2 classes' worth) credits for college, you might have a less than stellar GPA, among other things, Community College is a great idea. I'll admit that of the two classes I took one summer at the local Community College while I was in HS, I felt that both were taught much better than their HS equivalents.
Honestly, it's one of the main reasons that I didn't take two classes this semester, and instead I am waiting to take them this summer at that community college. Not because it's easier (although it pretty much is) or anything, but because I won't be taught by some professor who is more worried about being published in something I'm never going to read- the professor will be focused on teaching.
bread's done