Continuing the discussion from my previous post and the comments it generated…
Colleges aren’t prescribing their courses for a condition of ignorance, saying, “This works in a lot of cases, but it may not work for you” (notice the lack of strength in that); rather, colleges are like those restaurants that post menus in little glass cases outside their establishments, saying, in effect, “Here’s what we offer for people who appreciate our cuisine, but this might not be the place for you. And if you have to ask, you can’t afford us.” A college is not a place of refuge, a la the Statue of Liberty. The colleges that come closest to that are the community colleges.
Colleges aren’t responsible for how much knowledge students retain. That’s determined by brain function, by memory. “Use it or lose it.” I agree that colleges require students to take far too much useless breadth classes that they’re never going to use and that they’re therefore going to lose, but you’re going about this argument the wrong way.
I’m not going to read “Academically Adrift,” but I read Inside Higher Ed’s review of it and all 92 comments, mostly by professors, a few by students. Am I right in assuming that, although you’re using it to point to the data, you’re not in agreement with the remedy? From the review:
“The main culprit for lack of academic progress, according to the authors, is a lack of rigor…. 32 percent of students do not take courses with more than 40 pages of reading a week, and that half don’t take a single course in which they must write more than 20 pages.”
… as if all that is needed is more reading and more writing without regard to content? One of the very last comments, posted by Jordan Shaw, a student, was titled “A new approach to rigor”; he had this to say:
“I agree that the missing element is rigor, but I disagree that rigor should be defined as time spent reading or doing difficult assignments. In my experience, the courses that required more reading and analysis were also the courses that had higher student-professor interaction, increased creative freedom for students, student-driven projects and presentations, and interesting subject matter. We can’t simply forget about motivation when trying to increase learning.”
The commenter goes on to say how demotivated the students were in a certain class because, although the presentations were increased, the normal requirements were not, and the students couldn’t do all the work.
On motivation, one of the final commenters was a professor from another country, who related this story:
“I came to this country with a sense of awe for the American higher education system. So much money, such incredible libraries, so many computers … I will never forget the first question I got from a student the first day I taught: What is going to be on the final? That student had never taken a course in the discipline I was teaching (formal syntax), did not even know what the course was about, but was intent on negotiating the best ‘deal’ he could to secure an A… [my emphasis] This student, as many others I have encountered since then, was not in college for learning. He was there essentially to ‘buy’ a degree, and was merely asking what was his part in this bargain.”
Marty, how are you going to deal with cynicism of the students themselves?
I have so much more to say, but I’ll end with writing professor Kris Kuhn’s comment, “Systemic Results”:
“I asked 40 students how many had written multiple 5-7 page papers in their last 2 years of high school. The majority had written only one and 15 had never written a paper of that length. “We watched movies and wrote about what we thought.” “we didn’t have to use database research” “I took Sports English”. ["Sports English"??] “I know how to write a 5 paragraph persuasive essay”. While no child has been left behind, where have they all been taken? Systemic change is needed. College can and should try to hold students accountable, [my emphasis] but it could be that the first 2 years in college are attempting to create students ready to be in college.
So can you fix college without fixing high school? And can you fix high school without grouping kids by ability? And removing teachers’ fear of failing non-performing students (a problem in college as well)?
… and if you think things are better in other countries:
Victoria, an English professor at a Canadian college, posted “Standard should not be a dirty word”:
Dear Student
No, you cannot rewrite the assignment because you don’t like your grade.
No, I cannot reschedule the final exam just for you.
No, I do not carry around a stapler.
No, I did not answer your e-mail. You sent it Sunday at midnight. I was asleep.
No, your paper is not marked yet. I have 60 of them. It’s only been 1 day.
No, you are not my client. And if you pay my salary, I’d like a raise.
Yes, you do have to read the book. It’s a literature class.
Yes, you have to write the essays. It’s a composition class.
Yes, spelling counts. Yes, I heard you say spelling is boring. Too bad.
Yes, you failed. You didn’t attend class, you didn’t hand in assignments, and you didn’t participate in class discussions. Really, you failed. You will not be scarred for life.
Dear Government,
Education is not a product. Students are not clients. We do not have stakeholders. We have a community. We are trying to teach people how to think and become active, engaged members of society. Why do we have to keep justifying this? Please send money.
And I bet she could have written a “Dear Parent” part, too.
Where do you begin?
maureenpnelson
