A good friend of mine, an older gentleman who has worked as president for an environmental NGO in the northeast for years, put it to me in a particularly striking way. He said, and I am paraphrasing, "In terms of education, the reality in America is that a lot of people are going to college who shouldn't." When I asked him to expound on his point, he said, "Ideally, especially when I was going to university in the 60's, it was viewed as a way of getting an education and expanding your mind and interests. The fact it could lead to meaningful and satisfying work was an afterthought. The point was education. Today, it feels like many students, and others have said this too, are going for certification. Instead of education being the end, it is the means to something else, such as a job position. It isn't like I am saying that people should not try to educate themselves; what I am saying is that the trend towards mass production of education (which very obviously has led to some real shortcomings in quality) has damaged the overall education of many students, and that some people who are students shouldn't be; standards have dropped for entry to many universities, and it shows." After hearing his thoughts, I thought about all the students I had met as a student whom were there because their parents told them to go and gave them the money to do so. Many of them didn't want to be there; they only knew that college was expected of them and they wouldn't resist being pushed into it, considering how many students these days treat college as an extension of high school. I realize that the opinions expressed here seem harsh and the evidence only anecdotal, but these are my personal observations. In the same breath, my former advising professor told me a story of a student years ago who came into his office angry. He asked the student why he was upset and he said he didn't want to be there. My professor pressed him and asked why, and he said it was because his old man was making him go to college. My professor informed him that he was an adult and didn't have to go to college if he didn't want to. The frustrated young man looked at him, nodded, thanked him, said goodbye, and as my former advisor professor testified, he never saw him again. It appears as if at least some people figure out on their own that college isn't for them, hm? - Derek E. Pursell
--- On Fri, 1/22/10, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: From: Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all: Decline in education- student's perspective To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 9:14 PM Honorable Forum on Ecology and Education: This is one of the best "threads" I've read on Ecolog. There have been so many good points made from such a varied assemblage of participants that "what we have here," is a high potential for actually communicating on a very important subject. Because it is important, comment can be touchy, but the quality of the responses has shown that most everybody has straddled the line between frankness and abusiveness pretty well. I, at least, think I've learned a lot. There are some aspects of this issue that have not been discussed, and I will offer some in the hopes I can learn whether or not there is sympathy, hostility, or neutrality out there. In the USA, we have a strong tradition of the concept of a "free" education. There is also a strong tradition that comes from pioneering, hard work, and an instinctive contempt for elitism and an embracing of the concept of a classless society. There is also a tradition born out of a strong sense of inferiority in the realm of "letters." There can be little question that there is some truth and some exaggeration in all of these factors. It seems that higher education in the USA has developed more strongly and increasingly along the lines of specialization and preparation of marketable skills than a truly liberal education. There is an undercurrent that seems to imply that specialists needn't or shouldn't waste their time on "irrelevant" matters like literature and arts--"humanities" and other "soft" subjects. Increasingly, there seems to be more division than integration, as well as a growing trend, ironically, toward "hybrid" curricula that attempts a middle ground between "hard" and "soft," resulting in an "education" that is neither fish nor fowl--but which provides a watered-down dose of "science" and "humanities" and degrees that satisfy the need for numerical expansion of universities at the expense of the kind of intensive devotion to intellectual development that, for example, was the strong meat upon which Darwin and other "Caesars" of the intellect doth fed (Latin and other languages, literature, mathematics, etc.). It involved a tradition, not of grinding though or even running the gauntlet, but one in which the goal was a fully integrated and competent and honest individual. This example, was, of course, out of 19th century England, Scotland, and Ireland, and it was, by and large, an elitist system--the poor need not apply (with few exceptions). The idea and acceptance of the "serious amateur" also was a component of the general realm of intellectual activity--in which one who was autodidactical and who could demonstrate competence in a field was held more in respect than contempt. As a practical matter, however, the cobbler's son (forget the daughters), regardless of his passion for, say, ants, could not spare enough time from his cobbling to ponder Nature. Now this has changed a lot in both the USA and Brittan, and a fair sprinkling of the less fortunate are admitted entry into an overburdened system of education that may well be doing far better a job of mass education than should be expected. One professor I know has a class that runs from 700 to 1,000 students every semester. His name's not "Brownie," but he does do a "helluva job." But he also says that there are dismally few who are prepared, who can write a sentence in the English language, who are so convinced that they "deserve" a grade regardless of performance, that he must resort to computerized grading of computerized tests and move them on to their degree. I strongly admire men and women like him who are struggling against Herculean odds to at least expose the idea of learning to the multitudes, and I suspect that Society is far better off than it would be if class sizes were restricted to a few "well-bred" fellows who could lounge about the club indulging in esoteric discussions about the meaning of life. Certainly computers and the Internet have both accelerated and intensified the learning process, alone and in combination with academia as it is and in combination with the slings and arrows of real life. So what is encouraging to me is not that higher education is going to hell in a handbasket or even that it cranks out graduates who have slipped through by ability and dedication or in a state of confusion, or even by hook or by crook, but that out of the chaos will come an unexpected diversity of ideas despite the tendency to conformity by and in the institutions that labor, as it were, to improve the lot of our lives and those coming after us. What is even more encouraging is that so many on this list have put their minds to the wheel with the idea of confronting real issues, especially that of quality, in the education of a world growing beyond itself; this latter falling largely upon the backs of ecologists, who are trying to keep each other honest. I drink a toast to you all! WT "'Tis friction's . . . brisk rub, that provides the vital spark!" --Alexander Reid Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Marenghi" <frank_maren...@hotmail.com> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:27 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all: Decline in education- student's perspective Venerable ECOLOGGERS, I actually once had a teacher tell me that the point of all in-class instruction was that at some point in the future when we entered “the real world” we would of already heard about some of the topics in lecture so that we may look them up. She said that it would be easier for us to learn about topics that we had already heard about than ones that were completely new (that part is probably true). Of course, I’ve forgotten who said that, now. There is also huge difference between classes that are required and electives. I learned more (and may have even gotten better grades, incidentally) in elective classes than required ones. I don't think I was alone in that. I wanted to be in the elective courses and I did not often have an interest in some of the required ones. I hear teachers lamenting about “all students care about are grades,” and “is this going to be on the exam,” and “exams are a barrier, not a challenge.” You know, they’re probably right. Exams are barriers. Degrees (or lack thereof) are barriers, at least they are considered as such by the general public – even by a lot of teachers. We are taught from a young age that the point of school is be done with school. How many commencement speeches have a “now you will be entering the real world” component? Why is being a student not real? School may be an obstacle to fuller, longer-lasting learning because of the systemic problems that have been so eloquently mentioned on this listserv (standardized exams, etc.) - not necessarily holistic or rubric-based approaches, which as a student, felt to be more fair and more rigorous at the same time). Although there is something inherently ironic about complaining about exams and then continuing to give and grade them. I do not mean to sound condescending at all, here. It is just that we will never eliminate the “is this going to be on the test?” question unless we eliminate the requirement of taking (and passing) tests, regardless of how sophisticated they may be. This mostly applies to “traditional age” students, right out of high school. Non-trads are completely different. Again, this is because they want to be there, not because it is part of their chores. I have not been out of school that long (28 y old and just graduated with a Master’s last year after taking some time off after undergrad) and I am confident that I have learned more on my own outside of school than I learned in school (and I learned a lot in school)! And I am talking about things of an academic nature, not to mention social, spiritual, etc. I enjoy learning, like most of the subscribers on this list, however it wasn’t until I was “through with school” that I had the most intellectual freedom. I have also noticed a decline in academic standards but, as with others, this could be because of simple changes in physical location, as I suspect much of it is. Some of my “graduate-level” courses, for example, were not as rigorous as some of my undergrad classes. I also had 4 years of “real-world” and research experience prior to going to grad school and I may have had a different perspective if I had taken them right out of college. I also felt that many of my fellow students probably shouldn’t have been in grad school and wouldn’t have gone years ago, but were nevertheless there because of a combination of “that’s what you’re supposed to do” and perhaps, lower standards for admission. Either way, there is a tremendous amount of variation between and among programs. I value education and like learning. Many of the students in advanced degree programs (including master’s) are there because of this “higher demand for education,” because politicians and administrators want them there, and because students (and their parents) are afraid they won’t be able to compete in the job market without that “piece of paper.” I don't think it is because they (or their parents) value education or love (or even like) learning. I don’t know how many times through school I’ve heard “D stands for Diploma.” Regards, Frank Marenghi > Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:00:08 -0700 > From: bangr...@isu.edu > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all: Decline in education > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Now, perhaps, we need to consider the student's perspective. Since our > culture values quantity over quality, is the student's attitude of " just > tell me what I need to know" really that odd or unreasonable? Given that they > are being shoveled massive amounts of information in several courses, not > just one course, and need to finish in four years. Following this thread > gives the impression that students are only taking a single ecology course. > > randy > ========================================= > RK Bangert > ========================================= > > On Jan 20, 2010, at 5:15 AM, Meenan, James wrote: > > > I apologize for the zinger. I completely understand the rubric used to > > > grade undergrads and appreciate the time and effort that it takes to do > > > so. My point (that I so tackily stated) was that students understand > > > this rubric and that is why they ask " just tell me what I need to > > > know." I believe that most students start at this point and then > > > integrate this information into the larger context of the subject > > > matter. Again, I apologize, but can we please be a less harsh with our > > > generalizations about our students. The majority of them are trying to > > > absorb what we are teaching them and not shoveling in, then purging > > > information. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > > [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Val Smith > > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:14 PM > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all: Decline in education > > > > Just for information's sake, more than a decade ago I helped to create > > the University of Kansas' Center for Teaching Excellence > > (http://www.cte.ku.edu), and like other teaching faculty at KU, I follow > > its well-thought-out, professional recommendations with regards to > > assuring the consistency and fairness of exam grading. The grading of > > 400 exams containing up to 3-4 short answers and 1-2 essays can take the > > better part of 12-15 hours or more even when we obtain the assistance of > > as many as ten highly knowledgeable grading assistants who are already > > serving as GTAs in the laboratory portion of the course. > > > > A grading rubric that defines the "best" or "preferred" answers to the > > questions in any exam is created and provided to all graders (which > > include the teachers of record): there can after all be only a small > > subset of completely correct answers to any given question, such as the > > correct direction of heat energy or material flows in counter-current > > exchange systems, or the correct direction of water flow in a plant's > > xylem, or the correct absolute value of Avogadro's number, or the > > correct equation for exponential population growth, or the correct > > balanced equation for photosynthesis, or the correct name for the enzyme > > that catalyzes the breakdown of lactose, or the correct definition for > > gastrovascular cavity, or the major taxonomic characteristics that are > > considered to be unique to a specific Order of plants (I'm sure that you > > surely must see my point here). > > > > Typically one or two graders (including both of the faculty members who > > are the teachers of record) are then assigned a certain question, and > > exam grading proceeds. If there is any concern about a particular > > student's answer for any particular question, then the entire group > > stops and deliberates/discusses whether the particular answer under > > consideration was either correct (100% credit), partially correct (for > > partial credit), or incorrect (0% credit). The grading rubric is > > provided electronically to all students taking the course after the > > exam, and each student then has further recourse by making a formal > > appointment with the instructors of record to discuss any and all > > questions for which they might dispute the grading. > > > > Just curious: did you intend for your tone in this message to be as > > hostile to academia, and as intentionally and deliberately derogatory as > > I perceived it? If so, very tacky, and one might wonder whether you > > have ever bothered to read the literature on exam grading and learning > > assessment methods, or whether you have ever actually taught in the > > classroom? Please explain clearly to me, and also to the readers of > > ECOLOG, how the extremely lengthy, objective, completely transparent, > > and highly deliberative grading process above might constitute > > "professorial laziness". It is unfortunately very easy in an electronic > > forum such as this to write a three-sentence zinger that is completely > > without basis or merit. > > > > Val H. Smith > > > > > > On 1/19/2010 2:29 PM, Meenan, James wrote: > >> Let me see if I have this clear. You criticize students for asking you >> > >> to "just tell me what I need to know" and then you grade their essay >> > >> questions by using a rubric (tell me what I want to hear) that is >> > >> "interpreted" by a GTA. Professorial laziness? > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >> > >> [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Val Smith > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:28 AM > >> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all: Decline in education > >> > >> Dave, you are not being unreasonable at all. The responses that you > >> mention stem from intellectual laziness and/or short-term-oriented > >> learning strategies. I, too, have had my students say, "just tell me > >> what I need to know", and it is very clear that they indeed wish to > >> shovel in the information, play it back to me on an exam, and then >> purge > >> it from their memory banks. The "ideal" of obtaining a broad education > >> is largely irrelevant for a substantial portion of the student > >> population, whose goal is simply to pass their exams and to get > >> acceptable grades /*now*/. > >> > >> They also consistently ask me to prune or restrict the lecture content: > >> if a fact, concept, or idea will not appear on the MCAT, for example, >> it > >> is deemed irrelevant because it does not help with their short-term > >> goals (these same students forget that my General Biology course is > >> required of all Biological Science majors, and not just pre-Health > >> Science majors). This problem is particularly apparent during the > >> general botany and the general ecology portions of my 400-student > >> General Biology class, but I help them to /*see*/ the relevance of this > >> material by, for example, pointing out that the human gut is > >> functionally an ecosystem whose microflora obeys the known principles >> of > >> population and community ecology. One could equally well create > >> teaching slides which refer to the literature that links ecological > >> principles to outbreaks of Lyme disease, or other human pathogens. If > >> you /*show*/ them how and why a key concept or fact is relevant, they > >> are less likely to complain about it. > >> > >> I have stopped pandering to this attitude entirely: I have stuck with > >> question-driven, active learning methods, and I simply accept the > >> increased probability that I will likely receive lower evaluation > >> scores. I also make it very clear within the formal wording of my > >> syllabus that mine is a very demanding and highly interactive class, >> and > >> that all exams will be based upon a mix of multiple choice + short > >> answer + essay questions (even in the 400-student class; we hire GTAs >> to > >> grade the short answer and essay sections of these exams after >> providing > >> each of them with a formal grading rubric). If they choose not to > >> enroll, and wish to wait for a semester when my course has a different > >> professor, then that is their own personal choice. My teaching rigor > >> has not stopped students from nominating me for the best teaching >> awards > >> that KU offers (some of which I have indeed won), confirming that the > >> student population still contains a significant number of students > >> (including pre-Health Science) who really /*do*/ care about learning, > >> and who respect my methods. Thankfully, I have and am completely > >> supported by an Upper Administration at KU that strongly believes in > >> teaching rigor, and thus I do not risk reprisals; I fear that this is > >> not always the case in every U.S. university or college, however. > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> Val Smith > >> University of Kansas > >> > >> > >> On 1/18/2010 2:18 PM, David M. Lawrence wrote: > >> > >>> I watched my evaluation scores decline when I switched to "active > >>> learning." I got tired of lecturing from powerpoints that the > >>> students could memorize, regurgitate on tests, and quickly forget. > >>> > >>> Somehow, it was unreasonable for me to expect the students to show up > >>> for the lectures prepared and willing to participate in class > >>> discussions. It was even more unreasonable for me to refuse to "just > >>> tell us what we need to know," when they couldn't answer very simple > >>> questions that I'd toss out to stimulate discussion. > >>> > >>> It was also unreasonable for me to expect them to ask questions > >>> relevant to the material we discussed in class. I had students > >>> complain they didn't learn anything from me, but it seems to me that > >>> if they weren't asking questions -- either in class, on class > >>> discussion boards, or via e-mail -- they couldn't have been trying > >>> very hard. > >>> > >>> Maybe I am unreasonable... > >>> > >>> Dave > >>> > >>> On 1/18/2010 12:17 PM, James Crants wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Val Smith<vsm...@ku.edu> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I lay much of this decline at the feet of their parents, who seem to > >>>>> care > >>>>> progressively less and less about knowledge. I recall a >>>>> > >>>>> particularly > >>>>> notable incident from over a decade ago, when my youngest daughter's > >>>>> grade > >>>>> school Principal retired. The new Principal unilaterally decided >>>>> > >>>>> that > >>>>> Science Fair projects for grades 2-6 should become completely > >>>>> voluntary, > >>>>> rather than remaining as a formal requirement that had long been > >>>>> embedded in > >>>>> this school's outstanding science preparation curriculum. On the > >>>>> day of the > >>>>> science project evaluations, I expressed dismay about this >>>>> > >>>>> undesirable > >>>>> change to another parent, who at that time was almost 20 years my > >>>>> junior. > >>>>> Her response was to shout across the room to her husband, "John > >>>>> (not his > >>>>> real name), this guy thinks everybody should have to do a science >>>>> > >>>>> fair > >>>>> project, and /that this is all about learning science/!" and she > >>>>> then turned > >>>>> to me to say, "If everyone has to do a project, that lowers the > >>>>> chance that > >>>>> our child will win the Best Science Project award. That's unfair > >>>>> competition." And she walked away. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> As I was reading your post, I was hoping you would mention the role >>>> > >>>> of > >>>> parents in any decline in the quality of the American education. > >>>> > >>>> I think it started with the baby boom. After the Depression and > >>>> World War > >>>> II, parents wanted the best for their children, but by providing the > >>>> best > >>>> materially, many raised children with an inflated sense of > >>>> entitlement and > >>>> self-importance. When these children raised my generation, > >>>> self-esteem was > >>>> seen as the most important quality you could promote in a developing > >>>> mind, > >>>> so many of us grew up feeling even more entitled and important. > >>>> Also, since > >>>> self-important people like today's parents don't respect authority > >>>> figures, > >>>> parents now tend to side with their children over teachers when there > >>>> is a > >>>> student-teacher conflict. Worse, since the entire class is, on >>>> > >>>> average, > >>>> not as prepared as it should be to learn the material you're trying >>>> > >>>> to > >>>> teach, disgruntled students can look to low average performance for >>>> > >>>> the > >>>> whole class to assure themselves that it's your fault if they don't > >>>> get high > >>>> marks. With students and parents both blaming you for low grades, > >>>> and a low > >>>> class average apparently supporting their arguments, it's easiest to > >>>> lower > >>>> your expectations and standards. (And you'll probably get higher > >>>> teaching > >>>> evaluation scores if you do.) When you do, you end up passing on > >>>> students > >>>> who aren't prepared for the next level of education. > >>>> > >>>> I understand the importance of questioning authority, and Wendee > >>>> Holtcamp's > >>>> example of childbirth in American hospitals attests to that > >>>> importance (though I believe the doctors rush the delivery because > >>>> they're > >>>> trained to believe it's best for the patient, not because they put >>>> > >>>> their > >>>> spare time ahead of patient care). However, there's an important > >>>> distinction between questioning authority and assuming authority is > >>>> wrong. > >>>> > >>>> With respect to the original conversation thread, while I certainly > >>>> agree > >>>> that it's a problem that people with the appearance of authority are > >>>> making > >>>> BS claims on television, I don't think that's the only major threat >>>> > >>>> to > >>>> scientific authority. Another threat is the widely-held perception >>>> > >>>> that > >>>> any scientist who thinks they know more than you do about their area > >>>> >>>> of > >>>> expertise is arrogant (and wrong). Because scientific knowledge is > >>>> contingent on future results, scientists sometimes find themselves > >>>> admitting > >>>> that they were wrong about something. Unlike pundits or politicians, > >>>> scientists can't blame some other party, and people will hold onto >>>> > >>>> those > >>>> errors as evidence that we're not as clever as we think we are, so > >>>> they can > >>>> ignore us if they don't like our message. Also, some people just > >>>> don't like > >>>> smart people much, so mistakes made by smart people are cherished as > >>>> proof > >>>> that they aren't so smart after all. > >>>> > >>>> Mind you, I have little evidence for most of the generalities I'm >>>> > >>>> making > >>>> here, but this is just my model of why students seem to be less >>>> > >>>> prepared > >>>> than they used to and why scientific authority doesn't get the >>>> > >>>> respect I > >>>> think it should. > >>>> > >>>> Jim Crants > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > ========================================= > RK Bangert, Post-Doctoral Fellow > Biological Sciences > Idaho State University > > contact address: > P.O. 335 > Mancos, CO 81328 > SKYPE Phone: 303-872-7734 > bangr...@isu.edu > http://www.isu.edu/~bangrand/RKB/Home.html > ========================================= _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2636 - Release Date: 01/21/10 07:34:00
