Although I probably have said my piece on this issue and should let it go at that, Edward raises another point that has puzzled me about Louis' posts and a few others. A kind of sanctification of college students emerges from some of these posts, a dewy idealized vision reminiscent of late-19th century changes in the view of children and childhood. Being a teacher of college students is portrayed somewhat similarly to working as a missionary among striving innocents with boundless needs, who have entrusted themselves into the care of a humble servant who lives only to enrich the infinitely worthy spiritual and intellectual core of his or her flock.
The teaching profession itself is similarly lionized, with the process of transmission from teacher to student portrayed in hushed and reverent tones. I have to say, as a teacher of martial arts and music as well as a college instructor--and as a Buddhist and former Zen Buddhist--I am a person who deeply respects teaching, teachers, and the entire teaching process. I probably have more respect and reverence for teachers than any number of others (certainly substantially more than the average student). However....there is teaching and then there is teaching. The conditions under which students enroll in modern universities and colleges, their motivations, attitudes, expectations, and so forth; the way in which classes are currently structured, teachers hired and fired (e.g. the contingent faculty scandal); the moving to the fore of the commercial and industrial aspects of the university enterprise, at the expense of more commonly understood purposes for the existence of higher education institutions; and so forth---all this creates conditions quite different than would apply in a situation such as that facing a person who enters ballet or karate training, or who seeks to learn a music instrument, a spiritual practice, or sincerely wishes to better him or herself in some way by the acquisition of new knowledge and skills. Quite simply, under current university conditions it seems egregiously inappropriate even to aspire to "know all one's students concerns." Claims that one actually does know one's students' real concerns at least must be examined for the possibility of self-delusional content. One may think of oneself as carrying out a noble mandate in the classroom, but if students think otherwise, are not sitting in their seats to learn what you have to teach but are there for other reasons which I shall not enumerate at the risk of seeming to be cynical, then to portray this entire enterprise as though we were talking about Yale in the 1930s, Dunbar High School in Washington DC at the turn of the century, one-room school houses for freed slaves during restoration, or any number of institutions past or present where passionate teachers do their level best to impart-- and students their level best to receive--then the portrait painted lacks verisimilitude, the colors are cheesy, and the whole canvas smacks of kitsch. Make it a great day, everyone. Listen to Thelonious Monk. Paul Okami ----- Original Message ----- From: Pollak, Edward To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:01 AM Subject: [tips] RE: Random Thought: A Quickie on Caring Just out of curiosity, Louis, how many students do you have each semester in your 4 sections of US History? I have 150 students in my 1 section of intro psych and another 120 in my two sections of animal behavior. And, of course, I've got about 75 undergraduate advisees. (And no, I do not have a TA.) Do I know the cares and concerns of each student? Of course not!!! Could I even if I tried? Not a chance. Do I even want to? Not really. I think it's just fine that you try to learn the cares & concerns of your students but I'm betting that your classes are small enough to permit that only because there are guys like me who are willing to carry the load of very large classes so that the university can afford to let you teach smaller classes. And I am certainly NOT trying to imply that I do more work than you. I'm quite certain that you devote far more time to each student than do I. I am suggesting that the total amount of time evens out and that each of us serves in our own way. The reason people get so annoyed at posts such as this one is that it implies that what you do is more valuable than a) what others do and that b) students would be better off if we were all Schmier clones. I'm only suggesting that a) what you do, while valuable, isn't necessarily better and that b) not only would students not necessarily be better off with a campus full of Schmiers, many students could not afford to even attend the university because the cost of all those small (Schmierean) classes would make it prohibitively expensive. I think you might engender less hostility on this list if you spent even half the time trying to understand the problems of your colleagues that you spend trying to understand the problem of your students. Ed Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Department of Psychology West Chester University of Pennsylvania http://mywebpages.comcast.net/epollak/home.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Husband, father, grandfather, biopsychologist, bluegrass fiddler and herpetoculturist...... in approximate order of importance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Random Thought: A Quickie on Caring From: "Louis Schmier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:01:08 -0400 X-Message-Number: 1 You say you care about each student. Do you know each student? Do you know the cares and concerns of each student? Make it a good day. --Louis-- --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english __________ NOD32 2125 (20070318) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
