Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Death and Classes

It’s that time of the semester again. Students have turned into unwashed zombies, professors rush through their last lessons, and the library is still crowded at 3 am. Most find themselves staring at blank computer screens, silently willing their three papers into existence. The motivation, the will to learn, just isn’t there anymore (assuming, of course, it ever was). Why are students so burnt out? Is it their own laziness finally catching up to them? Does the tempting, distracting sunshine destroy even the best intentions of getting any serious work done? I won’t argue that many students dig their own graves, but more often than not egoistical, harmful pedagogical practices force students into this premature death.

We’ve all had those professors. The class huddles silently and fearfully together, trying their best to absorb the technical and often dull lecture, too intimidated to ask or answer questions. Exams are impossible, essays are graded as if they were professional papers, and more and more students disappear as the semester trudges onwards. Those with a legitimate interest in the subject, who put in the effort and complete all the work, are not rewarded for their efforts and are often discouraged from continuing in the course or the discipline. Worse yet, when they approach the professor for help (an extremely difficult task for anyone), they are often mocked and told to give up their academic or professional goals. This mockery can in no way be construed as friendly advice. The professor instead glories in his/her intellectual status, crushing the student out of sheer egotism.

Many professors cite the need to “weed out” those students who will not be able to advance in the field (this phenomenon seems to be concentrated in the sciences, although I’m sure it occurs in other areas as well). I’ve never understood this logic. There is no way you can look at a 19 year old, a teenager who hasn’t completed his or her mental development, and accurately predict the limits of his/her intellectual capability or interests. The goal of an undergraduate education is to explore different subjects, expand one’s mind, and find the courage to be creative and take intellectual risks. Instead of fostering intellectual confidence and creativity, however, “weed out” classes needlessly destroy the interests and ambitions of many bright people. Leave the intellectual hazing for graduate school, please.

Not only do these types of professors damage their students, they also hurt their fellow faculty members. Students end up putting disproportionate amounts of time into one or two courses, struggling to meet impossible expectations. They simply do not have the time or mental energy to focus on their other courses and as a result turn up to class exhausted, if they indeed show up at all instead of spending class in the library, frantically trying to complete the work for other courses. The professors who don’t have a death wish for all of their students, who try to encourage actual learning, often don’t get as much effort put into their courses simply because students don’t have time. This, I think, is quite a shame, for it is these professors that are the ones who inspire their students to wrestle with the material and mature intellectually.

I am by no means advocating overly simplistic, hand-holding pedagogical techniques (these happen to annoy me even more than the overly harsh professors), nor am I trying to place the responsibility for one’s academic choices and growth away from students. Instead, I would like to suggest that instead of glorifying those professors with low GPA’s and sleep-deprived, miserable classes, we should question whether such practices really help students learn.

8 comments:

The maiden said...

The longer I stay in this game, the more I think that the whole system of higher education in this country needs overhauling. Just a few items on my dream wishlist: no more tenure; no more academic ranks; no more esoteric publication expectation; no more ivy tower snobbishness; no more assignation of grades by one person (i.e., the 'professor'); no more majors (although still areas of concentration); no more classes--nothing but seminars, in which all participants are teachers and students.

The maiden said...

PS--oh yeah, and this: health permitting, I think it should be a higher education expectation that faculty and students will spend one full semester in every four OUTSIDE of the academy. Colleges and universities should set up agencies that locate students and faculty in alternative venue, and those venue should primarily be service-oriented.

Anonymous said...

There is no way you can look at a 19 year old, a teenager who hasn’t completed his or her mental development, and accurately predict the limits of his/her intellectual capability or interests.

Extremely deep insight. Wouldst it were shared by others.

Incompetent Copier said...

Deacon,
Thanks for the comment! Ideally the institution of higher education just wouldn't be necessary, and we could instead discuss and mutually explore our intellectual interests. Unfortunately, I fear this isn't feasible. I enjoy the idea of linking education with outside/"real world" experiences, particularly service, but I'm not quite sure why this link needs to be formed by an institution and not from purely personal experience.

Stev egg,
Thanks, I'm glad you're enjoying our blog (mis)adventures thus far!

The maiden said...

Oh, and one more thing. Minimal books, at least in subjects like philosophy. Philosophy majors would be constrained to reading, say, 1 philosophy book a semester, and philosophy faculty would be constrained to writing no more than one book a decade. We would actually DO philosophy instead of reading about guys doing philosophy.

quaker j said...

We should probably just have conversations instead of writing summaries of philosophical texts... it'd be much more interesting, and applicable, don't you think?

Incompetent Copier said...

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, quakerj. Obviously discussion is an incredibly important part of learning, one which should be utilized more, but learning to express oneself clearly and effectively in writing is just as important and probably more applicable. The act of writing can help you clarify your opinions and bring insights that you hadn't considered, even if you're just rehearsing the philosopher's argument (which in most cases you're not).

Anonymous said...

I honestly believe the system is backward. The students should grade the professor. The concept of weeding out students is abhorrent if you really think about it. In an ideal world, any academic discipline would strive to get as many people involved as possible, lesser and greater minds. More human energy, more progress, but the evidence would say the opposite. They have created a cabal for their own needs, students are just sifted to find like thinkers, and absorbed, the rest are fleeced, and released.