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.