jk0@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin,221 Rey,,) (12/09/88)
Enough professors now (like try to find one who hasn't!) have stated that they feel their courses and the books that they use have degenerated, and they attribute this degeneration to their students. So what's really happening here? Are all the professors wrong? Do the professors expect too much of us today? Or is it really the students? And if it IS the students, what's happened? Is it a loss of motivation (, and just what are we motivated to do these days)? I think this is a VERY important issue which needs to be addressed, and maybe solved? Now listen, DON'T flame me because of the questions! This is the beginning of a discussion. I'm not giving any answers here, but rather I'm pulling out some questions. The end-goal for all of us is to determine what happened to our academic integrity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Coughlin BITNET: jk0@clutx ARPA : jk0@clutx.clarkson.edu
johnm@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) (12/09/88)
In article <1887@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, jk0@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin,221 Rey,,) writes: > ....(profs) feel their courses and the books that they use have degenerated, > and they attribute this degeneration to their students. . . . . > . . . is it really the students? And if it IS the students, > what's happened? Is it a loss of motivation (, and just what are we > motivated to do these days)? . . . . > . . . . The end-goal for all of us is to determine > what happened to our academic integrity. The answer to what has happened to academic integrity appears in another posting to this newsgroup. > From: gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) > Message-ID: <15338@joyce.istc.sri.com> > I took a class called Social Psychology in my senior year. . . . > . . . . at the first class meeting, the > professor passed a sheet around that you could sign which would > guarantee you an A if you did not attend any more classes. However, > you forfeited your guaranteed A (you had to take the final and earn it > instead) if you returned to class. Absolutly incredible!!! And some professors have the audacity to blame the students for degeneration and loss of motivation! - John M. (My own opinions, etc.)
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (12/09/88)
In article <1887@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, jk0@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin,221 Rey,,) writes: > > Enough professors now (like try to find one who hasn't!) have stated > that they feel their courses and the books that they use have degenerated, > and they attribute this degeneration to their students. So what's really > happening here? Are all the professors wrong? Do the professors expect too > much of us today? Or is it really the students? And if it IS the students, > what's happened? Is it a loss of motivation (, and just what are we > motivated to do these days)? I think this is a VERY important issue which > needs to be addressed, and maybe solved? 1. The courses have degenerated. I do not trust the students coming out of a mathematics course to know the manipulations presented, not to say the concepts. It is too easy to confirm that this is the rule. I am not saying that things were good N years ago, but one could expect the students who had the calculus course to be able to do the manipulations 1-2 years later in a course with an explicit calculus prerequisite even on an in-class exam then, but cannot get it on a take-home exam now. 2. I believe that the major reason for this is that the teachers of mathematics courses have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by the claims of the educationists. The major one of these claims is that it is unimportant what is learned in the course is essentially irrelevant, and only for the purpose of getting a relative standing. Also, even this is not important. 3. It is not just a problem of mathematics, but the idea that one learns for the future, and not just for the grade in the current class, seems to have disappeared. People are taught how to study for grades, but not how to learn the material. It is possible to put enough in short-term memory to get an A on a regurgitation exam. Thus 4. There is pressure to examine the trivia. At the college level, this means that methods of routine manipulation are emphasized on examinations. One reason for doing this is that the examinations are easy to grade. Concepts cannot be tested on multiple choice examinations. It is more time-consuming to read through the work to see if the method was essentially correct, but a minor arithmetical error gave the wrong answer. 5. The teachers at the elementary and secondary levels can only teach plug-and-chug operations. Even proofs are memorized. The students expect such, and object to a teacher even mentioning anything else. They consider it an intolerable imposition on them if an examination question is given which cannot be done by following exactly the steps of a problem in class. There is resentment of taking class time to give an understanding of the material. Any statement made by the teacher is at least implicitly challenged by "Is this going to be on the final?" Not whether it will help in doing the exams, but whether it will be explicitly on the exams. 6. At the college level, it is politically difficult to require that the students have knowledge prerequisites. That someone got A's in their high school mathematics courses is no guarantee that s/he know anything from high school mathematics. That someone got an A in last term's calculus course is no guarantee that the material of that course can be used in this one. I have advocated that knowledge prerequisites be used, and that remedial courses be provided, and even taught with the understanding that, while it may be on the students' records, some of the students may not even have seen the relevant material. 7. Emphasize "word" problems. I would make the ability to formulate word problems at the high school algebra level of arbitrary length THE mathematics requirement for non-remedial entrance to college. And do not make the mistake of teaching or expecting parsimony in the use of variables. The high school algebra courses do much damage by asking the students to formulate problems in one variable. 8. Encourage students to think, and to ask questions. "The only stupid question is the one which is not asked." Encourage reasoning. Encourage the recognition of structure; while it is sometimes necessary to look at the trees, it is important to see the forest. This is not limited to mathematics. 9. We can, and should, teach concepts without manipulation. The concepts and the manipulations are largely separate. The student who has the impression that antidifferentiation is integration cannot learn the easy concept of integral, which can be taught at the high school algebra level. Facility with arithmetic calculations does not help in learning the structure of the integers; I think it can interfere. Whether Johnny can add is not particularly important; what is important is whether Johnny knows what addition means, and when to add. 10. We must fight the attempts to reduce out courses to what the badly- taught students want. Can a student judge the quality of teaching in a course, especially if the student does not have the prerequisites? Can a student steeped in plug-and-chug appreciate the importance of learning concepts? Should the evaluations by such students be considered in deciding promotion, salary, and tenure? At least 10 more paragraphs can be written. The situation is BAD. Our Ph.D. programs are now dominated by foreign students, because the American ones do not exist. I have put forth some suggestions. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (12/10/88)
In article <ddb7N72f2g1010RKML2@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >> From: gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) >> Message-ID: <15338@joyce.istc.sri.com> >> I took a class called Social Psychology in my senior year. . . . >> . . . . at the first class meeting, the >> professor passed a sheet around that you could sign which would >> guarantee you an A if you did not attend any more classes. However, >> you forfeited your guaranteed A (you had to take the final and earn it >> instead) if you returned to class. > >Absolutly incredible!!! And some professors have the audacity to blame >the students for degeneration and loss of motivation! This sounds not like the prof saying "don't bother me", but rather like an ultimatum: you can learn something, or you can learn nothing. If you really want to learn nothing, just get the credit, I'll oblige you right now. Otherwise, I assume you want to learn something. How many people signed that list? I bet most felt pretty uncomfortable about it. (A psych professor should be good at that!) -- -Colin (uunet!microsof!w-colinp)
bgt@homxc.UUCP (B.TONGUE) (12/10/88)
In article <1887@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, jk0@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin,221 Rey,,) writes: > > Enough professors now (like try to find one who hasn't!) have stated > that they feel their courses and the books that they use have degenerated, > and they attribute this degeneration to their students. Before I add my 2 cents' worth of opinion, I'd like to give a bit of background on myself and my career. I was a math major from Rutgers University, class of '86, founded the Rutgers University Math Club, and obtained gainful employment from Tandy/Radio Shack (computer marketer, lasted 3 months 2 days - I can't sell my way out of a wet paper bag,) The Prudential (financial consultant - read "insurance marketer,") back to the Shack as a Senior Systems Engineer/Educational Support Specialist, to my current (and hopefully last!) position as a systems designer for AT&T Bell Labs. The article to which I'm replying contains issues that the Rutgers Math Club tried to address, some with success and some woefully without. > So what's really > happening here? Are all the professors wrong? Do the professors expect too > much of us today? Or is it really the students? And if it IS the students, > what's happened? Is it a loss of motivation (, and just what are we > motivated to do these days)? I think this is a VERY important issue which > needs to be addressed, and maybe solved? > I was of the opinion then, and I am still of the opinion now, that the majority of students in the general sciences courses are for the most part just plain apathetic. Many students approach mathematics as a subject to be passed and buried as quickly as possible; after all, corporations today aren't exactly beating down the doors of math majors, thus not giving an incentive for proficiency to the graduates of tomorrow. This is wrong, for I've discovered that it wasn't the formulas I memorized which helped me in my career today, but instead the patterns of logical deduction upon which mathematics is built. But is that aspect emphasized to the students? This brings up another question. *Should* it be emphasized? If a student lacks motivation to learn for the sheer joy of education, why should professors extend themselves pointlessly? One of the major complaints from students is the eons-old adage, "Publish or Perish" - often this happens at the expense of the students. I think we will all agree that both teaching and research is important, but has there ever been a case of a professor obtaining tenure because he makes mathematics come alive for the students while at the same time publishing nil? On the other hand, has a tremendous researcher ever *failed* to obtain tenure, even when his students suffer from his lack of commitment in the area of education? This is a double-edged sword. The potential is there, but it cannot be solely the professor's duty to offer support - students must be receptive as well. I remember one of my professors offering extended office hours after 1/2 half of the class failed the first hourly (senior-level course) - not one person showed up! Great incentive for a continued interest in "reaching" the students! One of my meetings concerned "Departmental Policies - voice your concerns!" Six students showed up, and four of us were the officers! With those kind of conditions, it's under- standable that professors at times believe the students couldn't care less - it's admirably demonstrated time and time again. There has to be a time when a student takes responsibility for their own education; they have to give as much as does the professor. But how can that be communicated? And when will universities place upon student education the same emphasis that is bestowed upon research? -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% The Speaking Tongue, AT&T %% C Code. C Code Run. Run, Code, RUN! %% %% (..att!..)homxc!ela0!bgt %% PLEASE!!!! %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (12/10/88)
In article <1057@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >3. It is not just a problem of mathematics, but the idea that one learns for >the future, and not just for the grade in the current class, seems to have >disappeared. While I think I have a feeling for what is meant here, I must admit that, in many ways, even 20+ years ago when I was in college, the purpose of learning was pretty vague. College faculty did not make a big deal of why you were learning, except, of course, to go on to the next degree program. So, if you wanted to be critical, it was a self-serving image presented. I never felt it was that, as I loved to study and learn, and faculty encouraged me greatly and life was great. However, I did NOT sense any great direction from them when I participated in general class situations, i.e., they were encouraging to me personally but pretty vague about why you were there in an open class situation. Love of learning sort of came through, but no sense of future. >5. The teachers at the elementary and secondary levels can only teach >plug-and-chug operations. Even proofs are memorized. The students expect >such, and object to a teacher even mentioning anything else. They consider >it an intolerable imposition on them if an examination question is given >which cannot be done by following exactly the steps of a problem in class. >There is resentment of taking class time to give an understanding of the >material. Any statement made by the teacher is at least implicitly >challenged by "Is this going to be on the final?" Not whether it will >help in doing the exams, but whether it will be explicitly on the exams. This was true when I was a graduate assistant 20 years ago, too. >6. At the college level, it is politically difficult to require that the >students have knowledge prerequisites. That someone got A's in their high >school mathematics courses is no guarantee that s/he know anything from >high school mathematics. That someone got an A in last term's calculus >course is no guarantee that the material of that course can be used in this >one. I have advocated that knowledge prerequisites be used, and that >remedial courses be provided, and even taught with the understanding that, >while it may be on the students' records, some of the students may not even >have seen the relevant material. I tried to solve this by having my own standards for what had to be known. If someone was lacking, as a teacher, I tried to help them make it up. But there were always limits, and I pointed this out to people. I made it clear to those supervising me (as a graduate assistant) what I expected and they always felt comfortable with it. If a student complained about the help I was able to give, the supervising faculty checked it out. I never had to explain myself and the student ended up getting the message. Perhaps I was just lucky, but I established what I expected and made the faculty feel comfortable with that. As I noted in another posting, I also let people know at the very outset what they would have to know -- at least as far as it was under my power to tell them -- for the end of term exam. I never suggested they not attend class. No one ever tried to do so and just show up for tests. (Yes, I did have people drop-out, but nothing dramatic. And it was usually over other problems.) >8. Encourage students to think, and to ask questions. "The only stupid >question is the one which is not asked." Encourage reasoning. Encourage >the recognition of structure; while it is sometimes necessary to look at >the trees, it is important to see the forest. This is not limited to >mathematics. I tried REALLY hard as a graduate assistant to do this. Not having control over some final and mid-term exams made this hard. Even I didn't know what might be asked, so it was hard to not "cover the material" in some sense. >10. We must fight the attempts to reduce out courses to what the badly- >taught students want. Can a student judge the quality of teaching in a >course, especially if the student does not have the prerequisites? Can >a student steeped in plug-and-chug appreciate the importance of learning >concepts? Should the evaluations by such students be considered in >deciding promotion, salary, and tenure? This was a controversy years ago and it seems it has not changed. I am pretty ignorant about where this stands today. What power do students have over things? >At least 10 more paragraphs can be written. The situation is BAD. Our >Ph.D. programs are now dominated by foreign students, because the >American ones do not exist. I have put forth some suggestions. Is this suggesting something wrong with having good foreign students. If the point is to bemoan the state of public education in this country, I think a better way to express it could have been found. It sounds like the aim is to be sure "foreign students" don't "dominate" us rather than to just worry about improving our educational practices. (sorry if I'm wrong but it sounds like a condemnation of foreign students.) Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (201-699-3910 (w) 201-463-3683 (h))
c60a-2di@e260-4b.berkeley.edu (The Cybermat Rider) (12/10/88)
NOTE: Although I'm studying at Berkeley now, I spent the previous years of my education under the British system in Singapore (General Certificate Examinations and all that). As such, the comments that I'll be making below are from the standpoint of a DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. No one has to agree with them - they're just the way things are in my home country. I'm also NOT TRYING TO SUGGEST CHANGES TO THE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM! Educational institutions here enjoy a MUCH GREATER autonomy than Singaporean ones, particularly with respect to exams and grading. As such, any suggestions I post will probably be impossible to apply (and are likely to draw flames, too :-) With that in mind, let us proceed to THE MEAT OF THE DISCUSSION: In article <12483@bellcore.bellcore.com> duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: >In article <1057@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >>3. It is not just a problem of mathematics, but the idea that one learns for >>the future, and not just for the grade in the current class, seems to have >>disappeared. > >While I think I have a feeling for what is meant here, I must admit that, in >many ways, even 20+ years ago when I was in college, the purpose of learning >was pretty vague. College faculty did not make a big deal of why you were >learning, except, of course, to go on to the next degree program. So, if you >wanted to be critical, it was a self-serving image presented. I never felt >it was that, as I loved to study and learn, and faculty encouraged me greatly >and life was great. However, I did NOT sense any great direction from them >when I participated in general class situations, i.e., they were encouraging >to me personally but pretty vague about why you were there in an open class >situation. Love of learning sort of came through, but no sense of future. In Singapore, on the other hand, there is a definite pressure on students to excel - a kind of educational "meritocracy" (not very suitable, but I can't think of a better word right now) brought about by the harsh realities of later employment. (It has been said that engineering students had better aim for AT LEAST A MASTER'S DEGREE in order to be assured of a good job, and in certain fields, even THAT is not enough - the competition is JUST TOO FIERCE!). As a consequence, the general philosophy among students is: "If I wanna get a good job and live fairly comfortably for the rest of my life, I'd better work REAL HARD NOW and study to the best of my abilities." This attitude seems to pervade from elementary school right up to university level. Not the ideal reason for learning, I'll grant you that, but it DOES seem to be VERY EFFECTIVE - students are more concerned with GENERAL PRINCIPLES rather than specific methods (perhaps partly through the constant drumming of the above into our thick skulls by our beloved teachers :-) Which is not to say, of course, that there are those who LOVE learning...... >>5. The teachers at the elementary and secondary levels can only teach >>plug-and-chug operations. Even proofs are memorized. The students expect >>such, and object to a teacher even mentioning anything else. They consider >>it an intolerable imposition on them if an examination question is given >>which cannot be done by following exactly the steps of a problem in class. >>There is resentment of taking class time to give an understanding of the >>material. Any statement made by the teacher is at least implicitly >>challenged by "Is this going to be on the final?" Not whether it will >>help in doing the exams, but whether it will be explicitly on the exams. > >This was true when I was a graduate assistant 20 years ago, too. But it's not true in the British system. Demonstrated proofs are used as EXAMPLES of general problem-solving techniques, and a student can be at least 95% sure that the problems presented will NOT appear in the exams in any immediately recognizable form. >>6. At the college level, it is politically difficult to require that the >>students have knowledge prerequisites. That someone got A's in their high >>school mathematics courses is no guarantee that s/he know anything from >>high school mathematics. That someone got an A in last term's calculus >>course is no guarantee that the material of that course can be used in this >>one. I have advocated that knowledge prerequisites be used, and that >>remedial courses be provided, and even taught with the understanding that, >>while it may be on the students' records, some of the students may not even >>have seen the relevant material. > >..... > > As I noted in another posting, I also >let people know at the very outset what they would have to know -- at least >as far as it was under my power to tell them -- for the end of term exam. I >never suggested they not attend class. No one ever tried to do so and just >show up for tests. (Yes, I did have people drop-out, but nothing dramatic. >And it was usually over other problems.) We do it on a larger scale - students are provided at the outset with a DETAILED SYLLABUS (common to all institutions within the British Commonwealth), so we are able to do a LOT of self-study, the better ones even MOVING BEYOND the guidelines provided. >>At least 10 more paragraphs can be written. The situation is BAD. Our >>Ph.D. programs are now dominated by foreign students, because the >>American ones do not exist. I have put forth some suggestions. > >Is this suggesting something wrong with having good foreign students. If the >point is to bemoan the state of public education in this country, I think a >better way to express it could have been found. It sounds like the aim is to >be sure "foreign students" don't "dominate" us rather than to just worry >about improving our educational practices. (sorry if I'm wrong but it sounds >like a condemnation of foreign students.) I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but I've just come from a Math lecture, and I was TAKEN ABACK at the majority of questions asked during the review session for the finals: "Is topic XXX gonna come out for the finals?" and (my personal favorite) "What do we have to know about YYY?" (EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN TAUGHT, obviously!) There have been rumors (note that - RUMORS!!!) circulating amongst Singaporean students that some American universities plan to impose quota restrictions against foreign students. If this is true (I hope FOR ALL OUR SAKES it isn't), such a measure WOULD NOT HELP AMERICAN STUDENTS AT ALL!!!!! The solution is not to reduce/eliminate foreign competition, but TO MAKE LOCAL STUDENTS MORE COMPETITIVE. I hope my point is taken. > >Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... >Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) > (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) > (201-699-3910 (w) 201-463-3683 (h)) And for myself (and my multiple personas), ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Ho a.k.a. The Cybermat Rider University of California, Berkeley c60a-2di@web.berkeley.edu Disclaimer: Nobody takes me seriously, so is it really necessary?
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (12/10/88)
In article <42@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >This sounds not like the prof saying "don't bother me", but rather like an >ultimatum: you can learn something, or you can learn nothing. If you really >want to learn nothing, just get the credit, I'll oblige you right now. >Otherwise, I assume you want to learn something. > >How many people signed that list? I bet most felt pretty uncomfortable >about it. (A psych professor should be good at that!) Well there's at least one degenerate solution to that problem that I can see, which is the reason I would instantly sign my name to the list and leave the room with no guilt whatsoever (unless I thought the material were extremely interesting, which wouldn't be the case for an intro social psych class). The solution I have in mind would be to sign the list, and spend the time I would otherwise have spent on the class reading, probably some of the same literature that I'm missing by merit of not majoring in english (or whatever). So the professor has overlooked one possibility if the above caricature is accurate, which is that you can take the option, and still learn something. This might not be what any actual person would do, including myself, but the implied assumption behind the professor's thinking is that students are incapable of learning on their own. Either that, or the professor is simply acknowledging that he/she feels that whatever administrative screwup forces students to take the course against their will is stupid, in which case it's more of a friendly gesture. In either case, I'd probably take the option, unless I were actually interested in taking the course. -Dan
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/10/88)
In article <4526@homxc.UUCP> bgt@homxc.UUCP (B.TONGUE) writes: >why should professors extend themselves pointlessly? One of the >major complaints from students is the eons-old adage, "Publish >or Perish" - often this happens at the expense of the students. This is sometimes true, but MUCH less than you think. Read on. >I think we will all agree that both teaching and research is >important, but has there ever been a case of a professor obtaining >tenure because he makes mathematics come alive for the students >while at the same time publishing nil? Unfortunately, yes (as long as "nil" is defined to be "much less than what is usually required"). I know a couple of cases. It's good that they were inspiring, but in each case, the inspiration was more a question of personality than of someone who truly interested the students in mathematics. If the professor is himself/herself interested in mathematics, then he/she in most cases will do research. Maybe not a lot, but much more than the "nil" we are talking about above. >On the other hand, has >a tremendous researcher ever *failed* to obtain tenure, even >when his students suffer from his lack of commitment in the >area of education? Believe it or not, this has happened in several cases that I know of -- though your scenario happens too, unfortunately. >professor. But how can that be communicated? And when will >universities place upon student education the same emphasis >that is bestowed upon research? I don't know about the word "same" here, but believe me, the university (at least those I have been associated with) DOES care about teaching. You would be amazed to see a group of faculty talking together; generally they get MUCH more animated and excited when the conversation turns to teaching, than to research. In fact, what's even more amazing is that even those faculty who are the poorest teachers express a real interest in those discussions. Ideally, research and teaching activities should complement each other. Of course, we don't meet the ideal, but I claim that we DO approximate it. Norm
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/10/88)
In article <18107@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> c60a-2di@e260-4b.berkeley.edu (The Cybermat Rider) writes: >There have been rumors (note that - RUMORS!!!) circulating amongst >Singaporean students that some American universities plan to impose quota >restrictions against foreign students. If this is true (I hope FOR ALL OUR >SAKES it isn't), Adrian, UC already has such restrictions. NOW NOTE CAREFULLY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ***FOREIGN*** STUDENTS, NOT NON-WHITE AMERICANS. Here at UC Davis, there is a restriction of 25% for FOREIGN engineering students, though the administration lets this slide to about 35%. There is a similar restriction at UCB; I don't know the numerics of it, but I do know that they have been giving heavy preference to domestic students in the last 2 years. Again, this is for FOREIGN students. It does NOT apply to U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Even someone with a newly minted green card is classified as domestic. Any brand-new immigrant, whether from Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Singapore or wherever, is classified as domestic, and does not get subjected to the above quotas. UC is a state institution. The legislature held hearings about 3 years ago, and felt that the proportion of foreign students was too high for an institution supported by tax monies. I felt this was shortsighted (I even called the Legislative Analyst about it), because almost all the foreign engineering students get hired by U.S. companies and become (taxpaying Americans), but I think the legislature does have a point. Norm
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (12/10/88)
In article <18121@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) writes: > In article <18107@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> c60a-2di@e260-4b.berkeley.edu (The Cybermat Rider) writes: > > >There have been rumors (note that - RUMORS!!!) circulating amongst > >Singaporean students that some American universities plan to impose quota > >restrictions against foreign students. If this is true (I hope FOR ALL OUR > >SAKES it isn't), Unfortunately, a few are doing this. In some cases, this is done in such a way that the large numbers of American students in those fields which do not have many foreign applicants (such as education) can be used to balance the totals. In other areas, there are large numbers of American students intersted in terminal Master's degrees, and they can be counted. For example, at Purdue we have a dead-end Applied Master's degree in statistics; the only foreign students we support in this program are those who fail in the Ph.D. program. About 1/3 of our students are American students in this program. Another example is Computer Science, where I have been told by some of our faculty that most Ph.D. students are foreign, but there is a large number of American students wanting an M.S. > Adrian, UC already has such restrictions. NOW NOTE CAREFULLY THAT WE > ARE TALKING ABOUT ***FOREIGN*** STUDENTS, NOT NON-WHITE AMERICANS. > > Here at UC Davis, there is a restriction of 25% for FOREIGN engineering > students, though the administration lets this slide to about 35%. There > is a similar restriction at UCB; I don't know the numerics of it, but I > do know that they have been giving heavy preference to domestic students > in the last 2 years. Since WWII, most of the strong Ph.D. programs in statistics have been dominated by foreign student. This has not been the situation in mathematics until recently, but the proportion of American Ph.D.s in mathematics from American universities has dropped from 80% ten years ago to 50%. In mathematics, Purdue is ranked in the top 25 institutions. The recent admissions to the Ph.D. program are about 85% foreign. The American students do not exist. It is not necessary to use quotas to protect the American students. I believe that the Ph.D. programs in engineering are more than half foreign. The only thing that quotas can do is to require the wasting of money on weak students who will flunk out anyhow. > Again, this is for FOREIGN students. It does NOT apply to U.S. citizens > or permanent residents. Even someone with a newly minted green card is > classified as domestic. Any brand-new immigrant, whether from Hong Kong, > China, Taiwan, Singapore or wherever, is classified as domestic, and does > not get subjected to the above quotas. > > UC is a state institution. The legislature held hearings about 3 years > ago, and felt that the proportion of foreign students was too high for > an institution supported by tax monies. I felt this was shortsighted > (I even called the Legislative Analyst about it), because almost all > the foreign engineering students get hired by U.S. companies and become > (taxpaying Americans), but I think the legislature does have a point. > > Norm -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) (12/11/88)
In article <1057@l.cc.purdue.edu>, cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > In article <1887@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, jk0@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin,221 Rey,,) writes: > > > > what's happened? Is it a loss of motivation (, and just what are we > > motivated to do these days)? I think this is a VERY important issue which > > needs to be addressed, and maybe solved? > > 1. The courses have degenerated. > ... Alright, I agree with all that has been said but when I try to get help from the local school district they throw up smoke-screens and point at improved scores (over last year). If pressed, they become defensive and want to blame me (the parent). There is such a "protect our bureaucracy" attitude that they called me "intolerate" because I wanted to know what they would do about the general state of affairs. Either these people are lying through there teeth or they aren't smart enough to see (I don't know which) that they contradict themselves with every defense. They are quite happy to continue as usual and would rather go to court to fight the law than to attempt real improvement. Tell me something that I can do that will shake them into wanting to do what's right instead of what's easy. If I provide an address for the school district, can I get 100 or so people to send letters expressing their concern for the state of affairs? Lots of public pressure is the only thing that I can think of that could break through their stagnation. -- -- #_\_@\\/\_@\\/\_@\ Charles Brunow Loci Products # /--u// --u// --o/ clb@loci.UUCP POB 833846-131 # _ __ _ _ __ __ __ ..!uunet!texbell!loci!clb Richardson, Texas 75083
lady@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Lee Lady) (12/11/88)
In article <4526@homxc.UUCP> bgt@homxc.UUCP (B.TONGUE) writes: >In article <1887@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, jk0@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin,221 Rey,,) writes: >> >> So what's really >> happening here? Are all the professors wrong? Do the professors expect too >> much of us today? Or is it really the students? And if it IS the students, >> what's happened? Is it a loss of motivation (, and just what are we >> motivated to do these days)? I think this is a VERY important issue which >> needs to be addressed, and maybe solved? > >I was of the opinion then, and I am still of the opinion now, that the >majority of students in the general sciences courses are for the most >part just plain apathetic. Many students approach mathematics as a >subject to be passed and buried as quickly as possible; [deleted material] > This is wrong, for I've discovered that it wasn't the >formulas I memorized which helped me in my career today, but instead >the patterns of logical deduction upon which mathematics is >built. But is that aspect emphasized to the students? > >This brings up another question. *Should* it be emphasized? >If a student lacks motivation to learn for the sheer joy of education, >why should professors extend themselves pointlessly? > >This is a double-edged sword. The potential is there, but it >cannot be solely the professor's duty to offer support - students >must be receptive as well. > >There has to be a time when a student takes responsibility for >their own education; they have to give as much as does the >professor. But how can that be communicated? Complaining about students is a favorite pastime for faculty. Just as students like to complain about professors, businessmen like to complain about employees, and farmers complain about the weather. There's a certain comfort in fruitless complaining about the environmental variables in one's life, in playing the victim. "How can I do a good job when this is the material I'm given to work with?" Like the sculptor complaining that his stone is too hard, or the violinist complaining about the music the composer wrote. Students and faculty have amazingly idealistic expectations of each other, and it is amazing how reciprocal these are. If I come to class unprepared one day, students think I'm totally irresponsible and inept. If I were to explain that I was at a fantasic party the night before and that having a good time took precedence over being ready for my students, they would be totally outraged and write letters to the campus newspaper about the unfairness of the tenure system that prevents me from being fired immediately. Hey, I got to tell you guys, there are lots of times when it's just a job! When I'm in the classroom teaching some grungy statistics course, I'm counting the days to the end of the semester just like my students are. You think this makes me a villain? Just take a little survey among the faculty you know: How many of them would teach if they didn't get paid for it? I do my teaching, do a fairly good job, and earn my salary. When a student's main interest in my class is to earn whatever grade is acceptable to her, I totally sympathize. It wasn't her idea to take the course, after all. Some clown who drew up her major department requirements decided she *needs* to know this stuff and so she should be *forced* to learn it. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) : Insert as needed. Now if a student *never* takes any courses for any reason except to earn a grade, then she has the true mind-set of a victim and I feel very sad for her. Why does she force herself to keep doing something she gets no joy from? But it's not my responsibility to force her to be a different person. What *is* my responsibility is to give my students the opportunity to learn as much mathematics as they *want* to learn, and to show the ones who are receptive why it's worth learning, and occasionally to sneak up and catch the interest of a few of those who never realized before that they were capable of being interested in mathematics, because they had never before seen that mathematics is beautiful. I have mostly lost my desire to motivate students by cramming things down their throats: "This stuff is beautiful, goddamn it, and you'd better learn it even if you hate it, cause I'm putting it on the final!" Almost all mathematics faculty think it is *very important* for beginning calculus students to understand and learn the Mean Value Theorem. So one have three choices: 1) Present this in such a way as to really convince students that the MVT is worth knowing about. 2) Do a good job of presenting it, but realize that most students are just going to shrug it off. 3) Cram it down their throats by letting them know it will be on the test. Now given that students are who they are, 1) is beyond most of our abilities, and for many faculty 2) would be immoral. So one chooses 3). Now I propose a little test of the effectiveness of this stragegy: See how many of your Calculus IV students have even a vague memory of what the MVT is. Being a professor is a great job. For every grungy basic statistics course, or Calculus II course to be taught for the 92nd time, there are plenty of other courses that are really exciting to teach. And yes, maybe I _would_ teach some of them for free. (Ever hear of seminars?) And I get to go into the classroom and play god. I get to impose my values on students, and they have no choice but to accept them until they get their final grade. But let's not get carried away with the whole thing, and think that students are unreasonable because they're not *enthusiastic* about the process. -- Lee Lady lady@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu Dept of Mathematics lee@kahuna.math.hawaii.edu University of Hawaii lady@uhccux.bitnet Honolulu, HI 96822
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/11/88)
In article <1060@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: Adrian Ho had said that there is a rumor in Singapore that some American universities have quotas for foreign students. Herman and I both said that such quotas exist at our schools (Purdue and UC Davis). [Again, I must emphasize that these are quotas limiting numbers of foreign students, not limiting the number of non-white American students.] Adrian had surmised that these quotas were to "protect" American students, in much the same way as import quotas are aimed to protect jobs in the country imposing the quotas. Herman points out that this is not the case: >program are about 85% foreign. The American students do not exist. It is >not necessary to use quotas to protect the American students. I believe that I agree. The schools we are talking about are tax-supported institutions; this is why the quotas are imposed. As far as I know, the private universities have no such quotas. Norm
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/11/88)
In article <2799@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lady@uhccux.UUCP (Lee Lady) writes: >>I was of the opinion then, and I am still of the opinion now, that the >>majority of students in the general sciences courses are for the most >>part just plain apathetic. Many students approach mathematics as a >>subject to be passed and buried as quickly as possible; >What *is* my responsibility is to give my students the opportunity to learn >as much mathematics as they *want* to learn, and to show the ones who are >receptive why it's worth learning, and occasionally to sneak up and catch >the interest of a few of those who never realized before that they were >capable of being interested in mathematics, because they had never before seen >that mathematics is beautiful. Coupling these two comments together, the following anecdote might be of interest: A friend of mine was teaching a calculus-for-the-life-sciences class. In one of the first lectures, he had carefully derived the slope of a tangent line for a given function at a point, as a limit of difference quotients. After class, a student came up to him and said, "That was beautiful, just beautiful ..." My friend was thinking, "Well, at least there is ONE pre-med major whose interested in more than just a grade." But then the student finished the rest of his sentence, saying, "... but it would have been much nicer for us if you had just given us the answer without the derivation"!!!! :-) Norm
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (12/11/88)
In article <18144@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) writes: > In article <1060@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: ....................... > Herman and I both said > that such quotas exist at our schools (Purdue and UC Davis). I did not say that quotas exist at Purdue. I do know of their existence at other places and some of the methods around them. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
liu@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Hai-Ning Liu) (12/12/88)
In article <18144@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >In article <1060@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > >Adrian Ho had said that there is a rumor in Singapore that some American >universities have quotas for foreign students. Herman and I both said >that such quotas exist at our schools (Purdue and UC Davis). [Again, I >must emphasize that these are quotas limiting numbers of foreign students, >not limiting the number of non-white American students.] > >I agree. The schools we are talking about are tax-supported institutions; >this is why the quotas are imposed. As far as I know, the private >universities have no such quotas. > > Norm Ok, how do you explain the "nondiscrimination statemant" appears in every application form? I quota part here: The Uninversity of Calfornia, in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, does not discriminate on the basis of race , color, NATIONAL ORIGIN, sex , handicap, or practices nordoes the university discriminate on the basis of sexual origin orinentation. This nondiscrimination policy covers admission and access to , andtreatment and employment in, university programs ... When it comes to talk about nondiscrimination stuff, I find most admistors slap their own faces. --liu haining liu CSE UCSD
elm@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) (12/12/88)
[NOTE: no longer posted to sci.math and sci.physics, crossposted to soc.college] In article <5653@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> liu@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Hai-Ning Liu) writes: ->In article <18144@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: ->>In article <1060@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: ->> ->>Adrian Ho had said that there is a rumor in Singapore that some American ->>universities have quotas for foreign students. Herman and I both said ->>that such quotas exist at our schools (Purdue and UC Davis). [Again, I ->>must emphasize that these are quotas limiting numbers of foreign students, ->>not limiting the number of non-white American students.] ->> ->>I agree. The schools we are talking about are tax-supported institutions; ->>this is why the quotas are imposed. As far as I know, the private ->>universities have no such quotas. ->> ->> Norm -> ->Ok, how do you explain the "nondiscrimination statemant" appears ->in every application form? I quota part here: -> -> The Uninversity of Calfornia, in compliance with Title VI of the ->Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education ->Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the ->Age Discrimination Act of 1975, does not discriminate on the ->basis of race , color, NATIONAL ORIGIN, sex , handicap, or practices ->nordoes the university discriminate on the basis of sexual origin ->orinentation. This nondiscrimination policy covers admission and ->access to , andtreatment and employment in, university programs ... -> ->When it comes to talk about nondiscrimination stuff, I find ->most admistors slap their own faces. -> ->--liu -> ->haining liu ->CSE UCSD National origin refers to where a person's ancestors are from. They don't care whether you were originally Hawaiian, Japanese, English, or African. They DO care whether you are currently a legal CA resident. It's much harder to get into UC as an undergraduate if you are out of state (and thus out of country). Nothing wrong with that, since the university is tax- supported, and those who don't live in CA don't contribute to the tax. This is similar to companies that require US citizenship to work. Many of them are doing classified work, and you must be a citizen for certain types of classification. Are they discriminating? NO. Requiring US residence is legal since anyone can become a US residence (not necessarily everyone, but definitely anyone). ethan ---------------- "Quod erat demonstrandum, baby." ------------------------ WHO: ethan miller | WHERE: bandersnatch@ernie.berkeley.edu HOW: (415) 643-6228 | WHAT : overworked underpaid graduate student
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (12/12/88)
in article <4526@homxc.UUCP>, bgt@homxc.UUCP (B.TONGUE) says: > This is a double-edged sword. The potential is there, but it > cannot be solely the professor's duty to offer support - students > must be receptive as well. I remember one of my professors > offering extended office hours after 1/2 half of the class > failed the first hourly (senior-level course) - not one person > showed up! Great incentive for a continued interest in "reaching" > the students! One of my meetings concerned "Departmental Policies - > voice your concerns!" Six students showed up, and four of us > were the officers! With those kind of conditions, it's under- > standable that professors at times believe the students couldn't > care less - it's admirably demonstrated time and time again. Note that the average student of today is NOT the average student of 20 years ago. I am 24 years old, work, and live in a house 3 miles from campus. While I try to go to each instructor's office at least once during office hours during the semester, often that simply IS NOT POSSIBLE. For example, I was not able to make a single ACM meeting this entire semester -- they were all held at 3pm or 4pm in the afternoon. Either I lounge around campus for 3 hours after my last class, which is a total waste, or I come back to campus 3 hours later -- which means interrupting whatever work I'm doing, then coming back to it an hour later. The days when students were all between 18 and 21, all lived in dorms, and all could attend activities on campus at any time, are long since gone. I won't comment on whether this change in student demographics is beneficial or not, except to note that it was beneficial in my case (today, I can take courses at my own pace, without feeling pressured... something that was impossible at age 18). -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 "We have treatments for disturbed persons, Nicholas. But, at least for the moment, we have no treatment for disturbing persons." -- Dr. Island
gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (12/12/88)
In article <42@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >This sounds not like the prof saying "don't bother me", but rather like an >ultimatum: you can learn something, or you can learn nothing. If you really >want to learn nothing, just get the credit, I'll oblige you right now. >Otherwise, I assume you want to learn something. My psychology professor (forgot his name) is notorious for unusual case studies. His aim was probably to determine how many students took up the offer, how many didn't, and how many believed he would carry it out. >How many people signed that list? I bet most felt pretty >uncomfortable about it. (A psych professor should be good at that!) I don't remember. I do remember some of them coming back to class, and the professor telling them afterwards that they had to take the final. Some of them didn't believe that he would carry out his promise, although other students will testify that he did, indeed, give As out to students who signed their names. Other students felt guilty about not coming to class. A few wanted to learn something. --gregbo
gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (12/12/88)
In article <4813@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: >Well there's at least one degenerate solution to that problem that I can see, >which is the reason I would instantly sign my name to the list and leave the >room with no guilt whatsoever (unless I thought the material were extremely >interesting, which wouldn't be the case for an intro social psych class). The readings weren't all that interesting, but the class discussion was worth time spent in class. I will have to go back and look at my class notes, but I can recall that some stimulating discussions came up. >This might >not be what any actual person would do, including myself, but the implied >assumption behind the professor's thinking is that students are incapable of >learning on their own. Either that, or the professor is simply acknowledging >that he/she feels that whatever administrative screwup forces students to take >the course against their will is stupid, in which case it's more of a friendly >gesture. In either case, I'd probably take the option, unless I were actually >interested in taking the course. I don't believe either of these were the case. The course was not an MIT requirement. I don't recall if it was required by the Psychology department. I have an idea that he wanted to show that some MIT students were more interested in getting good grades than learning. Another cute thing he did that pissed the hell out of a friend of mine was to post everyone's name, id #, and final grade on his door. My friend was embarrassed because he didn't get a high grade. I, on the other hand, thought it was unethical. I don't believe he had the right to divulge everyone's grade to all of MIT. I don't know how he managed to get away with this (unless there is no law at MIT that prohibits faculty from publicly posting student grades by name), but I suspect it was another of his case studies. --gregbo
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (12/12/88)
In article <8229@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> bandersnatch@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) writes: >This is similar to companies that require US citizenship to work. Many >of them are doing classified work, and you must be a citizen for certain >types of classification. Are they discriminating? NO. YES. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/12/88)
In article <18144@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >>program are about 85% foreign. The American students do not exist. It is >>not necessary to use quotas to protect the American students. I believe that >I agree. The schools we are talking about are tax-supported institutions; >this is why the quotas are imposed. As far as I know, the private >universities have no such quotas. Would it not be better to accept as many foreign students as want to come, but charge them? (If it costs K dollars to admit a foreign student, and N foreign students can be afforded, then by charging K/2 dollars to each student, 2N foreign students could be afforded.) Better still, why not come to reciprocal arrangements with various foreign countries? Or some sort of scholarship system could be worked out whereby a foreign student could be accomodated at a tax-supported instititued if s/he agreed to work a certain number of years in the USA. How much does it cost to have a foreign student at a state university?
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (12/12/88)
It is a violation of federal law to divulge anything about a student's performance to another person without explicit authorization, unless that information is required as part of official duties (for example, the student's advisor or an official departmental review committee) or for legitimate educational purposes (someone studying the relation between grades in course A and course B). In the latter case, the person getting that information must put his/her name in the folder indicating this. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (12/12/88)
In article <1063@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > >It is a violation of federal law to divulge anything about a student's >performance to another person without explicit authorization, unless that There was a case here a few years ago. A student refused to show her grades to her father. He called Ohio State, but they (citing state law, not federal) refused to show them to him, even though he was paying the tuition. I believe the legeslature changed the state law because of this. -- Gerald A. Edgar TS1871@OHSTVMA.bitnet Department of Mathematics gae@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu The Ohio State University gae@osupyr.UUCP Columbus, OH 43210 70715,1324 CompuServe
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (12/13/88)
[About tax-supported institutions and whether foreign students should be allowed in] -- Indiana University is a state school, and state-tax supported. They have a policy which, while I don't personally like it, makes a lot more sense than quotas for foreign students. They simply charge (much) higher rates for out-of-state students than for in-state students. Rationally, this is probably the most intelligent legislative move Indiana has ever made. (Irresistible cheap shot: shuffling Dan Quayle off to D.C. where he couldn't hurt anything here was the second most intelligent :-) (Irresistible cheap shot #2: Mr. Quayle is a scary example of what happens when money and nationality are favored over academic ability as admission qualifications :-( ) For I.U. to turn away the better-qualified foreign students in favor of the less-qualified domestic ones would be academic suicide, especially when they're willing to pay for it. -------- As an Associate Instructor (elsewhere known as Graduate Assistant), I see a lot of foreign students in computer science classes. Generally they seem to be a _lot_ more motivated, and to take their studies much more seriously. At risk of stereotyping, I will say that I have the impression these foreigners (mostly Asiatic, BTW) have the attitude that this instruction is something they've fought hard to earn (note that word), and that their future well-being depends on how well they absorb the education that's available to them. They are also far more willing to put time and effort into studying for a course on their own. I had one young woman in a class, who couldn't have understood as much as half of what I said, and answering her questions in my office hours was an excruciating experience for both of us. But she worked _every_ problem in the textbook just for the practice (I'd assigned maybe 3% of them as homework), and she was one of the few who did come to office hours. On the other hand, the American students have been through 12 years of schooling because the law said they had to, not because their parents struggled to win them the chance. Some of them seem to feel that what they've earned is a 4-year party as a reward for having reached puberty. They expect to have enough education fed to them to get them through the graduation ceremony, then they'll go get a job. I don't think colleges or faculty are primarily to blame for any of this -- they have to work with the students they get, and the best students are too often the foreign ones. Nor do I blame the primary/secondary schools exclusively. I think the real root of the problem is that our entire culture sees education as something to do with the kids until they're old enough to leave the house. If the parents don't care, their children won't either. They'll do the minimum they have to to get by. American parents who _do_ want good education for the children must either find a "good neighborhood" to live in, with an adequate school, or pay for private schooling. Unfortunately this strands deserving, bright, but "under-privileged" students in schools that will do them as much harm as good. (I was lucky -- my mother scrimped and save to do both for me as long as she could, and I survived the public zoos that came later. But I learned more history in 3rd and 4th grade than some of my high school teachers knew, and taught myself trigonometry because the high school "college prep" math curriculum didn't extend that far. Then I got to MIT and had peers who already knew calculus....) -------- liu@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Hai-Ning Liu) writes: [...stuff about quotas for foreign students...] > >basis of race , color, NATIONAL ORIGIN, sex , handicap, or practices ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't think that "National Origin" means the same thing as "Nationality" in the context of non-discrimination policies. Consider that at one time, Boston was notorious for anti-Irish discrimination. Now, I can't detect any significant racial differences between Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and English people (them white folks is all alike :-); but the U.S. citizens of English national origin (and dominant social position) were discriminating against U.S. citizens of Irish national origin (and subordinate social position). Such discrimination is now held to be illegal, but this is different from discriminating against someone with Irish (or English) citizenship. As another, hypothetical example, if UCDavis receives applications from two U.S. citizens, one the child of Taiwanese parents and the other the child of parents from mainland China, it cannot choose one over the other merely because it prefers one country or the other, but it can choose either over an anglo-saxon with, say, Singaporean "nationality" (I'm sorry, I don't know -- is that P.R.C.? U.K.?)
bgt@homxc.UUCP (B.TONGUE) (12/13/88)
In article <6388@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: > in article <4526@homxc.UUCP>, bgt@homxc.UUCP (B.TONGUE) says: > > This is a double-edged sword. The potential is there, but it > > cannot be solely the professor's duty to offer support - students > > must be receptive as well. I remember one of my professors > > offering extended office hours after 1/2 half of the class > > failed the first hourly (senior-level course) - not one person > > showed up! Great incentive for a continued interest in "reaching" > > the students! One of my meetings concerned "Departmental Policies - > > voice your concerns!" Six students showed up, and four of us > > were the officers! With those kind of conditions, it's under- > > standable that professors at times believe the students couldn't > > care less - it's admirably demonstrated time and time again. > > Note that the average student of today is NOT the average student of > 20 years ago. I am 24 years old, work, and live in a house 3 miles > from campus. While I try to go to each instructor's office at least > once during office hours during the semester, often that simply IS NOT > POSSIBLE. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that. However, let us first look at the basic premises - each math class (on the average) meets for 3 hours per week. Assuming that each semester is 12 weeks long, that's 36 hours of classtime not counting recitation. It's always amazed me that students can muddle through classes, attend office hours *ONCE* and expect to absorb a semester's worth of material. But that's another issue entirely; let me now address the non-possibility of office hour attendence at all. > For example, I was not able to make a single ACM meeting > this entire semester -- they were all held at 3pm or 4pm in the > afternoon. Either I lounge around campus for 3 hours after my last > class, which is a total waste, A total waste??? Ever hear of bringing your homework, that material for which is the purpose of office hours, and working on it until the professor arrives? That's a great way of having the questions fully formulated in your mind, which gives meaning to the study! > or I come back to campus 3 hours later > -- which means interrupting whatever work I'm doing, then coming back > to it an hour later. The days when students were all between 18 and > 21, all lived in dorms, and all could attend activities on campus at > any time, are long since gone. Let's get one thing straight here - office hours are not "activities" like club meetings or social events; like seminars in the corporate world they exist to provide the tools (understanding) for you to do your job (comprehend and pass with a respectable mark your course) in a better fashion than is otherwise possible. So what if they are not at a convenient time! That's life! If you need the extra help, you make sacrifices to attend. Period. If you absolutely cannot attend then you call during hours and work the questions out over the phone. Professors are obligated to have office hours, students should be obligated to use them. Making up an excuse, however reasonable, is just that - an excuse. If the phone lines are cut, you schedule hours with another professor - I have *never* met any professor in mathematics at Rutgers who was not willing to help me when I asked (and there were times that I gave a new meaning to the word, dense.) The help is there. Lack of interest on the part of the students is what makes it difficult to find. -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% The Speaking Tongue, AT&T %% C Code. C Code Run. Run, Code, RUN! %% %% (..att!..)homxc!ela0!bgt %% PLEASE!!!! %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (12/13/88)
In article <5653@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> liu@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Hai-Ning Liu) writes: >basis of race , color, NATIONAL ORIGIN, sex , handicap, or practices National origin and citizenship are two entirely different things. Discrimination on the ground of national origin, for example, might consist of excluding American citizens of Polish descent. It makes sense, however, for publicly-funded organizations to not subsidize foreign citizens, since the taxpayers presumably would not support that. (I'm opposed to taxes anyway, but that's a separable issue.)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (12/13/88)
In article <15406@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >Another cute thing he did that pissed the hell out of a friend of >mine was to post everyone's name, id #, and final grade on his door. At Clark, we often posted grades and associated SSNs (student ID #s). Interestingly, one could often figure out who belonged to many of the SSNs simply by their performance.. I don't see any ethical problem with posting grades by name. It's just a fact, not a judgement. I mean, who but Mary Smith cares what grade she gets?
dross@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (david ross) (12/13/88)
In article <5653@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> liu@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Hai-Ning Liu) writes: > >Ok, how do you explain the "nondiscrimination statemant" appears >in every application form? I quota part here: > > The Uninversity of Calfornia, in compliance with Title VI of the >Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education >Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the >Age Discrimination Act of 1975, does not discriminate on the >basis of race , color, NATIONAL ORIGIN, sex , handicap, or practices ^^^^^^ A California-residing, US citizen born in (e.g.) Singapore will presumably not be discriminated against in any way, including admission. A foreign national will always be discriminated against in lots of ways; for example, many campus jobs will be denied for reasons totally outside the university's control, e.g. "national defense" reasons or because INS hasn't issued the appropriate work permits. Note that UC also discriminates against US citizens from Illinois - tuition is much higher. -- _ _ _ David A. Ross (Dept.Math.&Stat.,U.ofMN,Duluth) / \/ \/ \ BITNET: dross@umndul THISNET: dross@ub.d.umn.edu / /--/--/ (...all the opinions expressed herein are facts, /__/ / \ hence they belong to nobody, least of all me...)
matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) (12/13/88)
I heard a related story. It might be apocryphal. On the day of the final exam the professor said, "Anyone who is satisfied with a B may put their name on this list and leave now." When those who wanted to do so had signed and left he said, "The rest of you get As." Matt
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/13/88)
In article <842@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Would it not be better to accept as many foreign students as want to come, >but charge them? The UC system does charge much higher tuition to foreign students. There are SOME tuition waivers available to foreign students, but not enough for all of them. Your suggestion sounds good but is exactly contrary to the best interests of our country. As I said, the majority of foreign students, at least in engineering, come to this country because they hope to be hired by a U.S. employer and sponsored for immigration by that employer. These people make a tremendous contribution to our country, and our country is in some ways being invigorated by their immigration. Thus it is clear we want the BEST foreign students to come here, not the RICHEST ones. >sort of scholarship system could be worked out whereby a foreign student >could be accomodated at a tax-supported instititued if s/he agreed to work >a certain number of years in the USA. How much does it cost to have a As I said, the majority of foreign students would be delighted to do this, because their whole goal is to immigrate to the U.S. (permanently). Those from poor countries such as India and China would be especially pleased with your plan, since they have no family funds to rely on while they are in school here. In my original posting, I said that the CA state legislature was being VERY shortsighted about this. If they only had a chance to tour the Silicon Valley and see what a huge proportion of S.V. engineers are people who came here originally as foreign students, they would understand that foreign students SHOULD be considered (future) taxpayers. Norm
dross@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (david ross) (12/13/88)
In article <6388@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: > >Note that the average student of today is NOT the average student of >20 years ago. Quite right. Reagan cuts aside, today's students have access to *many* more sources of support than did those of 1968. >The days when students were all between 18 and >21, all lived in dorms, and all could attend activities on campus at >any time, are long since gone. In fact, they never existed. Many of my students do work hours that conflict with my office hours; I try to accomodate them as much as possible. However, if a student needs help, can't make my scheduled office hours, can't work out an alternate time convenient to us both for outside help, then does badly in class, I feel sad but not sorry for the student: he or she has clearly made some prioritizing decision, in which math lost out, and must accept the consequences. -- _ _ _ David A. Ross (Dept.Math.&Stat.,U.ofMN,Duluth) / \/ \/ \ BITNET: dross@umndul THISNET: dross@ub.d.umn.edu / /--/--/ (...all the opinions expressed herein are facts, /__/ / \ hence they belong to nobody, least of all me...)
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/13/88)
In article <15748@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante) writes: >makes a lot more sense than quotas for foreign students. They simply >charge (much) higher rates for out-of-state students than for in-state >students. As I said, UC does this too, and a number of other state schools that I am aware of do this, but it is contrary to the public interest, because it selects for the RICH foreign students rather than for the SMART foreign students. >At risk of stereotyping, I will say that I have the impression these >foreigners (mostly Asiatic, BTW) have the attitude that this >instruction is something they've fought hard to earn (note that word), >and that their future well-being depends on how well they absorb the >education that's available to them. They are also far more willing to Yes, part of this is cultural, but the major factor is to do well enough in school so as to be hired by a U.S. employer and sponsored for U.S. immigration. >As another, hypothetical example, if UCDavis receives applications from >two U.S. citizens, one the child of Taiwanese parents and the other the >child of parents from mainland China, it cannot choose one over the >other merely because it prefers one country or the other, but it can >choose either over an anglo-saxon with, say, Singaporean "nationality" >(I'm sorry, I don't know -- is that P.R.C.? U.K.?) Yes, this is true. The preference is to the taxpayers. And again, they don't even have to be citizens; U.S. permanent residents (i.e. recent immigrants who can become citizens in a few years) are just as "domestic" as citizens for admissions purposes. Singapore is an independent country. [What was that you were saying about the quality of the schools you attended? :-) ] Norm
kathyp@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Kathy Pividal) (12/13/88)
In article <842@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <18144@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >>>program are about 85% foreign. The American students do not exist. It is >>>not necessary to use quotas to protect the American students. I believe that > >>I agree. The schools we are talking about are tax-supported institutions; >>this is why the quotas are imposed. As far as I know, the private >>universities have no such quotas. > >a certain number of years in the USA. How much does it cost to have a >foreign student at a state university? The quotas are not to protect the American students but the American Tax payers. Many of the foreign students (graduate) are not only benefitting from the American educational system but are being supported (tuition and stipend) by American federal agencies (NSF, DoD, DoE, NIH, etc.). Because of the new tax law, I (an American Graduate student) have to pay the US goverment taxes on my stipend, however the foreign students on student visas pay no taxes to the US government even though their source and amount of funding is identical to mine. Explain why this is not financial discrimination against American students.
clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) (12/13/88)
In article <6388@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: > in article <4526@homxc.UUCP>, bgt@homxc.UUCP (B.TONGUE) says: + > ... With those kind of conditions, it's under- + > standable that professors at times believe the students couldn't + > care less - it's admirably demonstrated time and time again. > > Note that the average student of today is NOT the average student of > 20 years ago. ... > (today, I can take courses at my own pace, without feeling > pressured... something that was impossible at age 18). There is a notable difference in the motivation of students today and those of 20 years ago. Back then, flunking out meant loss of draft deferment and probably an all-expense-paid trip to Viet Nam. I lost a roommate that way. With that kind of life-and-death incentive, it is considerably easier to keep a focus on the importance of academic achievement. -- -- #_\_@\\/\_@\\/\_@\ Charles Brunow Loci Products # /--u// --u// --o/ clb@loci.UUCP POB 833846-131 # _ __ _ _ __ __ __ ..!uunet!texbell!loci!clb Richardson, Texas 75083
gsh7w@astsun1.acc.virginia.edu (Greg Hennessy) (12/13/88)
Doug Gwyn writes:
#I don't see any ethical problem with posting grades by name. It's
#just a fact, not a judgement. I mean, who but Mary Smith cares what
#grade she gets?
Would you like the entire school know that you failed (for example)
German last semester?
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wdykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (12/13/88)
In article <911@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >Doug Gwyn writes: >#I don't see any ethical problem with posting grades by name. It's >#just a fact, not a judgement. I mean, who but Mary Smith cares what >#grade she gets? > >Would you like the entire school know that you failed (for example) >German last semester? Also, in schools such as Princeton, where the professor doesn't know who is using the pass/fail option, it can be embarrassing if everyone knows you got a C in the easiest course in the University, but only you know that it was reported as a P. -Dan
zimm@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) (12/13/88)
In article <15406@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >Another cute thing he did that pissed the hell out of a friend of >mine was to post everyone's name, id #, and final grade on his door. (The following isn't particularly relevant to sci.math. Oh well.) If he warned your class in advance that he'd do this, then I'd say that you're right, this probably was another one of his social psychological tricks. Believe it or not, the *warning* that he would do this probably made people try a little harder in the class--no one wants to be embarrassed in front of one's friends. The fact that he actually *posted* the results is despicable, though--he shouldn't have carried through with his promise. --Dylan
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (12/13/88)
I said... >>makes a lot more sense than quotas for foreign students. They simply >>charge (much) higher rates for out-of-state students than for in-state >>students. matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: > >As I said, UC does this too, and a number of other state schools that I >am aware of do this, but it is contrary to the public interest, because >it selects for the RICH foreign students rather than for the SMART >foreign students. I really don't think this is a concern. The best (foreign) students are also coming here, getting scholarships in their own countries (and some financial aid here, too, in the form of teaching positions and the like). And even the "rich" (an extremely relative term) foreign students are quite smart, compared to the Americans. We shouldn't be excluding ANY of them. Quota systems select for one student at the expense of another, and they select for the ones who can manipulate the system the most skillfully. Beating on this some more, the problem of American colleges in the past few years has been too few applicants (especially Americans). The "rich foreigners" aren't taking slots away from anyone who could make any use of them, they're just contributing to a higher-quality and more diverse environment than the American kids are used to. Conversely, foreigners who've been educated in the U.S. are less likely to think of the U.S.A. as a monolithic "Great Satan". >Yes, part of this is cultural, but the major factor is to do well enough >in school so as to be hired by a U.S. employer and sponsored for U.S. >immigration. You're agreeing with me here. Why aren't the Americans inspired to work as hard for that better job? (I'm not sure they aren't; but the U.S. notion of "hard work" at school is far different from the Japanese notion, or the West German notion, or the Russian notion...) >Singapore is an independent country. [What was that you were saying about >the quality of the schools you attended? :-) ] Umm, heh heh heh ... Well, actually, I'd read about Singapore as a seaport for the sailing ships of the 1800's, and never realized there was an island-nation with the same name. Then I spaced out about the rejoining of HongKong (another old seaport) to China, and confused the two.... But hey, I got the right continental shelf! :-) Anyway, the good school I went to taught me about Ancient Greece in the fourth grade. In high school one of my classmates asserted that Columbus first touched land in Pittsburgh. Another one had a lifelong ambition to see Zanesville, Ohio (two counties away). And the most memorable moment in Civics class was when Terry stuck his pocketknife blade in the wall socket one day (a drastic cure for boredom, but effective). [I may as well mention that the Mathematics Department was also the assistant football coach and team bus driver. We went 120 miles on a freeway once, before Haymow finally pointed out to him that the bus' transmission had a "High" range as well.]
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (12/13/88)
In article <4550@homxc.UUCP> bgt@homxc.UUCP (B.TONGUE) writes: >I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that. However, let us first look >at the basic premises - each math class (on the average) meets for >3 hours per week. Assuming that each semester is 12 weeks long, >that's 36 hours of classtime not counting recitation. It's always >amazed me that students can muddle through classes, attend office >hours *ONCE* and expect to absorb a semester's worth of material. >But that's another issue entirely; let me now address the >non-possibility of office hour attendence at all. Why is 36 hours a week plus time spent doing homework not enough to learn a semester's worth of math? I've never taken a course where I thought the time allotted wasn't plenty, given that sufficient time was spent on assignments. Of course, some professors try to cover too much of a broad topic, but that's a different problem. The only reason I've ever been to a professor's office hours has been for something administrative like working out a paper topic - not for additional instruction. >Professors are obligated to have office hours, students >should be obligated to use them. I disagree with this completely. I think office hours are useful for students who are having difficulty with course material or for students who want to discuss some point with the professor, or work out a paper topic, or things like that. But I don't see any good reason why a student who is doing well in a course, who is having no trouble picking up the material, and who has no other real reason to see the professor, should be obligated to go waste someone's time. As far as I'm concerned, office hours exist because situations come up during the course of a semester when some students need to see the professor, not because individual conferences are invariably a necessary part of the curriculum. -Dan
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/13/88)
In article <911@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >Doug Gwyn writes: #I don't see any ethical problem with posting grades by name. It's #just a fact, not a judgement. I mean, who but Mary Smith cares what #grade she gets? >Would you like the entire school know that you failed (for example) >German last semester? If they see me taking the class again this semester, they'll have a pretty good idea. If they notice that I'm not taking any courses which have a pass in German as a pre-requisite, but that I had been planning to, they'll have a pretty good idea. It's hard to conceal something like that from anyone who really wants to know. You can't conceal failing your degree entirely; why is it so important to conceal a failure in a single subject? [I once had someone else's exam results posted to me by mistake...]
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (12/13/88)
In article <15748@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante) writes: >..............our entire culture sees education as something to do >with the kids until they're old enough to leave the house. If the >parents don't care, their children won't either. Bingo! It is not enough for a parent to CARE about education. Parents must be an integral part of the education process. From the moment a child is born they are absorbing everything around them. If children are put into an environment where learning is encouraged, then they will react appropriately. I have read in many places that the preschool years are where a child's future may be shaped. It is here where they will discover just how important education is. Do parents expect the children to keep busy watching TV or playing with toys, ALL THE TIME. Or do parents take the time to talk to children or perhaps read books to them or take them to a museum. There are many fantastic hands-on or technology centered museums around these days. If you ever go to one, just look at how the kids react. Children are naturally inquisitive. But they need direction from parents. Another thing to consider is just how important education appears to a child will have an awful lot to do with how a parent spends their free time. Many adults become couch potatoes and do little but watch TV every night. My feeling is that education is an ongoing process. There is so much in this world that we do not know about. If we can show our children that even adults need to continue to learn, then perhaps the idea that education is important will sink in. The motto: "do as I say, not as I do" will not be enough! >American parents who _do_ want good education for the children must >either find a "good neighborhood" to live in, with an adequate school, >or pay for private schooling. Well, maybe. There are many children who are sent to private schools who still lack motivation. Money is not the answer to everything. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (12/13/88)
A story I heard from a friends father: After the final exam period the professor told the students to write down on their papers what grade they though they deserved. He gave them the grade they wrote down. There was only 1 A in the class, my friends father. On grade posting ... In the comp sci dept At Ohio State grades some are posted but the "identification" is a codeword the students write on their finals. This seems to be a good way to post grades privately. I suppose there is the possibility that two students could write down the same code word. In that unlikely event the student could get a hold of the instructer. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee ) (12/14/88)
Isn't it unethical to experiment on unwilling human subjects? -- "Unfortunately, Ultraman, the superman of Earth-3 who gains powers from Kryptonite, fried your poor machine-gunner..." --Kenneth Arromdee (ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP, arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu, g49i0188@jhuvm.BITNET) (not arrom@aplcen, which is my class account)
johnm@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) (12/14/88)
In article <2799@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lady@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Lee Lady) writes: > . . . When a student's > main interest in my class is to earn whatever grade is acceptable to her, I > totally sympathize. It wasn't her idea to take the course, after all. > Some clown who drew up her major department requirements decided she > *needs* to know this stuff and so she should be *forced* to learn it. > > Now if a student *never* takes any courses for any reason except to earn a > grade, then she has the true mind-set of a victim and I feel very sad for her. > Why does she force herself to keep doing something she gets no joy from? Frequently, she does it in order to get a half-decent job. Period. This could be the result of a system which demands that maybe half of the nation's high school graduates "need" a college education as well. Under other education systems, perhaps only 10% get to go to college. It seems wrong somehow to expect an individual to survive four years in an "institute of higher learning and academic research", when clearly all they want is sufficient grades to leave and get a entry-level job. If high school standards were higher, the "need a college degree" mentality might be lessened. - John Murray (My own opinions, etc.)
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/14/88)
In article <15759@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante) writes: >>As I said, UC does this too, and a number of other state schools that I >>am aware of do this, but it is contrary to the public interest, because >>it selects for the RICH foreign students rather than for the SMART >>foreign students. >I really don't think this is a concern. The best (foreign) students are >also coming here, getting scholarships in their own countries (and some >financial aid here, too, in the form of teaching positions and the >like). Not true, in most cases. The bulk of the foreign students, even the best ones, are NOT supported by their home countries. In fact, those who come here under a J-1 visa (e.g. China, Israel) tend to refuse support from their government even if it is offered, because U.S. law stipulates that if they accept such support, they MUST return home after graduation -- which is contrary to their goal of getting a U.S. company to sponsor them for American immigration. >Beating on this some more, the problem of American colleges in the past >few years has been too few applicants (especially Americans). The "rich >foreigners" aren't taking slots away from anyone who could make any use If you reread my postings, you'll see that I basically agree with this. There just aren't enough Americans interested in gard school. However, the comment on the "rich" ones had to do with someone (you, I think) suggesting that since political considerations, e.g. state legislatures, dictate that some way be devised to limit the number of foreign students at state schools, that the way to do it be to charge higher tuition. I'm saying that this is not the way to do it, because rich != smart. >who've been educated in the U.S. are less likely to think of the U.S.A. >as a monolithic "Great Satan". Good point, but entirely wasted, since the majority don't back to their home countries. According to TIME magazine, over 90% of the students from Taiwan (which has by far the largest contingent of foreign students in the U.S.) do not return to Taiwan after graduation. For engineering (including CS) this figure is very close to 100%. Among the foreign students we've had in our CS grad program here at Davis: NONE of the Taiwan students has returned; NONE of the PRC students has returned; only ONE of the Hong Kong students has returned; NONE of the students from India has returned. [These countries comprise almost all the foreign students.] >You're agreeing with me here. Why aren't the Americans inspired to work >as hard for that better job? (I'm not sure they aren't; but the U.S. There's a definite problem with the anti-intellectual attitude which prevails in the U.S. I agree completely. I post a lot in the newsgroup soc.culture.china, and I have mentioned there the following "Far Side" cartoon: There is a picture of a school, with a sign in front saying "School for the Gifted." An extremely nerdy-looking kid has just climbed the steps to the front door. The door has a sign saying "Pull" on it, and the kid is PUSHING with all his might to try to open the door. :-) My DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON laughed uncontrollably at that cartoon -- but you would NEVER find such a "laugh-at-the-eggheads,-who-totally- lack-common-sense" cartoon in Asia. But getting back to the question of the "better job", it turns out that the Americans DO work hard for that better job (I'm talking mainly about the Silicon Valley, where I have the most information). There are a lot of people in the Silicon Valley who weren't willing to "walk that extra mile" when they were students, but did have a lot of intellectual curiosity, and really blossomed once they got into the industry. And what is also interesting is that they frequently surpass the foreign students (now immigrants) in the work environment, due to the Asian system of rote-memorization-based education which leaves them with a severe lack of insight. [I'll add more on that if anyone is interested.] >two.... But hey, I got the right continental shelf! :-) This :-) and those that followed it were much appreciated, thanks. Norm
smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) (12/14/88)
>The UC system does charge much higher tuition to foreign students. > >Your suggestion sounds good but is exactly contrary to the best >interests of our country. UC and CSUCS are not funded by the country, they are funded by the state. They were created to educate Californians for work in California. Most of the resident students have been living with their families in the state, and paying taxes, for some time and they would be loth to leave on graduation. While many of nonresident students may remain in the state, there is no legal way to force them to remain, so it is not as sure they will stick around to pay taxes for the next generation. > Those >from poor countries such as India and China would be especially pleased >with your plan, since they have no family funds to rely on while they >are in school here. Though in some cases, foreign students are sponsorred by their government for the specific purpose of bringing their education back home. -- -- s m ryan ----------------------------------- My Bonnie lies over the ocean, my Bonnie lies over the sea, my Bonnie lies over the ocean. Oh, please mend my waterbed for me.
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (12/14/88)
In article <4847@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU I write: >Why is 36 hours a week plus time spent doing homework not enough to learn a >semester's worth of math? Argh, I meant 36 hours, as in over the whole semester, or 3 hours a week. Please withhold all flaming objects, I did read the original message. (thanks to Bob Ayers for pointing this out via email) -Dan
bjal_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Benjamin Alexander) (12/14/88)
In article <1057@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >In article <1887@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, jk0@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin,221 Rey,,) writes: >> >> [Things are bad in the mathematics classrooms] > >1. The courses have degenerated. I do not trust the students coming out of a >mathematics course to know the manipulations presented, not to say the >concepts. It is too easy to confirm that this is the rule. I am not saying >that things were good N years ago, but one could expect the students who had >the calculus course to be able to do the manipulations 1-2 years later in a >course with an explicit calculus prerequisite even on an in-class exam then, >but cannot get it on a take-home exam now. Just an idle question: How do you confirm this "rule"? I'm not sure that you are quite justified in stating these bland accusations at all of the mathematics students across the country. I certainly don't find this the case with myself or my peers. >2. I believe that the major reason for this is that the teachers of >mathematics courses have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by the claims >of the educationists. The major one of these claims is that it is unimportant >what is learned in the course is essentially irrelevant, and only for the >purpose of getting a relative standing. Also, even this is not important. I'm sorry, I don't understand this. You seem to be say the following Educationists have a major claim. They say the following: "It is unimportant what is learned in the course is essentially irrelevant, and only for the purpose of getting a relative standing. Also, even this is not important." I would be surprised if anyone would take such a claim seriously, if I could only find a sentence in there somewhere .... >3. It is not just a problem of mathematics, but the idea that one learns for >the future, and not just for the grade in the current class, seems to have >disappeared. People are taught how to study for grades, but not how to learn >the material. It is possible to put enough in short-term memory to get an A >on a regurgitation exam. Thus Perhaps regurgitation exams should not be given as finals. As midterms, yes. Understanding methods is as important to other fields as concepts are to mathematics. >4. There is pressure to examine the trivia. At the college level, this means >that methods of routine manipulation are emphasized on examinations. One >reason for doing this is that the examinations are easy to grade. Concepts >cannot be tested on multiple choice examinations. It is more time-consuming >to read through the work to see if the method was essentially correct, but a >minor arithmetical error gave the wrong answer. Oh, you are sooooo wrong. Concepts CAN be tested on multiple choice and true false tests! The hardest math test I ever had was a true false test. It asked things about the reasons certain intervals were open or closed in certain proofs. And the "trivia" must be mastered. Just like algebra must be mastered. Adding and subtracting is trivial (my calculator can do it) but if you can't add 5x and 8x (my calculator can't do that) then you're in serious trouble! > >5. The teachers at the elementary and secondary levels can only teach >plug-and-chug operations. Even proofs are memorized. The students expect >such, and object to a teacher even mentioning anything else. They consider >it an intolerable imposition on them if an examination question is given >which cannot be done by following exactly the steps of a problem in class. >There is resentment of taking class time to give an understanding of the >material. Any statement made by the teacher is at least implicitly >challenged by "Is this going to be on the final?" Not whether it will >help in doing the exams, but whether it will be explicitly on the exams. Don't you think that is severly and painfully wrong! My high school teachers would be morally offended if they heard you! They taught me all the math I know (I'm a freshman, not a Ph.D) and I understand concepts! Proofs must be memorized, because if you misremember the hypothesis and misapply the theorem, you will get wrong answers! Using L'Hopitals rule on an expression that is of a form 6/2 might give you the wrong answer entirely. Or hadn't you though of that! I never thought it an imposition when a problem was given on a test that hadn't been covered umpteen times in class. I have always resented it when a teach takes too much time going over stupid examples and not enough time explaining how this type of problem needs to be approached. If my teacher only explains one way of doing a problem, I ask for, or suggest, another. That is the important thing! >6. At the college level, it is politically difficult to require that the >students have knowledge prerequisites. That someone got A's in their high >school mathematics courses is no guarantee that s/he know anything from >high school mathematics. That someone got an A in last term's calculus >course is no guarantee that the material of that course can be used in this >one. I have advocated that knowledge prerequisites be used, and that >remedial courses be provided, and even taught with the understanding that, >while it may be on the students' records, some of the students may not even >have seen the relevant material. I think I agree with you, but I am not sure. What do you mean by "knowledge prerequisites"? Do you mean a big multiple choice exam at the beginning of every semester? I don't think you do, and I don't think it would be easy to implement. >7. Emphasize "word" problems. I would make the ability to formulate word >problems at the high school algebra level of arbitrary length THE mathematics >requirement for non-remedial entrance to college. And do not make the >mistake of teaching or expecting parsimony in the use of variables. The >high school algebra courses do much damage by asking the students to >formulate problems in one variable. Finally! Here I agree with you. It is important to know how to approach a problem. That skill is not exercised if a student is asked: y = 7a + b. What happens to y if a = 3 and b =2 and a is then doubled? There are more important things to teach and to learn. >8. Encourage students to think, and to ask questions. "The only stupid >question is the one which is not asked." Encourage reasoning. Encourage >the recognition of structure; while it is sometimes necessary to look at >the trees, it is important to see the forest. This is not limited to >mathematics. What school did you go to, anyway! I don't understand why you even mention this. Are you trying to say that this is unusually. I certainly don't feel any different. It's scary to think how much more stupid I would look and feel if all the *really* smart people in my class had this advantage. >9. We can, and should, teach concepts without manipulation. The concepts >and the manipulations are largely separate. The student who has the >impression that antidifferentiation is integration cannot learn the >easy concept of integral, which can be taught at the high school algebra >level. Facility with arithmetic calculations does not help in learning >the structure of the integers; I think it can interfere. Whether Johnny >can add is not particularly important; what is important is whether Johnny >knows what addition means, and when to add. It is EXCEEDINGLY important for an average person to learn how to add. Recognizing addition in daily life makes living that much easier. If adding is some kind of mystery black box machine (push the buttons for the first number; push the holy and sacred Plus sign; push the buttons of the second number; push the almighty Equals key) then ordinary people like Johnny will be deceived by clever people throughout his entire life. Polititians will lie to him not with clever words and non answers, but they will say to him: "Don't worry, it all Adds up". Salesmen will tell him about their wonderful Patented Snake Oil, Addition version -- "It will Add to you". Why make Johnny any more at a disadvantage than he already is? And if Johnny is going to be a Mathematician when he grows up, he will need to know how to add. How can you stand there and say it is not important whether or not Johnny can add. Figuring out when to add and what it really means can only be done with practice. You can't think for Johnny, so leave him alone and let him figure it out for himself. > >10. We must fight the attempts to reduce out courses to what the badly- >taught students want. Can a student judge the quality of teaching in a >course, especially if the student does not have the prerequisites? Can >a student steeped in plug-and-chug appreciate the importance of learning >concepts? Should the evaluations by such students be considered in >deciding promotion, salary, and tenure? Oh of course, sir. Of course students won't know what they've been taught. They have no way of understanding if you have misled them or if you have confused them in class. How could they tell if one of your lectures was well prepared or informative. After all, your lectures aren't going to lead them to a higher plateau of reasoning. Your lectures aren't going to explain the map of the forest to your students! Why should they have any valuable ideas on what confused them at the beginning of class, because your lectures aren't going to change that, will they! After all, oh most venerable sir, the students are not the reason your lecturing in class, are they. No sir, you're in the classroom for "promotion, salary, and tenure". >At least 10 more paragraphs can be written. The situation is BAD. Our >Ph.D. programs are now dominated by foreign students, because the >American ones do not exist. I have put forth some suggestions. I must admit that I have no suggestions. I find fault with what you have said here, but have no better solution to this problem, which you are convinced exists. I feel that the problem lies not with the institutions, but rather in the apathy of individual students. I am not apathetic, and I don't see this problem around me. >-- >Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 >Phone: (317)494-6054 >hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP) Benjamin Alexander Freshman at University of Rochester bjal_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
mccombt@rpics (Todd McComb) (12/14/88)
In article <4847@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Daniel Yaron Kimberg writes: >In article <4550@homxc.UUCP> B.TONGUE writes: >> It's always >>amazed me that students can muddle through classes, attend office >>hours *ONCE* and expect to absorb a semester's worth of material. >>But that's another issue entirely; let me now address the >>non-possibility of office hour attendence at all. Why is that so surprising? Perhaps it should be amazing that people who are struggling with the material do not seek help with it, but it hardly amazes me that some people are capable of following material directly from lecture. >Why is 36 hours a week plus time spent doing homework not enough to learn a >semester's worth of math? I've never taken a course where I thought the time >allotted wasn't plenty, given that sufficient time was spent on assignments. >Of course, some professors try to cover too much of a broad topic, but that's >a different problem. The only reason I've ever been to a professor's office >hours has been for something administrative like working out a paper topic - >not for additional instruction. I agree. The only reason I ever went to a professor's office was just to talk to them about some extension of the course material, or maybe their research work or something of the like. In fact, I would say that the only complaints I have had about the time allocated for a course was that many courses were given too _much_ time based on the material they got covered. When instructors go too slowly, it bothers me. >>Professors are obligated to have office hours, students >>should be obligated to use them. If a student cannot understand the material, I think it would be in their best interest to attend office hours. Other than that, it's their life. >I disagree with this completely. I think office hours are useful for students >who are having difficulty with course material or for students who want to >discuss some point with the professor, or work out a paper topic, or things >like that. But I don't see any good reason why a student who is doing well >in a course, who is having no trouble picking up the material, and who has no >other real reason to see the professor, should be obligated to go waste >someone's time. As far as I'm concerned, office hours exist because situations >come up during the course of a semester when some students need to see the >professor, not because individual conferences are invariably a necessary part >of the curriculum. I agree. Most introductory level courses (most anything taught at an undergraduate level) work well in classroom settings. There just isn't a need for individual instruction for the majority of students. Alright. Now, what do I think should be done to combat the falling quality in universities today? Well, I am not completely sure. However, the thing that grated on me the most in my undergraduate days was when the professor would teach for the lowest common denominator. That was done all through elementary and high schools, and I naively believed I would escape that in college. So, I am basically saying that many students who are capable of excelling are at least partially held back in order to keep the other students from falling too far behind. I hate that as a philosophy, but I am not sure of an ideal solution. In a bad mood, I just think "forget the people who don't understand, let's move on--it's dragging already." But, that doesn't last; since, after all, no two people learn at exactly the same pace. I think much of this problem was caused when college became almost mandatory. Suddenly, people who wouldn't have previously gone to college were there, and expected to be there. Of course much of _that_ problem was caused when the nation's high schools decided to no longer teach anything, but I won't start flaming about that. Anyway, there needs to be a way to let students who are able to progress more quickly do that easily. As it stands, that is more difficult (though not impossible) and there is no real incentive to do anything but sit back, relax, and rack up the easy A's. --Todd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The way I feel is the way I am. Todd McComb mccombt@cs.rpi.edu -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
siegman@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) (12/14/88)
The Electrical Engineering Department at Stanford, which takes in a very large group of new MS candidates (about 200) each Autumn, controls its admission process to limit foreign students to about 20% of that group. This seems to us a reasonable compromise between all the conflicting factors [industrial supporters who charge we're devoting our resources to foreign students at the expense of U.S. candidates, people who say we're brain-draining overseas countries, our own desire to be an internationally significant institution, people who argue for a pure merit-based system, people who say we're benefiting the U.S. by bringing excellent students here from all around the world, etc.] Foreign students stay on beyond the MS degree in much greater proportions than U.S. students, however, so our PhD cohort (about 60-65 PhD degrees per year) is more like 50% foreign, perhaps even higher. Personally, I see so many factors both pro and con concerning foreign graduate students (more pro than con, in my judgment) that I think some reasonable middle-ground compromise such as what we now do is the only reasonable decision.
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/14/88)
In article <4362@Portia.Stanford.EDU> zimm@Portia.stanford.edu (Dylan Yolles) writes: >The fact that he actually *posted* the results is despicable, >though--he shouldn't have carried through with his promise. I still don't understand this. WHY would it be despicable? I have been in this country for nearly 4 years now, and have never felt so alien: I honestly do not see why anyone would object to this. Marks are not a private matter between two individuals; at best they are a matter between the student and the University, and dozens of the staff may need to know. Parents have always seen children's report cards, what's the big deal about marks at a University?
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/14/88)
In article <26@sierra.stanford.edu> siegman@sierra.UUCP (Anthony E. Siegman) writes: >The Electrical Engineering Department at Stanford, which takes in a very >large group of new MS candidates (about 200) each Autumn, controls its >admission process to limit foreign students to about 20% of that group. >This seems to us a reasonable compromise between all the conflicting >factors [industrial supporters who charge we're devoting our resources >to foreign students at the expense of U.S. candidates, That's amazing, because the people in industry are the ones who are attracting the students to the U.S. in the first place, because the industry people are so willing to sponsor the foreign students for immigration. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it's certainly strange for INDUSTRY to be saying this. >we're brain-draining overseas countries, Of course, this is quite true. Norm
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/14/88)
In article <18237@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: [Far Side cartoon] > There is a picture of a school, with a sign in front saying "School > for the Gifted." >My DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON laughed uncontrollably at that cartoon -- >but you would NEVER find such a "laugh-at-the-eggheads,-who-totally- >lack-common-sense" cartoon in Asia. You may possibly be doing your department's chairbeing an injustice. I too laughed at that cartoon, and your interpretation of it came as a complete surprise to me. I thought the kid in the cartoon looked a total drongo -- definitely _not_ an "egghead" -- and that the point of the joke was that he didn't belong there. It is possible that your chairbeing saw the same joke that I did.
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/14/88)
In article <26@sierra.stanford.edu> siegman@sierra.UUCP (Anthony E. Siegman) writes: >The Electrical Engineering Department at Stanford, which takes in a very >large group of new MS candidates (about 200) each Autumn, controls its >admission process to limit foreign students to about 20% of that group. I forgot to ask: Of that group of 200, how many are TV students? I assume that the % of foreign students among the "real" students, i.e. those roaming the halls, attending seminars, writing theses, doing RA work, taking the research courses, etc. is much higher than 20%. True? Norm
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (12/14/88)
in article <605@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>, dross@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (david ross) says: > Xref: killer comp.edu:1714 sci.math:5070 sci.physics:5285 > In article <6388@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: > Many of my students do work hours that conflict with my office hours; I > try to accomodate them as much as possible. However, if a student > needs help, can't make my scheduled office hours, can't work out an alternate > time convenient to us both for outside help, then does badly in class, > I feel sad but not sorry for the student: he or she has clearly made some > prioritizing decision, in which math lost out, and must accept the > consequences. I have to somewhat agree... if a student is having trouble, he needs to meet with the professor, and most professors will be glad to set up a time with the student. I was just pointing out that if Professor X sets up extended office hours after an exam on which people did badly, and few show up, it doesn't necessarily mean that everybody is apathetic. For one thing, it's hard to set up an appointment immediately following such a bummer test -- the professor was probably MOBBED immediately after the class, by students asking questions, wondering why problem XYZ was graded this way and not that, etc. However, conflicting office hours do mean that a student who is doing OK but has a few questions will probably never come by... call it the Law of Student Inertia, sort of like the Law of Shareware Inertia which dictates that shareware authors never get their money because the users procrastinate forever on sending it ;-). -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 >> In Hell they run VMS. >No. In Hell, they run MS-DOS. And you only get 256k.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (12/14/88)
In article <911@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: -Doug Gwyn writes: -#I don't see any ethical problem with posting grades by name. It's -#just a fact, not a judgement. I mean, who but Mary Smith cares what -#grade she gets? -Would you like the entire school know that you failed (for example) -German last semester? I doubt that the entire school would care in the least, and have no objection. In fact I'll tell the whole net that I never did get through German class in college. If I hadn't been able to get a waiver for the foreign language requirement as a grad student I don't know what I would have done. Now, did you really care one way or the other?
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (12/14/88)
In article <2082@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> mccombt@turing.cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes:
-So, I am basically saying that many students who are capable of
-excelling are at least partially held back in order to keep the other
-students from falling too far behind. I hate that as a philosophy,
-but I am not sure of an ideal solution. In a bad mood, I just think
-"forget the people who don't understand, let's move on--it's dragging
-already." But, that doesn't last; since, after all, no two people learn
-at exactly the same pace.
The solution for that is to challenge the assumption that all the
students have to be instructed as one large parallel batch. There
are several techniques for allowing individuals to proceed at the
pace that best suits them. If you haven't read Mindstorms (Papert)
yet, that would be a good starting place.zimm@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) (12/14/88)
In article <859@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <4362@Portia.Stanford.EDU> zimm@Portia.stanford.edu (Dylan Yolles) writes: >>The fact that he actually *posted* the results is despicable, >>though--he shouldn't have carried through with his promise. > >I still don't understand this. WHY would it be despicable? Certainly the A students would not object, but those who received C's or D's could be seriously hurt: they may think (probably falsely) that their colleagues are laughing at their "stupidity." Professors, administrators and parents may have a need to access a student's grades--ie. grades are not confidential in the strictest sense--but there is no point in needlessly hurting people's feelings by subjecting them to what they may regard as public humiliation. --Dylan
gsh7w@astsun1.acc.virginia.edu (Greg Hennessy) (12/14/88)
Doug Gwyn writes: >Now, did you really care one way or the other? [About posting grades] Yes I do care. I don't mind telling people that I got a C in German but I don't want them to know what I got in Biology. If I wanted them to know I would tell them. Do you want bank's listing your checking account balance? Your doctor listing the results of your last checkup? The IRS listing the results of your last checkup? :^) When I teach a course, (I am a lab TA), I tell them that the only guarentee is that if their numerical score is higher then their grade will not be lower (it might be the same). What score Betty Bimbo got is no concern for Joe Jock, except if Betty tells him. -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) (12/14/88)
In article <859@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <4362@Portia.Stanford.EDU> zimm@Portia.stanford.edu (Dylan Yolles) writes: >>The fact that he actually *posted* the results is despicable, >>though--he shouldn't have carried through with his promise. > >I still don't understand this. WHY would it be despicable? >I have been in this country for nearly 4 years now, and have never felt >so alien: I honestly do not see why anyone would object to this. >Marks are not a private matter between two individuals; at best they are >a matter between the student and the University, and dozens of the staff >may need to know. Parents have always seen children's report cards, what's >the big deal about marks at a University? Having watched this discussion go on, and on, and on, I couldn't help but jump in. The difference in attitude toward college grades, I feel, is reflected in the view of the role of colleges and universities. In Europe, the college is there to mold you. It is similiar to the idea that the army makes you into an adult. In the U.S., the attitude is a little different in that one feels (s)he is paying for a service, just like buying a house or a car. Thus, americans feel that they have control over anything they are paying for at a college, including their records. jim
gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (12/15/88)
In article <ddb7N72f2g1010RKML2@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >The answer to what has happened to academic integrity appears in another >posting to this newsgroup. > >> From: gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) >> Message-ID: <15338@joyce.istc.sri.com> >> I took a class called Social Psychology in my senior year. . . . >> . . . . at the first class meeting, the >> professor passed a sheet around that you could sign which would >> guarantee you an A if you did not attend any more classes. However, >> you forfeited your guaranteed A (you had to take the final and earn it >> instead) if you returned to class. > >Absolutly incredible!!! And some professors have the audacity to blame >the students for degeneration and loss of motivation! In this particular case, I would say that both students and professor were to blame. The blame fell on the students because they were looking for an easy way out. The blame fell on the professor because he succumbed to their desires. However, I believe the problem is part of an even larger problem that relates to the decline of our economy. To a certain extent, we are taught that "might makes right" and "if you're slow, you blow". Cooperation has been replaced by competition. More people are looking for ways to make a fast buck. This gets reflected in academia by talented students seeking fortunes instead of pursuing graduate work, or struggling students abandoning their studies to seek fortunes. I don't believe either of these is necessarily bad, taken on its own. In the larger context of our slipping educational system, however, it contributes to the dearth of qualified teachers, PhD's, etc. In addition, others who might pursue academic careers may have lost faith in the academic system for various reasons. I realize that not everyone thinks this way. However, from seeing the end-products of the educational system, and the movement in industry towards quick returns instead of measured goals, I believe this is an increasing trend. --gregbo
danny@mips.COM (Danny Ammon) (12/15/88)
In article <859@quintus.UUCP>, ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > In article <4362@Portia.Stanford.EDU> zimm@Portia.stanford.edu (Dylan Yolles) writes: > >The fact that he actually *posted* the results is despicable, > >though--he shouldn't have carried through with his promise. > > I still don't understand this. WHY would it be despicable? > I have been in this country for nearly 4 years now, and have never felt > so alien: I honestly do not see why anyone would object to this. Grades are personal information which a student may share with others if he/she wishes. The student's grades are nobody else's business. Not to say that grades and money are the same, but consider the analogy: Bank tellers do not broadcast the balance of my account to all their customers. In doing so, the bank teller would be violating my privacy..... and this is "despicable." danny ammon email: danny@mips.com ammon@polya.stanford.edu
gds@joyce.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (12/15/88)
In article <4378@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, zimm@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) writes: > In article <859@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > >I still don't understand this. WHY would it be despicable? > > Certainly the A students would not object, but those who received C's > or D's could be seriously hurt: they may think (probably falsely) that > their colleagues are laughing at their "stupidity." I got an A, but I still disagreed with the practice on ethical grounds. > Professors, administrators and parents may have a need to access a > student's grades--ie. grades are not confidential in the strictest > sense--but there is no point in needlessly hurting people's feelings > by subjecting them to what they may regard as public humiliation. Perhaps another question to be answered about our current educational system is what are grades meant for, vs. what they are used for. Presumably, you are in school to learn, and your grade should be used by you as a yardstick to measure your aptitude of the subject. However, grades are used also to distinguish between members of a community competing for various positions, such as entry into the job market or graduate school. Those who have the highest grades (in general) are rewarded by acceptance to these positions, and those who do not (in general) are rewarded to a lesser degree. I would like to hear other people's opinion of what grades should or should not be used for. I have no objection to the fact that grades are used as a method of qualification for advanced work, but I feel that there is a certain "dishonor" conveyed on those whose grades are less than the requirements. Furthermore, students are not necessarily encouraged to work harder to improve themselves; they are told "switch majors to something easier", "transfer into an easier school", etc. --gregbo
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/15/88)
In article <863@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >>My DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON laughed uncontrollably at that cartoon -- >>but you would NEVER find such a "laugh-at-the-eggheads,-who-totally- >>lack-common-sense" cartoon in Asia. >You may possibly be doing your department's chairbeing an injustice. Based on other comments he has made, I don't think so. >I too laughed at that cartoon, and your interpretation of it came as a >complete surprise to me. I thought the kid in the cartoon looked a >total drongo -- definitely _not_ an "egghead" -- and that the point of >the joke was that he didn't belong there. I later noticed the cartoon posted on the campus at Berkeley, with the school's sign altered in the picture, from something like "Jones School for the Gifted" to "Stanford School for the Gifted" :-) For those readers who may not know, Berkeley and Stanford are "friendly rivals", so that altered cartoon was intended as a dig at Stanford, with the implication being that Stanford is full of students who couldn't tell "push" from "pull". In other words, the people at Berkeley took the meaning of the original cartoon the same way I did, i.e. that this **school** was full of people who had no common sense. I believe that's the way Larson intended it. I laughed at the cartoon too (both versions), because the way it was drawn WAS pretty funny. But nevertheless, the point remains: Higher education and intellectual activity in general are just not respected in the U.S., compared to the respect these things get in Asia. Norm
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/15/88)
In article <2202@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes: >UC and CSUCS are not funded by the country, they are funded by the state. >They were created to educate Californians for work in California. Most of >the resident students have been living with their families in the state, >and paying taxes, for some time and they would be loth to leave on >graduation. >While many of nonresident students may remain in the state, there is no >legal way to force them to remain, so it is not as sure they will stick >around to pay taxes for the next generation. That word "many" is a huge understatement, Steven. You yourself work in the Silicon Valley, where the percentage of foreign-born engineers is SO high. Can you honestly look around you at the and tell me that the word "many" is not actually "the vast majority"? I mentioned yesterday that of the countries forming the bulk of foreign students in engineering/CS -- Taiwan, China, Hong Kong and India -- only ONE of them that have gone through our program here at UCD has gone back to his/her home country. They ALL have been sponsored for immigration by Silicon Valley companies, and they ALL have **stayed** in California since that time. Actually, it's the **other** states who should worry about these people leaving after graduation, because most of them have California as their eventual goal. Moreover, one could actually argue that the people you are talking about are paying MORE taxes than "ordinary" Californians: There tend to be many more of the foreign-born couples in which both spouses work, usually BOTH in high-paying engineering jobs. As you may have read in the SF Chronicle, the median household income in the SF Bay Area is under $30K; I'm sure that the median for households of former foreign students in the Bay Area is **triple that**. Actually, this is a **conservative** estimate; among foreign-born couples whom I know personally, it's substantially higher. Look who's buying up all the $400K, $500K etc. houses in the South Bay and Peninsula areas. [So they're also paying a lot more property tax than do "ordinary" Californians, not just more income tax.] >Though in some cases, foreign students are sponsorred by their government >for the specific purpose of bringing their education back home. This is another popular myth. Again, there are SOME cases like this, but most foreign students in engineering/CS wouldn't want to take the money even if it were available, because they don't want to be beholden to the home governments -- they want to stay in the U.S. Of course, that's the bad part too. It's a shame that we are abetting a brain drain from those countries. Norm
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (12/15/88)
In article <15453@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >However, I believe the problem is part of an even larger problem that >relates to the decline of our economy. To a certain extent, we are >taught that "might makes right" and "if you're slow, you blow". >Cooperation has been replaced by competition. More people are looking >for ways to make a fast buck. This gets reflected in academia by >talented students seeking fortunes instead of pursuing graduate work, >or struggling students abandoning their studies to seek fortunes. And now to take a step into the political arena........ This article got me thinking about our vice-president-elect, Dan Q. He does not impress me very much (like any of the candidates did?). He does seem to reflect the attitudes of society these days as related in Mr. Skinner's article. Does he have the necessary skills for the job? Is he adequately prepared? Does it matter? Apparently, not to the voters enough to hurt Mr. Bush. A while ago, I read an article on a refreshing person in the political arena, who goes against this trend. He is Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey (of course!). Many feel he is an excellent potential presidential or vp candidate. There are those who would have loved to have seen him run in 88. However, when questioned on this posibility, Senator Bradley informed the interviewer that he did not feel he was adequately prepared for that job and needed to prepare himself first. The man has something else that many, not just in politics, do not: integrity. Here is a man who passed up going right to professional basketball to take advantage of a Rhodes Scholarship. How many college athletes would make this same choice? Here also is a man, who while he was with the New York Knicks, never did commercials. He did not believe in doing them. No Air Bradleys! No Dollar Bill Bars! He knew that basketball and his popularity were not a long term part of his life. He had has goals and priorities set early. I only wish I could discover how he became so wise at such a young age. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (12/16/88)
somebody sez: >>The fact that he actually *posted* the results is despicable, >>though--he shouldn't have carried through with his promise. > somebody else sez: >I still don't understand this. WHY would it be despicable? I hate to bring this aspect up, but there are classes in which, if a student knows who has grades higher than himself (herself), he knows who to sabotage. Not all the motivated students are ethical motivated students.
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/16/88)
In article <15456@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@joyce.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >Presumably, you are in school to learn, and your grade should be used >by you as a yardstick to measure your aptitude of[sic] the subject. But how can you do that unless you know the quality of the yardstick? Publishing the grades of a class exposes the _teacher_ just as much as the students. The two Universities I've been to wouldn't let people into a class in the first place if they didn't think there was a good chance that they would be able to cope with it. If 90% of the class get Cs, the teacher is doing something wrong. Why should this information be concealed from the students?
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/16/88)
In article <9940@quacky.mips.COM> danny@mips.COM (Danny Ammon) writes: >In article <859@quintus.UUCP>, ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >> In article <4362@Portia.Stanford.EDU> zimm@Portia.stanford.edu (Dylan Yolles) writes: >> >The fact that he actually *posted* the results is despicable, >> >though--he shouldn't have carried through with his promise. >> I still don't understand this. WHY would it be despicable? >> I have been in this country for nearly 4 years now, and have never felt >> so alien: I honestly do not see why anyone would object to this. >Grades are personal information which a student may share with others >if he/she wishes. The student's grades are nobody else's business. Look, this is simply repeating the same assertion over again. Why is it ok for other people to know whether you passed or failed, but not whether you got a C+ or an A-? The granting of a degree is a matter of public record, for heaven's sake! It's as if people were saying that it was ok for the public to know whether you were over or under 180cm tall, but despicable for someone to say in public that your height was 160cm or 170cm. Also, it is not the case that "The student's grades are nobody else's business." In a society which does not exalt competition, a student who is having difficulty with a problem would do well to consult another student who is more capable than he in that subject, because the more capable student is likely to understand the _difficulty_ as well as the answer. So it is to the advantage of the less capable student to know which of his fellow students are in fact more capable in that subject. In a society which was so evil that students didn't help each other, this advantage would not exist, but in NZ and the UK it was a real help. >Not to say that grades and money are the same, but consider the analogy: > Bank tellers do not broadcast the balance of my account > to all their customers. But banks *DO* provide this information to a hostile agency (the IRS). Not a good analogy.
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/16/88)
In article <858@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes: >In article <859@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >>I honestly do not see why anyone would object to this. >> [making letter-grades public] > The difference in attitude > toward college grades, I feel, is reflected in the view > of the role of colleges and universities. In Europe, > the college is there to mold you. I should point out that I am not from Europe, and that was _not_ my attitude, nor was it the attitude of my fellow students.
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (12/16/88)
In article <15833@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes: < somebody sez: < >>The fact that he actually *posted* the results is despicable, < >>though--he shouldn't have carried through with his promise. < > < somebody else sez: < >I still don't understand this. WHY would it be despicable? < < I hate to bring this aspect up, but there are classes in which, if a < student knows who has grades higher than himself (herself), he knows who < to sabotage. Not all the motivated students are ethical motivated < students. I thought these were the final grades of the class - too late for sabotage. (I guess it could serve as a flag to "bright" students to sabotage in other classes however....) -- |------------Dan Levy------------| THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE MINE ONLY | Bell Labs Area 61 (R.I.P., TTY)| AND ARE NOT TO BE IMPUTED TO AT&T. | Skokie, Illinois | |-----Path: att!ttbcad!levy-----|
verma@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Rodent of Darkness) (12/17/88)
In article <871@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >... So it is to the advantage of the less capable student to know >which of his fellow students are in fact more capable in that subject. >In a society which was so evil that students didn't help each other, >this advantage would not exist, but in NZ and the UK it was a real help. Only a complete idiot would need to consult a grade sheet to find another student who is able to help him/her. ---TS
karam@sce.carleton.ca (Gerald Karam) (12/17/88)
In article <870@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <15456@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@joyce.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >>Presumably, you are in school to learn, and your grade should be used >>by you as a yardstick to measure your aptitude of[sic] the subject. > >But how can you do that unless you know the quality of the yardstick? >Publishing the grades of a class exposes the _teacher_ just as much as >the students. ... stuff deleted... If 90% of the class get Cs, the >teacher is doing something wrong. Why should this information be >concealed from the students? i don't think there is any dispute that grades be posted, just not a student's name. why does one student need to know another's grade unless there is some suspicion of collusion between professor and student. and in that case there had better be more evidence than a grade. gerald
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/19/88)
In article <19006@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> verma@cs.ucla.edu (Rodent of Darkness) writes: >In article <871@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >>... So it is to the advantage of the less capable student to know >>which of his fellow students are in fact more capable in that subject. ^^^^^^^ > Only a complete idiot would need to consult a grade sheet to find > another student who is able to help him/her. Read minds, do you? Always know when someone _really_ knows the subject and when they just talk convincingly? Know exactly how helpful a foreign student who doesn't say much in class because his English pronunciation isn't very good would be? Spoken in depth with everyone in all your classes before the first assignment already? From your superhuman perspective no doubt most mortals do seem like complete idiots. [For the record, I was always on the help_ing_ end, not the help_ed_ end.] I've had mail from someone who thinks that nobody should even know whether you passed or failed, and someone suggested in this newsgroup that other students might sabotage good students if they knew who they were (I guess the potential saboteurs must be "complete idiots" or they would not "need to consult a grade sheet to find another student who is" worth sabotaging). I guess this must be a bellum omnia contra omnes society after all. Why would anyone try to sabotage another student? There's nothing in it for the saboteur. I've spoken with a Stanford lecturer who claims that the legal limits on what can be disclosed about a student (a) go further _within_ the faculty of a University than had been plain in this newsgroup -- so some of my arguments were unfounded -- and (b) make it harder for the faculty to legally co-operate in the students' interests. Oh well, I'll be off the net tomorrow, so I shan't be able to continue this discussion. Thanks for tolerating the silly questions of an outlander.
kolb@handel.colostate.edu. (Denny Kolb - Professor of Existential Metaphysics ) (12/21/88)
In article <885@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > >I've had mail from someone who thinks that nobody should even know whether >you passed or failed, and someone suggested in this newsgroup that other >students might sabotage good students if they knew who they were (I guess >the potential saboteurs must be "complete idiots" or they would not "need ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not necessarily >to consult a grade sheet to find another student who is" worth sabotaging). >I guess this must be a bellum omnia contra omnes society after all. Why >would anyone try to sabotage another student? There's nothing in it for >the saboteur. > When I was an undergraduate, it was very fashionable to be a pre-med. (i.e. - I wanna be a Doctor.) One of the MAJOR criteria used to evaluate an individuals merits for admission to medical school was the GPA. In this instance, it was definitely to a pre-med students advantage to sabotage the grade of another student. The poorer everyone else does, the easier it is to get the A. Regards, Denny
panoff@hubcap.UUCP (Robert M. Panoff) (12/21/88)
In article <859@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, kolb@handel.colostate.edu. (Denny Kolb - Professor of Existential Metaphysics ) writes: > In article <885@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > > > >Why would anyone try to sabotage another student? There's nothing in it for > >the saboteur. > > > In this instance, it was definitely to a pre-med students advantage to > sabotage the grade of another student. The poorer everyone else does, the > easier it is to get the A. > I was a graduate student at Washington University in St. Louis where it seemed that half the undergraduates were pre-med. There was no sabotage ever reported in the physics department (unlike math or chemistry) since the physics professors made it absolutely clear that there was NO CURVE. Everyone who scored 90-100 got an A. And if no one did, no one would get an A. All work was graded on this basis (I have since adopted this for my own grading): on a 10 point problem, if the work shown was "A-quality" work, 9 or 10 points were given. If "B-quality" was the judgement, then 8 or 9 points, etc. When everything is totaled for each test and at the end of the term, 90-100 is an A. By construction. No curve. No sabotage. No advantage to do better than the perchild next to you. All you had to do was "A-quality" work. So it isn't easier to get the "A" if others do worse. (parenthetical remark...notice on this scale there is a huge difference between an F and a zero, so it is always better to try and fail -- still may get 50% of the points-- than to cheat and get a zero.) -- rmp, for the Bob's of the World
nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) (12/21/88)
[followups to comp.edu only] In article <885@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Why >would anyone try to sabotage another student? There's nothing in it for >the saboteur. Sometimes the sabotage is unintentional. Here is what happened to me back in school: I had stayed up very late finishing up a programming assignment. I printed a listing off, which I was going to pick up from my bin the next day. I get to the bin the next morning, look at the printout, and put it back in the bin (it was raining outside, I didn't have my backpack, and I had to come back to the building later in the day anyway for a class). Three hours later, it was gone (note: I am leaving out details which lead me to believe that it was not an accident). Now suppose that I hadn't finished the program. The person who 'took' my printout would be sabotaging my efforts to finish on time. This was probably not his/her intent (the intent was to copy someone else's program), but the result is the same. My teacher for this class had an excellent policy regarding this type of incident: if you cheat on an assignment, you get a 0 for that assignment; if you steal someone else's work, you automatically fail the course, and you are brought up for dismissal from the University. -- NEVIN ":-)" LIBER AT&T Bell Laboratories nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (312) 979-4751
nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) (12/21/88)
[followups to comp.edu] In article <2082@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> mccombt@turing.cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes: >I agree. Most introductory level courses (most anything taught at an >undergraduate level) work well in classroom settings. I disagree! If this were true, there wouldn't be so many problems in the advanced level courses. It is much more important the fundamentals to be taught well. But look who teaches the intro courses at the majority of American universities: teaching assistants. What are their *teaching* qualifications? None. You do not need an education in education to be considered qualified to practice education at the college level (ironic, isn't it?). I cannot think of any other profession where this is true. Why does this happen? Although it is more important for professors to be teaching the fundamentals, they are the only ones who know enough to teach the advanced courses. So what happens? Students don't get a good base on which to build, and they really have to struggle all of their college life. Will this change? Probably not; universities are not all that interested in educating Joe Student. Unfortunately, benchmarks, (er, uh, I mean grades) don't reflect these problems in the introductory courses; it is much easier to get a B in a 100-level course if you don't really know what you are doing than it is in a 300-level course. If you are getting an A or a B, you tend to think that you 'know' the material. It's only later, when it is far too late to catch up, that your understanding is actually tested. -- NEVIN ":-)" LIBER AT&T Bell Laboratories nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (312) 979-4751
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (12/21/88)
In article <9237@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes: >But look who teaches the intro courses at the majority of American >universities: teaching assistants. What are their *teaching* >qualifications? None. You do not need an education in education to be >considered qualified to practice education at the college level (ironic, >isn't it?). I cannot think of any other profession where this is true. > >Why does this happen? Although it is more important for professors to >be teaching the fundamentals, they are the only ones who know enough to >teach the advanced courses. So what happens? Students don't get a >good base on which to build, and they really have to struggle all of >their college life. Will this change? Probably not; universities are >not all that interested in educating Joe Student. But who cares? Why do we want to kill a fly with an elephant gun? As far as I'm concerned, an advanced graduate student is just as qualified to teach an introductory level course as a professor. I don't see any good reason to suppose that professors are better than graduate students at teaching material that they know equally well. And what does teaching ability have to do with training as a teacher anyway? I think that at the university level, where students are supposedly reasonably self-motivated (or can at least convince themselves to be so when appropriate), there's no particular reason for teachers to go through any training program. At least, I've never noticed anything other than a negative correlation between teaching ability and teaching education (I've had more good university level teachers than I had in high school). I think it's entirely appropriate to have professors teach mostly upper level courses in situations where the student/faculty ratio is high and there aren't enough faculty members to teach the courses. -Dan
mccombt@rpics (Todd McComb) (12/21/88)
In article <9233@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes: >In article <885@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >>Why >>would anyone try to sabotage another student? There's nothing in it for >>the saboteur. Schools that rely heavily on "the curve" give students incentive to just do better than others in their class. It seems to me that that kind of incentive has questionable educational benefits. >Sometimes the sabotage is unintentional. > [description of incident deleted] With all this talk of sabotage, I keep wondering just how someone would sabotage a student whom they thought was doing too well. Maybe someone can enlighten me. I just can't conceive of a situation where another student could affect my test score. (Labs are a little different.) >My teacher for this class had an excellent policy regarding this type >of incident: if you cheat on an assignment, you get a 0 for that >assignment; if you steal someone else's work, you automatically fail >the course, and you are brought up for dismissal from the University. Why are people so paranoid about cheating? As far as I am concerned, if a student doesn't want to learn the material, they are only hurting themselves. Frankly, I don't care if they cheat. --todd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The way I feel is the way I am. Todd McComb mccombt@cs.rpi.edu -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
mccombt@rpics (Todd McComb) (12/21/88)
In article <9237@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes: >In article <2082@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> I write: >>I agree. Most introductory level courses (most anything taught at an >>undergraduate level) work well in classroom settings. >I disagree! If this were true, there wouldn't be so many problems in >the advanced level courses. It is much more important the fundamentals >to be taught well. Indeed. The fundamentals are very important. But, do you think there is a better place to teach them than in a classroom? That was my assertion. >But look who teaches the intro courses at the majority of American >universities: teaching assistants. What are their *teaching* >qualifications? None. You do not need an education in education to be >considered qualified to practice education at the college level (ironic, >isn't it?). I cannot think of any other profession where this is true. Well, this is another factor. I know I never liked taking courses from teaching assistants (frankly I didn't attend if the course was taught by a teaching assistant) but now that I'm on the other end, I think I do a decent job. I try at least. Better teaching is certainly something this country could use, but good teaching is hard to find and it is not rewarded. >Why does this happen? Although it is more important for professors to >be teaching the fundamentals, they are the only ones who know enough to >teach the advanced courses. So what happens? Students don't get a >good base on which to build, and they really have to struggle all of >their college life. Will this change? Probably not; universities are >not all that interested in educating Joe Student. Actually, I would like to see those fundamentals you talk about being taught in high school. When I was in high school, I don't remember being taught anything. Really. I learned some things on my own, but I would say the whole set of formal education there was an utter waste. >Unfortunately, benchmarks, (er, uh, I mean grades) don't reflect these problems >in the introductory courses; it is much easier to get a B in a >100-level course if you don't really know what you are doing than it is >in a 300-level course. If you are getting an A or a B, you tend to >think that you 'know' the material. It's only later, when it is far >too late to catch up, that your understanding is actually tested. I also have a problem with grades. I think that grades hurt the learning process, and a place which puts too much emphasis on grades (like the United States, and other countries I assume) creates a poor environment for students. I would really like to see grades done away with. A student knows what they know, and a grade will not reflect that in many cases. --todd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The way I feel is the way I am. Todd McComb mccombt@cs.rpi.edu -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
shaver@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Dave Shaver) (12/21/88)
Daniel Yaron Kimberg writes: >I don't see any good reason to >suppose that professors are better than graduate students at teaching material >that they know equally well. ^^^^^^^ (My comments rest upon this idea.) In some cases the graduate student will do a BETTER job. I base this on the fact that some professors do not WANT to teach intro courses. Often they would rather teach a higher-level course in their area. Thus, the graduate student who is trying to get teaching experience might spend more time prepairing for the class and discussing the details. Plus the graduate student probably has less teaching load than a professor. This is only a theory. Flames > /dev/null /\ Dave Shaver -=*=- CS Systems Support Group, Iowa State University \\ UUCP: hplabs!hp-lsd!atanasoff!shaver \/ Internet: shaver@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
dave@emerald.PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (12/22/88)
In article <9237@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes: >But look who teaches the intro courses at the majority of American >universities: teaching assistants. What are their *teaching* >qualifications? None. You do not need an education in education to be >considered qualified to practice education at the college level (ironic, >isn't it?). I cannot think of any other profession where this is true. My turn to disagree. As a former professor (well, assistant professor), I used to hear these gripes all the time. Bluntly, this is bullshit. 1. True, the teaching assistants have not, in general, had any education courses. Neither have the professors! 2. We worked very hard at choosing the teaching assistants; we always had good reasons to believe that the persons we chose both knew the material and had good communication skills. Other factors are involved in choosing faculty. 3. If a teaching assistant turned out to be a poor teacher, we got them out of teaching (made them a graduate assistant, or something). While faculty can be released because of poor teaching, it's damned rare, and I have never seen a case (and I've known some pretty poor teachers!). 4. In my experience (~21 years on one side or the other), on average, teaching assistants teach about as well as faculty. The bad ones are seldom as bad, the good ones are seldom as good, and the average is probably a little higher. 5. I think few would disagree that teaching works better when the teacher is interested in and excited by his/her subject matter. When, in the name of teaching students with "real professors," you take experts and have them teach introductory material to Freshman, this is bad news for everyone concerned (again, in my experience). Often enough, however, teaching assistants ARE excited about the material, and convey that excitement to their students. 6. At most schools each faculty member is qualified to teach a narrow range of advanced courses, and nobody else on the faculty (or almost nobody else) is qualified to teach those courses. Hence, putting faculty to work teaching lowest-common-denominator courses is poor utilization of resources. This is simple economics, a matter of getting the most value for your resources. 7. Public school teachers have taken LOTS of education courses. Yet somehow, when people talk about the crisis in education, they usually mean in the public schools, not in the universities--why is that? Yes, I agree with you that everyone who teaches should have some training in how to teach. Yes, I agree with you that a student needs to build a firm foundation in the basics of a subject before going on to advanced topics. Yes, you have probably encountered a teaching assistant--maybe more than one--with abysmal teaching skills. But if you conclude from this that we should replace teaching assistants with faculty, you're dead wrong. Don't tar everyone with the same brush. -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) -- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 -- Standard disclaimer: Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is strictly coincidental.
gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (12/22/88)
In article <484@ur-cc.UUCP> bjal_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Benjamin Alexander) writes: >Oh, you are sooooo wrong. Concepts CAN be tested on multiple choice and >true false tests! I have known several people who were able to do well on multiple choice/true false tests without a good understanding of the material. They were able to "intuit" the answer from the question in some cases, or eliminate wrong answers in others. Some were just good guessers. Give them an exam where they need to show the steps they arrived at in solving a problem, and they do not do as well. >Proofs must be >memorized, because if you misremember the hypothesis and misapply the >theorem, you will get wrong answers! *Some* proofs should be memorized, because they are the foundation of other proofs. However, a teacher shouldn't encourage the students to memorize all of the proofs in the book. Rather, the teacher should encourage the student to reason, and to use axioms, lemmas, corollaries, theorems, etc., to support their reasoning. >It is EXCEEDINGLY important for an average person to learn how to add. >Recognizing addition in daily life makes living that much easier. If adding >is some kind of mystery black box machine (push the buttons for the first >number; push the holy and sacred Plus sign; push the buttons of the second >number; push the almighty Equals key) then ordinary people like Johnny will >be deceived by clever people throughout his entire life. [...] Granted, but there is a limit to how much rote manipulations should be taught. Case in point: in the eighth grade (!!) my math teacher put long division and addition problems on his exams and homeworks. (I got in trouble because I didn't do the homeworks, but I thought they were silly.) I should think that after the fifth grade useful mathematical concepts, such as logic, should be taught. This will make the transition to higher forms of mathematics easier as the manner of conceptualizing will have been fostered in students at an early age. --gregbo
gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (12/22/88)
In article <5145@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >There are those who would have loved to have seen him run in 88. >However, when questioned on this posibility, Senator Bradley informed the >interviewer that he did not feel he was adequately prepared for that job >and needed to prepare himself first. The man has something else that many, >not just in politics, do not: integrity. It is unfortunate that more people do not hold this attitude. In our society, we are sent messages that say the position and power of the things we aspire to are more important than the things themselves. (Example: lots of children are told that they should be doctors or lawyers because of the high salaries they can make, but not that being doctors or lawyers is worthwhile because they will be able to aid others.) Our society has made it too easy to become rich and famous. Hard work for its own sake is becoming lost. >Here is a man who passed up going >right to professional basketball to take advantage of a Rhodes Scholarship. >How many college athletes would make this same choice? I doubt many college athletes are Rhodes Scholar materials, but that is another issue. I would be happy if more college athletes were encouraged to take their studies seriously, rather than allowing themselves to be placed in "mickey-mouse" jock courses, or signing with professional teams for huge bonuses and never completing their college study. >He had has goals and priorities set early. I only wish I could discover >how he became so wise at such a young age. Yes, I do too. (Maybe he will write a book on it some day.) --gregbo
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (12/22/88)
Hey, guys: I wanna read about physics!!!! WHat a downer when rn
says 234 articles in sci.physics and I get there and 232 are on this
foolish book flame! Please file it, please?
(note followup)
--
Alix' Dad ( Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates)
" Axis-navigo, ergo sum."
{harvard,ima}!bbn!aoa!carl
54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201
"disclaimer? I'm not a doctor, but I do have a Master's Degree in Science!"dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (12/22/88)
In article <364@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu> shaver@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu.UUCP (Dave Shaver) writes: >In some cases the graduate student will do a BETTER job. I base this >on the fact that some professors do not WANT to teach intro courses. >Often they would rather teach a higher-level course in their area. > >[several more reasons] And one more reason - often graduate students have been exposed to the material in intro courses more recently. I'm sure that not every professor keeps around in his/her head all the material from all the intro level courses. Not to mention the fact that graduate students are closer in age to undergrads. -Dan
duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (12/22/88)
In article <8716@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@emerald.PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: > >1. True, the teaching assistants have not, in general, had any >education courses. Neither have the professors! But they have a number of years of experience, at least. That's something a new teaching assistant doesn't. And it's something the assistant could benefit from if that experience were passed along more overtly. >2. We worked very hard at choosing the teaching assistants; we always >had good reasons to believe that the persons we chose both knew the >material and had good communication skills. Other factors are >involved in choosing faculty. I was given NO indication of why I was choosen to teach other than that I think I recall asking to do so (as opposed to starting out purely as a research assistant which I did my second year). No one EVER conveyed to me what they thought I had done right/wrong in the classroom -- I was only observed once. >3. If a teaching assistant turned out to be a poor teacher, we got >them out of teaching (made them a graduate assistant, or something). >While faculty can be released because of poor teaching, it's damned >rare, and I have never seen a case (and I've known some pretty poor >teachers!). I'm sure this is true. As I've posted in another article, the encouragement is NOT to improve as a teacher, but to excel as a scholar/researcher. >4. In my experience (~21 years on one side or the other), on average, >teaching assistants teach about as well as faculty. The bad ones are >seldom as bad, the good ones are seldom as good, and the average is >probably a little higher. Distressing news no matter how you look at it. >5. I think few would disagree that teaching works better when the >teacher is interested in and excited by his/her subject matter. When, >in the name of teaching students with "real professors," you take >experts and have them teach introductory material to Freshman, this >is bad news for everyone concerned (again, in my experience). Often >enough, however, teaching assistants ARE excited about the material, >and convey that excitement to their students. Well, I've know experts who were also enthusiastic. I suggest we hunt them down and let them teach freshman. (And be sure they are not stigmatized for being willing to do so rather than teach another graduate section on their latest research paper.) >6. At most schools each faculty member is qualified to teach a narrow >range of advanced courses, and nobody else on the faculty (or almost >nobody else) is qualified to teach those courses. Hence, putting >faculty to work teaching lowest-common-denominator courses is poor >utilization of resources. This is simple economics, a matter of >getting the most value for your resources. Then I believe it is necessary to improve the quality of those who teach the majority of students -- the assistants who teach the intro classes which make up people NOT intending to go on in the discipline, but needing a good ground- ing in it. >7. Public school teachers have taken LOTS of education courses. Yet >somehow, when people talk about the crisis in education, they usually >mean in the public schools, not in the universities--why is that? Well, in another posting (same one referred to above), I noted my negative experience with "education courses." (I did well in them but was bored to tears and had my spirit for public education dampened totally by the exper- ience.) >Yes, I agree with you that everyone who teaches should have some >training in how to teach. Yes, I agree with you that a student needs >to build a firm foundation in the basics of a subject before going on >to advanced topics. Yes, you have probably encountered a teaching >assistant--maybe more than one--with abysmal teaching skills. But if >you conclude from this that we should replace teaching assistants with >faculty, you're dead wrong. Don't tar everyone with the same brush. Not replace them completely. What you say about resources is valid. But I very much feel something more deliberate needs to be done to impart some basic classroom and planning skills to teaching assistants. >-- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) >-- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (201-699-3910 (w) 201-463-3683 (h))
jeff@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (12/25/88)
In article <871@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <9940@quacky.mips.COM> danny@mips.COM (Danny Ammon) writes: >>Grades are personal information which a student may share with others >>if he/she wishes. The student's grades are nobody else's business. > >Look, this is simply repeating the same assertion over again. >Why is it ok for other people to know whether you passed or failed, >but not whether you got a C+ or an A-? The granting of a degree is >a matter of public record, for heaven's sake! It's not repeating the same assertion; it's just getting all the way to an answer. But how can we get all the way? The fact is that many people regard their grades as private, personal information, over which they want some control, and not as a matter of public record. It should be clear that there's no absolute necessity to this view. I'm not sure I can explain it to you, but I'll make an attempt. It turns out that I remember when the legislation that restricted access to grades (and also gave students access to their own records, as I recall) came into effect. Before then, I hadn't thought about it much, if at all, and didn't find it surprising or objectionable when grades were posted or otherwise revealed. But all of a sudden I was given some power over this information, and I began to think about it in a new way. I could see it as something that I might want to exercise some control over, where before it just hadn't occurred to me to think that way. I don't imagine that there would necessarily be some great harm if my grades were public, but why shouldn't I be the one to decide? >It's as if people were >saying that it was ok for the public to know whether you were over or >under 180cm tall, but despicable for someone to say in public that >your height was 160cm or 170cm. This, and your earlier remark about pass or fail, makes it seem that you may be misunderstanding something. While it may be a matter or public record that I have a certain degree from a certain university, my grades on individual courses, or even whether I passed or failed, which courses I took, remarks entered into my records, etc. are not. If we take a single course, it's not the case that who passed or failed is public but not the exact grades; neither is public. By the way, the "despicable" takes as given that people regard the information as private. If it had been the normal and expected thing that grades were posted, no one would have thought it wrong to post them. >Also, it is not the case that "The student's grades are nobody else's >business." In a society which does not exalt competition, a student who >is having difficulty with a problem would do well to consult another >student who is more capable than he in that subject, because the more >capable student is likely to understand the _difficulty_ as well as the >answer. 1. It's generally possible to know who are the better students, and the ones best able to help, without having to look at their exact grades. 2. Just because someone could help someone else doesn't mean it's their business to help. Students don't have a right to get help from better students, but even if they did it wouldn't automatically confer a right to know their grades. >>Not to say that grades and money are the same, but consider the analogy: >> Bank tellers do not broadcast the balance of my account >> to all their customers. >But banks *DO* provide this information to a hostile agency (the IRS). >Not a good analogy. Give me a break. The banks *do not* provide the information to all and sundry, which is what you think is OK for grades.
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (12/27/88)
In article <9237@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes: >But look who teaches the intro courses at the majority of American >universities: teaching assistants. What are their *teaching* >qualifications? None. You do not need an education in education to be >considered qualified to practice education at the college level (ironic, >isn't it?). I cannot think of any other profession where this is true. I can. How many managers do you know who have had adequate training in managerial skills? Sure some people go out on their own and earn an MBA, but it is not required. Often people are promoted into management and never required to take any training. BTW: I agree with you the training of teachers. We require more of our secondary teachers. However, they lack subject matter expertise. The problem is worse with TAs, who often lack both. I have taught, part time, as an adjunct. My preparation consisted of being handed the text for the course, some out of date course notes, and a copy of the undergraduate catalog. After that I was on my own. One thing that I did find quite helpful was the student evaluation forms that were filled out at the end of the semester. However, I'm sure that the vast majority of the people who are teaching don't pay much attention to them. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) (12/28/88)
In article <4993@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: >As far as >I'm concerned, an advanced graduate student is just as qualified to teach an >introductory level course as a professor. I agree. The real question then becomes: Are professors qualified to teach? My guess is that most are not adequately trained for this job. >And what does teaching ability have to do with >training as a teacher anyway? That is (supposedly) what they are getting paid to do! Would you hire a house painter to paint a Rembrant for you? >I think that at the university level, where >students are supposedly reasonably self-motivated (or can at least convince >themselves to be so when appropriate), there's no particular reason for >teachers to go through any training program. Then why not give all the students a Usenet account and a list of phone numbers and let them go home and save $15,000 a year? If I don't need to be taught, why do I need to pay the school. $60,000 is a *lot* of money just for a piece of parchment. >At least, I've never noticed >anything other than a negative correlation between teaching ability and >teaching education And who is to blame for this? The universities, where education is taught. If a college can't even teach how-to-teach correctly, which is the subject a college should be *most* proficient in (considering that is what a college is supposed to do -- teach), how can we expect any other discipline to be taught well in college? >I've had more good university level teachers than I >had in high school). I had the opposite experience (after reading the net, I think that I'm in the minority). The teaching in my high school was so much better, that college was a major disappointment. I experienced a *great* education in high school; I expected it in college. I will not lower my expectations; colleges need to drastically improve. >I think it's entirely appropriate to have professors >teach mostly upper level courses in situations where the student/faculty >ratio is high and there aren't enough faculty members to teach the courses. I think that it is entirely inappropriate to have high student/faculty ratios in the first place! I'd much rather have a well-produced videotape instead! -- NEVIN ":-)" LIBER AT&T Bell Laboratories nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (312) 979-4751
nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) (12/28/88)
In article <31@rpi.edu> mccombt@turing.cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes: >But, do you think there >is a better place to teach them than in a classroom? That was my >assertion. I'm not sure. I think things like Purdue's "Rube Goldberg" contest definitely help, since it gets students to actually *think* about what they have learned. If things like this are replacing the classroom, I'm all for it! -- NEVIN ":-)" LIBER AT&T Bell Laboratories nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (312) 979-4751
nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) (12/28/88)
In article <8716@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@emerald.PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: |1. True, the teaching assistants have not, in general, had any |education courses. Neither have the professors! A sad statement about the skills of professors. |2. We worked very hard at choosing the teaching assistants; we always |had good reasons to believe that the persons we chose both knew the |material and had good communication skills. Other factors are |involved in choosing faculty. Not every school does this. Most of the TAs I know had a "Teaching Assistantship" well before their communication skills were ever looked at. |5. I think few would disagree that teaching works better when the |teacher is interested in and excited by his/her subject matter. When, |in the name of teaching students with "real professors," you take |experts and have them teach introductory material to Freshman, this |is bad news for everyone concerned (again, in my experience). Often |enough, however, teaching assistants ARE excited about the material, |and convey that excitement to their students. I still feel that it is more important to convey the material. Excitement helps, but it is not the answer. |6. At most schools each faculty member is qualified to teach a narrow |range of advanced courses, and nobody else on the faculty (or almost |nobody else) is qualified to teach those courses. Hence, putting |faculty to work teaching lowest-common-denominator courses is poor |utilization of resources. This is simple economics, a matter of |getting the most value for your resources. How can you get any value out of teaching advanced courses if the students have little idea about what is going on? |7. Public school teachers have taken LOTS of education courses. Yet |somehow, when people talk about the crisis in education, they usually |mean in the public schools, not in the universities--why is that? Universities aren't doing very well at teaching how-to-teach. After all, where do the public school teachers get their education? If a college can't teach how-to-teach, why should I assume that the college in question knows how to teach? -- NEVIN ":-)" LIBER AT&T Bell Laboratories nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (312) 979-4751
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (12/29/88)
In article <9283@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes: >In article <4993@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: >>As far as >>I'm concerned, an advanced graduate student is just as qualified to teach an >>introductory level course as a professor. > >I agree. The real question then becomes: Are professors qualified to >teach? My guess is that most are not adequately trained for this job. Well, one of the points I was trying to make (I think in a different passage, actually) was that the original poster was subscribing to what I think of as a common misconception in this message-chain. People keep posting angry messages stating how horrible it is that the people doing the teaching at the highest levels of education aren't trained as teachers. One person will say this is true of TA's, then someone else will say that it is true of professors also (affecting a very sad tone), and then a third person will respond with "here! here!" (sorry, but I've seen this little gem about a dozen times on the net in the past week, and it still kills me). My point, aside from all this rabble rousing (I know this is uncharitable, but you get the idea), and which I see I sort of made in the next citation (below) is that I don't think there's any good evidence (certainly that's been posted here) to show why we should bother putting these people through teacher training. Will it make them better teachers? Will it make only the bottom of the lot better, or will it help only the already competent? Will it hurt? Are there some things you can't teach about teaching? My guess is that teacher training will only make a very small percentage of people even marginally better at teaching, and this only if done well. I don't even want to discuss how we might arrive at a system of training teacher trainers. In any case, this has to be the null hypothesis (as opposed to launching into an expensive and painful teacher training crusade). Personally, I would guess that a better way to get good teachers would be to install some sort of testing for aptitude, and to teach only what empirical research dictates. >>And what does teaching ability have to do with >>training as a teacher anyway? > >That is (supposedly) what they are getting paid to do! Would you hire a >house painter to paint a Rembrant for you? No, but there's probably good reason to believe that training in house painting will help you learn to paint a house. Most people probably don't even know the basics. I'm guessing. But where's the evidence that teacher training helps teachers? It's already been pointed out on this newsgroup that the only trained teachers most of us ever come into contact with are K-12 teachers, the bulk of whom I think are just awful teachers. At least as far as I can remember. My point was that unless we can show that these people would have been even worse without the teacher training, we don't know that it's helping their teaching ability, and even so we don't know if it would be equally effective at the university level. >>I think that at the university level, where >>students are supposedly reasonably self-motivated (or can at least convince >>themselves to be so when appropriate), there's no particular reason for >>teachers to go through any training program. > >Then why not give all the students a Usenet account and a list of phone >numbers and let them go home and save $15,000 a year? If I don't need to >be taught, why do I need to pay the school. $60,000 is a *lot* of money >just for a piece of parchment. Hey, that's not what I said. A university provides certain other things than raw reading resources (which in any case exceed usenet), including on-demand guidance and instruction, expert help, and zillions of other things. All I said was that you don't need to put university level teachers through teacher training, which I don't think would help their teaching in a way that would benefit university students. I didn't say that you don't need any of the university facilities at all. Particularly the teachers. >>At least, I've never noticed >>anything other than a negative correlation between teaching ability and >>teaching education >And who is to blame for this? The universities, where education is >taught. If a college can't even teach how-to-teach correctly, which is the >subject a college should be *most* proficient in (considering that is what a >college is supposed to do -- teach), how can we expect any other >discipline to be taught well in college? You keep assuming that teaching ability CAN be taught. Why? Every educational experience I've ever had contradicts this. (Well, in the aggregate at least - there are local exceptions.) At best, as far as I'm concerned, potential teachers can be taught some higher level cognitive self-monitoring strategies that will help them out. But unless the right people are there at every level, I can't see it helping much. >>I think it's entirely appropriate to have professors >>teach mostly upper level courses in situations where the student/faculty >>ratio is high and there aren't enough faculty members to teach the courses. > >I think that it is entirely inappropriate to have high student/faculty >ratios in the first place! I'd much rather have a well-produced >videotape instead! What? That's terrible! Are you serious? I can't imagine learning anything from a videotape on a regular basis. I thought that learning had advanced a long way from the time when people thought that all there was to teaching was dumping knowledge into students. I've learned such a small percentage of what I've learned from lectures and such a large percentage from smaller classes and that sort of thing, that I'd be hard pressed to justify lectures at all if it weren't for certain numbers problems. -Dan p.s. this posting has been off the top of my head, and I may contradict myself without warning. the substance, however, is what i believe. p.p.s. i'm completely in favor of forming the new group (sci.edu?), and i don't think whoever said it would be unavailable to most of its readership was correct. (sci.philosophy.edu?)
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) (12/30/88)
In article <30@rpi.edu> mccombt@turing.cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes: >With all this talk of sabotage, I keep wondering just how someone >would sabotage a student whom they thought was doing too well. Maybe >someone can enlighten me. I just can't conceive of a situation where >another student could affect my test score. (Labs are a little >different.) Scenario in a class full of pre-law students: The professor announces a term paper, and hands out a long list of possible references. That very day all references that seem germane disappear from the stacks of the library. Months later someone notices these references have all been mysteriously mis-shelved in, say, the ancient Near Eastern languages section. So you see it is not hard for one person to sabotage everyone else in the class. And yes, this does happen.
lady@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Lee Lady) (01/01/89)
Will it really accomplish anything for me to point out again the mirror-image symmetry between the postings from faculty and the postings from students? Almost certainly not. Will that stop me? What do you think! Faculty say: how can we possibly teach anything to these students when they're all such losers, and care about nothing except what's going to be on the next exam? Students say: how can we possibly learn anything when our professors are such losers who don't know how to teach and don't care anyway? In article <9237@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes: > > ... So what happens? Students don't get a >good base on which to build, and they really have to struggle all of >their college life. Will this change? Probably not; universities are >not all that interested in educating Joe Student. > The difference between winners and losers lies in their attitude toward life. If you think of school as something that _happens to_ you, if you honestly believe that by doing what you're told, by doing all your homework and passing all your tests, you will wind up getting an education, then you are playing a loser's game. I've got some harsh news for you, old buddy. Universities are not fair, and never will be. Life is not fair and never will be. If you're going to wait until you're treated fairly before you start winning, you'll wait the rest of your life. I got a teaching evaluation once that was a classic example of the attitude of a loser. In his (or her?) evaluation, this student referred to a really dumb error I'd made on the first day of class, and said "I knew then that the course was going to be worthless, and the rest of the semester proved me right." But s/he STAYED IN THE COURSE THE WHOLE SEMESTER, even though he'd already decided on the first day that he wouldn't get anything out of it. If this example doesn't make what I'm talking about clear, then nothing will. A lot of what you say in your posting is true. The question is: So What? You had a choice, friend. You could have gone to a junior college (community college) for your freshman-sophomore years and got the kind of teaching you complain about not getting at a university. Although it may be too late now, I think you should really seriously think about that choice and decide whether that would have been the better choice for you. If you decide after much thought that that would not have been an acceptable alternative for you, then you should think about how you can better take advantage of those things a university offers which junior colleges cannot. I want to speak a few other harsh truths. To paraphrase Theodore Sturgeon, 90% of what you learn in college is crap. In fact, my guess would be that 98% of the information you are given in college will be of no value to you after you graduate. Probably you're going to refuse to believe that, but accept it as a hypothesis for just one day, and through the filter of that hypothesis think hard about what it is that is really worthwhile about a college education. You may decide to drop out, or you may find some real insight into what universities are really about. Either way, it will no longer be possible for you to continue as a loser. Students love professors who make everything really clear, who make it all easy. But what they're doing is making it easy for you to learn stuff that will probably never be of any use to you anyway, and depriving you of the opportunity to learn something of real value, namely how to figure out difficult material for yourself. (This is not meant to justify professors who make everything so incomprehensible that you can never figure it out!) Another harsh truth: Your professors have no idea in the world what is or is not useful for you to know (except that certain things are necessary as prerequisite material for subsequent courses). Faculty choose material for a course on the basis of what is important *to them*. In particular, most mathematicians tend to like beautiful theories, and their objective is often more aesthetic than practical. But most important of all is the following fundamental triviality: we teach what is known, and we do not teach what is not known. It took me a long time to understand that. When I was a student, I used to think that there was this immense body of truth and that professors selected out what was most important to present to us. I thought that B was less important than A, because A was what was covered in class. None of my classes ever pointed out that the reason for not covering B was simply that B was not known. Okay, enough! Here I am spitting into the wind again. -- Lee Lady lady@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu Dept of Mathematics lee@kahuna.math.hawaii.edu University of Hawaii lady@uhccux.bitnet Honolulu, HI 96822
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/01/89)
In article <2910@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lady@uhccux.UUCP (Lee Lady) writes: >I got a teaching evaluation once that was a classic example of the attitude >of a loser. In his (or her?) evaluation, this student referred to a really >dumb error I'd made on the first day of class, and said "I knew then that >the course was going to be worthless, and the rest of the semester proved >me right." But s/he STAYED IN THE COURSE THE WHOLE SEMESTER, even though he'd >already decided on the first day that he wouldn't get anything out of it. >If this example doesn't make what I'm talking about clear, then nothing will. As long as we're talking about classic examples, we might mention that your comment is a classic example of the ignorance of faculty members about what is actually involved in being a student. Yes, this example makes something clear - it makes clear that students are constantly forced to take courses in which they are not the slightest bit interested, to satisfy the whims of some committee, a committee of people with not the slightest understanding of education in any real sense, but with very strong "philosophies" about what should and shouldn't be taught. I'm taking a course right now for no other reason than to satisfy a requirement. I'm not the least bit interested in the material, I haven't learned anything of substance the entire semester, I knew that this was the case beforehand, and I'm sticking with it, at very little cost because it's taught at such a low level that any moron could pass it with little trouble. Now, according to your little bit of moralizing up there, I should probably drop the course, forfeit my chance at graduating on time, and either give up the idea of a degree or ask my parents to put up the extra pile of money it would take to put me through the same situation again next year. Well, if you feel this is a classic example of the attitude of a loser, that's your business, but to some people it's worth it to put out an extremely small amount of effort for what seems like a worthwhile goal. Now I'm not claiming that your little example case was in the same situation, but if you have even the slightest bit of experience with higher education, then you know that the situation is extremely common. If you're going to whine about how students always complain about faculty/administration and vice-versa, then you should at least take a few seconds to think that it's possible that both groups have a reasonable case. >I want to speak a few other harsh truths. To paraphrase Theodore Sturgeon, >90% of what you learn in college is crap. In fact, my guess would be that >98% of the information you are given in college will be of no value to you >after you graduate. Probably you're going to refuse to believe that, but >accept it as a hypothesis for just one day, and through the filter of that >hypothesis think hard about what it is that is really worthwhile about a >college education. You may decide to drop out, or you may find some real >insight into what universities are really about. Either way, it will no >longer be possible for you to continue as a loser. I agree with you, but not your paraphrasing of Sturgeon. Sure, 98% of the information you are given will be of no value. But if you're claiming that the information you are given is even 25% of what you learn in college, then I take exception. College is a lot more than an information pick-up counter, as you seem to be assuming when you compare Sturgeon's 90% "of what you learn" with your 98% "of the information you are given." Who cares about the information? But if you're claiming that the other stuff is mostly crap too, then you're essentially claiming that life in general is crap, and not worth experiencing. Fine for you, leave the rest of us be. >Another harsh truth: Your professors have no idea in the world what is >or is not useful for you to know (except that certain things are necessary >as prerequisite material for subsequent courses). Faculty choose material >for a course on the basis of what is important *to them*. Just because they choose material as they see fit, it doesn't mean they don't realize it's not useful. Some people have good intuitions about what's useful, some have bad. Are you claiming that professors are exempt, that they all have bad intuitions? >Okay, enough! Here I am spitting into the wind again. You're only spitting into the wind because you've decided from the start that everyone else is ten orders of magnitude less intelligent than you are. You start off by writing about how easy you find it to pigeonhole everyone's arguments (an opinion apparently based on a single message). Then you decide to pigeonholde yourself by throwing insults at loser students. And then you write (using as condescending a tone as possible) that you're going to tell everyone a few harsh truths, which they haven't been willing or able to face in the past, but which you are certain will make everyone realize how stupid they have been. Well, here comes the spit, flying back at you. (and I don't claim that this is any higher quality spit, but it seems to be what you wanted) You're not the only intelligent person left in the world. You're not the only person who thinks that people are less likely to complain about themselves. You're not the only one who's ever heard of Sturgeon's law. You're not the first person to think that maybe not all of what people really learn in college comes from the classroom. And you're definitely not the first person on the net to take a few stock arguments, repackage them with an affectation of great wisdom, and post them to the net. -Dan
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (01/03/89)
I can't tell if you're putting down community colleges or not. Having
taught at a variety of places, I'm not going to defend CC-style teaching
(I call it "good teaching" but others disagree), but simply point out
that information content is just one thing that teachers deal with. One
of the others might be called
problem-solving/critical-thinking/scientific-method/whatever. Thus,
while some content is important and some isn't, this "thinking" stuff is.
Pete
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/03/89)
In article <542@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: > [...] information content is just one thing that teachers deal with. One > of the others might be called > problem-solving/critical-thinking/scientific-method/whatever. Thus, > while some content is important and some isn't, this "thinking" stuff is. > > Pete > In my view, the difference between good teaching and bad teaching is exactly this. A majority of students (and many faculty) make no distinction between memorizing facts and having a basic understanding of why the facts are true, and how we know they're true. Critical, deductive thinking seems rarely to be taught except by accident. Why? I won't get started on multiple-choice testing ... -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/03/89)
In article <9208@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >A majority of students (and many faculty) make no distinction >between memorizing facts and having a basic understanding of why the facts >are true, and how we know they're true. Critical, deductive thinking seems >rarely to be taught except by accident. Why? Maybe it can't be taught. Which isn't to say that there aren't people who didn't think critically and then did, but which is to say that maybe there are people (in significant numbers) who will not be taught to think critically in the same way that you or I do (just as I, for instance, will never be a nobel prize winning physicist, no matter what instruction I get). -Dan
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/03/89)
In article <5111@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: >In article <9208@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >>A majority of students (and many faculty) make no distinction >>between memorizing facts and having a basic understanding of why the facts >>are true, and how we know they're true. Critical, deductive thinking seems >>rarely to be taught except by accident. Why? > >Maybe it can't be taught. Which isn't to say that there aren't people who >didn't think critically and then did, but which is to say that maybe there >are people (in significant numbers) who will not be taught to think critically >in the same way that you or I do (just as I, for instance, will never be a >nobel prize winning physicist, no matter what instruction I get). Yes, to a certain extent, this is true. We can not teach creativity either, but we can try to bring out the best of what creative talents a person has by finding a way for them to express them. The same is true of learning. People learn in different ways. Today some children, who in the past were labeled as unteachable, are being taught. This is because it has been found that not everyone learns in the same way. Some have special needs. Critical thinking can not be taught. However, we can *try* to get people to think about what they are studying and those with the capability will take it further. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
shankar@src.honeywell.COM (Son of Knuth) (01/04/89)
In article <5111@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: >In article <9208@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >>A majority of students (and many faculty) make no distinction >>between memorizing facts and having a basic understanding of why the facts >>are true, and how we know they're true. Critical, deductive thinking seems >>rarely to be taught except by accident. Why? > >Maybe it can't be taught. I think it *can be taught through two means. First, teachers need to exhibit such thought processes when solving problems in front of the class. I've had too many professors who solve problems by simply writing down formulas, rather then explaining why they did it that way. In some topics, it may be beneficial to solve the problem incorrectly, and then have a class discussion on why that method is wrong. Second and more importantly, intelligent homework assignments are the key to developing thought processes. I think homework assignments should include problems which force students to derive the simpler parts of future sections. For engineering mathematics classes, for example, this may mean optimization problems while teaching basic differentiation, so that students can gain an intuitive understanding of what differentiation really is.
tiwasawa@netxcom.UUCP (Takashi Iwasawa) (01/04/89)
In article <15561@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >In article <484@ur-cc.UUCP> bjal_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Benjamin Alexander) writes: >>It is EXCEEDINGLY important for an average person to learn how to add. >>Recognizing addition in daily life makes living that much easier. If adding >>is some kind of mystery black box machine (push the buttons for the first >>number; push the holy and sacred Plus sign; push the buttons of the second >>number; push the almighty Equals key) then ordinary people like Johnny will >>be deceived by clever people throughout his entire life. [...] > >Granted, but there is a limit to how much rote manipulations should be >taught. Case in point: in the eighth grade (!!) my math teacher put >long division and addition problems on his exams and homeworks. (I >got in trouble because I didn't do the homeworks, but I thought they >were silly.) I should think that after the fifth grade useful >mathematical concepts, such as logic, should be taught. > Many years ago (nearly twenty!) I was a poor graduate student, and took a job with a nearby university as a teaching assistant. I had two sections of a math course for non-science majors (Mathematics for Non-Mathematicians, or some such title). Thinking as Greg Skinner did, I intended to focus on logic and other concepts rather than calculus; after all, these kids were not going to become engineers or scientists, let alone mathematicians! I had been given a text by the Chairman of the Math Department, which had lots of pictures and skimmed lightly over history of mathematics, geometry, logic, calculus, etc. So I plunged ahead into logic and truth tables as explained in the book, and tried to explain that the same logic can be generated from different sets of operators (you know, inclusive-OR versus exclusive-OR; I think I even tried to explain how the NAND operator suffices to generate NOT, AND, and OR). I got complete expressions of non-comprehension. I went back to the book and gave them problem sets (after working some out in detail in class). Out of 40-50 students in my sections, 4 or 5 turned in excellent to good solutions (say 80% to 100% correct). The rest had garbage, or simply did not turn in any solutions. I worked out more problems in class and assigned simpler problem sets, with the same result. The students complained that the problems were too hard; they had been promised (!!!) that they wouldn't have to know mathematics. In desperation I gave a problem set of long addition and division. With the same result; the 4 or 5 who had done well before turned in near perfect scores, the rest of the sections could not add ten 5 digit numbers together consistently, and a sizable number did not turn in their work at all. It was the end of the term, and I calculated the grades from the students' scores on tests and problem sets (I had told them how I was going to grade at the beginning). A large number of the students had failing grades. I was called in by the Dean of Students (the Chairman had died during the term). The Dean said I couldn't fail so many students; their parents were complaining. I explained that the students could not add properly, let alone divide, understand logic, Venn diagrams, or anything in the required text. The Dean said "You are wrong! These students aren't stupid; here, look at this one...565 (I no longer remember the exact number, but it was in the 500-600 range. T.I.) on the math SAT!" I explained again that regardless of their SAT scores, they could not add; perhaps I should have told him that when I had been taking SAT's, 650 was the rough dividing line between a good score and a mediocre one. The Dean tried to get me to change the grades; I refused. I was reassigned, and my contract was not renewed. So there it is. I agree with Greg that in the ideal world, rote training with addition, subtraction etc. should not be necessary at eight grade level. In practical terms, these (mostly freshmen) students at a mid-level (not top-notch, but not exceptionally bad academically) small university needed rote training. And they had been cheated out of one of the essentials of intelligent thinking by parents who insisted that their children get good grades regardless of what they didn't know, and advisors who told them that they didn't have to know mathematics, and Deans and faculty who would rather keep parents happy (and students in school paying tuition) than teaching them essential skills. Are secondary schools any better about teaching the simple arithmetical skills now than they were 20 years ago? Takashi Iwasawa (Obviously my company has no opinion on mathematics; if they did they should be paying me more!)
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (01/05/89)
In article <9208@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
=In my view, the difference between good teaching and bad teaching is exactly
=this. A majority of students (and many faculty) make no distinction
=between memorizing facts and having a basic understanding of why the facts
=are true, and how we know they're true. Critical, deductive thinking seems
=rarely to be taught except by accident. Why?
IMHO:
(1) It's hard to teach people how to think, especially when they think
they have been doing it for 17-?? years.
(2) It's hard for them to learn, after the laziness that's been brought
on by the instant gratifiers -- TV, Cliff Notes, etc.
(3) It's hard to grade tests that test thinking, and very time-consuming.
(4) Most teachers do critical thinking "intuitively" and are thus not
qualified to teach it.
=I won't get started on multiple-choice testing ...
It's possible to write good MC tests. The benefit is that they are easy
to grade. But it's probably harder to make up good ones. When I have a
good one, I collect it from the students after returning it for
discussion. That way, I can use it again in the future.
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (01/05/89)
In article <1217.23C35B05@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG> Mike.Wasylik@f419.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Wasylik) writes: > > Something my >father pointed out to me before sending me off to school was that the >most important things I would learn at school were *not* what the professors >taught me in the classroom, at least not specifically. I very much agree -- looking back on my college experience. A lot of what has turned out to be valuable was not specifically tested or examined by any process in college. But it probably contributed to almost all the success I had in anything then -- and much now. > I will never ever use this in real life. However, I >learned valuable lessons just by thinking about some of the things >I was told. In other words, I learned (actually, continued learning; >this skill must be developed over a *long* period of time) how to better >think and evaluate things for myself. Can we who instruct (and who are instructed) really try to do something to insure that this happens more deliberately? Or will trying to do so just kill the individual will to do it on ones' own? >Another very important thing about a college education is the people >you are with. This is probably the most important reason to choose >one university over another, who you'll be spending the next four years >with. I guess, in one sense, that's true, but, other than faculty access, I think you can find people to associate with almost ANYWHERE that will encourage you to better things. What is hard is risking looking less sophisticated, self- sufficient, etc. in the process of seeking out such people since it opens you up to folks who may be passing judgements on you left and right. (And I do not just mean the faculty -- probably less them than others for this kind of an effort.) > (My high school English teacher would have failed me for that >sentence, but in the real world, people don't care... another thing >I've learned) Well, asn an English teacher, I can't let this get by right? :-) I think good communication skills are VERY IMPORTANT anymore. Your sentence, in and of itself, isn't a problem; but what I discovered as a student, and tried to get across to people I taught, is that you often REALLY don't know what you think about a subject until tyou have had to really 'defend' it, verbally or in writing. Then you learn how many ways people can interpret what you've tried to say! > How do you relate to people? Interpersonal relations >are vital to life unless you plan to be a hermit. I've been developing >this skill for years and still haven't perfected it (far from it!). >However, the intensively people-oriented atmosphere (for lack of a >better tag) is the ideal environment for honing such skills. The problem, at least back when I was a student in the 60's was that people- skill(s) became synonymous with emoting to others, and real skill in dealing effectively with people didn't seem to be a part of the college scene. I do not know whether this ability is more clearly needed these days from the per- spective of students. I'm still trying to learn it. I think it's simply because I didn't have too many years ago when "doing your own thing" let you avoid interacting with people in a reasonable and direct manner. >Mike Wasylik - via FidoNet node 1:107/520 >UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!115!419!Mike.Wasylik >ARPA: Mike.Wasylik@f419.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (201-699-3910 (w) 201-463-3683 (h))
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/06/89)
In article <13206@bellcore.bellcore.com>, duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: > In article <1217.23C35B05@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG> Mike.Wasylik@f419.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Wasylik) writes: > > > Well, as an English teacher, I can't let this get by, right? :-) I think good > communication skills are VERY IMPORTANT anymore. Say what? You can say "... NOT very important any more"; is that what you meant, and just left out the "not?" Or you can say "...are very important these days" or "...now" but not as you phrased it. I agree it's useful to be able to communicate. But in this day and age of "reading skills" and "writing skills" and "thinking skills" I would phrase the thought without the use of the idiotword "skills." Try expunging it -- and the shallow thoughts it represents -- from your vocabulary. You'll like it. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/06/89)
[i hope i have the attributions correct, but it was somewhat unclear] In article <9264@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In article <13206@bellcore.bellcore.com>, duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: >> I think good communication skills are VERY IMPORTANT anymore. >[...] >You can say "... NOT very important any more"; is that what you meant, and >just left out the "not?" Or you can say "...are very important these days" >or "...now" but not as you phrased it. Or you can just write "...VERY IMPORTANT anymore" in the secure realization that people will pay at least some attention to the thought you were expressing, and not focus on your typographical errors. Oops, my mistake. The message from Nather proves that not everyone is that adept at reading through typos. Well, most books have a typo or two in them, and most people get through them just fine. I therefore suggest that he is in the minority. And if it wasn't a typo, it was in any case still entirely clear what was intended. >I agree it's useful to be able to communicate. But in this day and age >of "reading skills" and "writing skills" and "thinking skills" I would >phrase the thought without the use of the idiotword "skills." > >Try expunging it -- and the shallow thoughts it represents -- from your >vocabulary. You'll like it. Well, I for one object to this. I find that my writing skills are best supplemented by my vocabulary skills when I am able to use my access skills on as much of the English language as I know. The meaning of the original poster, I suspect, was clear to nearly everyone else who read the message. If you have a problem with certain words, I suggest you put them in a kill file, so that you won't have to read messages with them anymore. In the meantime, you are demonstrating astoundingly shallow sentiments yourself in accusing someone you've never met of having shallow thoughts. Who was the one who was unable to understand an extremely simple sentence? Who was the one who read a sentence and responded not to the meaning and intention of the sentence, but to its surface form? [a prototypical instance of shallowness] And who was the poster who decided that the word "skills" has no place in the English language, is an "idiotword" and a sign of shallow thoughts? My reading of this message chain identifies that individual as Ed Nather. -Dan
night@pawl3.pawl.rpi.edu (Trip Martin) (01/06/89)
In article <9208@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >I won't get started on multiple-choice testing ... > I guess you never had a multiple choice test like the one I had for my computer organization and logic design final. There were 76 multiple choice questions divided into 1-, 2-, and 3-point questions. Every question had 5 choices, the last of which was none of the above. And if the choice was none of the above, you had to fill in the correct answer. Very few of these were trivial questions either, even among the 1-pointers. As I remember, everyone stayed the full 3 hours (except the clueless few who gave up after an hour and a half). You had to know the material well, and work fast if you expected to get a decent grade. -- Trip Martin night@pawl.rpi.edu night@paraguay.acm.rpi.edu
duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (01/06/89)
In article <9264@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In article <13206@bellcore.bellcore.com>, duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: >> communication skills are VERY IMPORTANT anymore. > >You can say "... NOT very important any more"; is that what you meant, and >just left out the "not?" Or you can say "...are very important these days" >or "...now" but not as you phrased it. Yes...sigh. I've had to work on other than my own workstation since the be- ginning of the year and more than the usual typos are happening. In this case a whole line got lost in the process -- the display was messed up and not show- ing what was, apparently in the text buffer. My apologies for that terrible example of English! (By the way, I meant to say "are VERY IMPORTANT and, especially in technical fields, cannot be ignored anymore." But I don't think you could even imagine that from what got posted. Again, I'm very sorry...) >I agree it's useful to be able to communicate. But in this day and age >of "reading skills" and "writing skills" and "thinking skills" I would >phrase the thought without the use of the idiotword "skills." > >Try expunging it -- and the shallow thoughts it represents -- from your >vocabulary. You'll like it. On the other hand, since I'm not teaching on a regular basis these days, perhaps the word 'skills' has taken on a really bad meaning of which I'm unaware. I did not think its use would condemn my thoughts on communication with others (which I did not express in any detail) so completely. Do others active in teaching feel this word suggests shallow thoughts? Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (201-699-3910 (w) 201-463-3683 (h))
fritz@unocss.UUCP (Sharon O'Neil) (01/07/89)
> > Well, I for one object to this. I find that my writing skills are best > supplemented by my vocabulary skills when I am able to use my access skills > on as much of the English language as I know. The meaning of the original > poster, I suspect, was clear to nearly everyone else who read the message. Yes, the meaning of the original poster was probably clear to everyone else who read the message, but that's not really any reason to excuse mistakes. It's great that most people here can decipher a poorly phrased or poorly typed message, but I would think that the computer would have made it easy for him to quickly check and edit his message. -- --------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Sharon O'Neil | Internet: oneil%zeus@fergvax.unl.edu Does Anyone Read These? | Bitnet : oneil@unoma1 University of Nebraska- Lincoln | "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/07/89)
In article <548@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: > > =I won't get started on multiple-choice testing ... > > It's possible to write good MC tests. The benefit is that they are easy > to grade. But it's probably harder to make up good ones. When I have a > good one, I collect it from the students after returning it for > discussion. That way, I can use it again in the future. OK, you've got me started. In my view, there are NO good multiple-choice tests -- the very format precludes its use as a sensitive probe of a student's understanding. When I was in college I found I could usually pass any MC test, even if I knew nothing of the subject. (We bet bottles of beer in those days, and I won many more than I lost.) The procedure is to read each response and see which is the most likely, semantically, to fit with the question or statement it is supposed to complete. In more than half the cases the semantics alone show the correct -- i.e. the "original" completion first composed by the test originator -- with the other possible responses showing their "tacked-on" quality. But this is beside the point, really. The ability the phrase an answer properly is quite different from the ability to recognize one that is properly phrased (or contains the appropriate "buzz-word.") Much muddled thinking can be hidden behind a properly-checked box on a test, which would show up right away if the student had to choose the words to answer the question. Eddington said, "If you can't explain what you're doing in five minutes to a bar-maid, you don't know what you're doing." Presumably bar-maids had more time to listen in Eddington's time than they have now, but the point is valid, and applies very strongly to communication of understanding. The appropriate choice of appropriate words mirrors the internal thought processes -- "understanding" if you will -- information which it totally lost by putting an "X" in the appropriate box. Multiple-choice tests can have a harmful effect as well. On the first test of a recent semester I graded a test in which the student had written "shawod" for "shadow." I asked her if she was familiar with the term "dyslexia"; she was not. After some investigation she was diagnosed as a classical dyslexic by a local physician. She was a junior in college and, according to her own testimony, had never before taken an essay exam -- she got all the way through high school and half of college before she encountered one. She had only been tested by multiple choice exams. She was much too old for the dyslexic training at our university -- they accept no one older than 12 on the assumption all children will have their disability diagnosed before that age -- but managed to get help and did much better as a result. I gave her oral exams for the rest of my couse, which she passed almost effortlessly. She was very capable compared with most students. She had to be, I guess, to learn despite her disability. On graduation, she stopped by my office to say goodbye, and I asked her if learning of her disability had discouraged her. With a huge grin, she said "Oh, no. It made me feel ever so much better. You see, I thought I was just dumb." -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/07/89)
In article <5170@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: > In the > meantime, you are demonstrating astoundingly shallow sentiments yourself in > accusing someone you've never met of having shallow thoughts. Have we met, Dan? -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/07/89)
In article <13223@bellcore.bellcore.com>, duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: > In article <9264@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: > > > >You can say "... NOT very important any more"; is that what you meant, and > >just left out the "not?" Or you can say "...are very important these days" > >or "...now" but not as you phrased it. > > (By the way, I meant to say "are VERY IMPORTANT and, > especially in technical fields, cannot be ignored anymore." But I don't think > you could even imagine that from what got posted. Thanks for the clarification. A missing line (especially when using an unfamiliar text editor) can often be spotted right away, but sometimes it "makes sense" -- like turning two pages in a book thinking it was one -- but was certainly not what was intended. One example from years ago: my wife was reading a book on child care, learning about breast feeding. She turned two pages accidentaly, then let out a yelp when she read "...first heat the needle, then plunge it into the nipple ..." > > perhaps the word 'skills' has taken on a really bad meaning of which I'm > unaware. I don't think it has yet, but I'm trying to promote the idea, because I find it often used as a substitute for "understanding", a very different internal process. It takes skill to ride a bicycle or fly an airplane, but it takes a lot more than "skill" to understand why a bicycle can be balanced easily while it's in motion, but not while it's stopped. I just feel the word is being misused, and in a dangerous way: it suggests that being skilled at taking tests, for example, is the equivalent of understanding the material the test covers. Or, perhaps, you can put this down to an unreasoning prejudice on my part against overused buzz-words. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/08/89)
In article <9287@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In article <5170@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: >> In the >> meantime, you are demonstrating astoundingly shallow sentiments yourself in >> accusing someone you've never met of having shallow thoughts. > >Have we met, Dan? No. Did you read my message? I don't claim to know the first thing about your thoughts. I don't claim to know if your message represent your real opinions. I don't even claim to know if you're a real person. (I don't actually care.) I do claim that the sentiments you expressed are shallow. I suppose you didn't read my rationale. The sentiments you demonstrated same phrasing as I originally used), I contend, are shallow. I, unlike you, never called anyone else shallow except by implication, and that implication I left open-ended, according to each reader's preference. The fact that you seem to have found the implication doesn't mean that I've accused you of having shallow thoughts. I think my assertion is appropriate again, however. Incidentally, whether or not I am technically guilty of what you are claiming, it is again fairly clear from what I wrote that I at least avoided a parallel construction, and in the right direction, indicating that I wanted to make a distinction between the two. You apparently don't think the distinction was made, but to most readers, the intention was, I'm sure, obvious - to point out that you don't really know anything about the thoughts of someone from their postings, you can only make vague inferences. You, however, apparently chose to ignore my intention again and make a (foundless, as far as I can tell) attack not on the meaning but on some chance pattern in the surface form. (If the word "apparently" isn't enough in the previous sentence, replace it with "by some indicators of appearance, which though unreliable are all I have to go on") -Dan
cd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Clarence K. Din) (01/08/89)
In article <9286@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In my view, there are NO good multiple-choice tests -- the very format >precludes its use as a sensitive probe of a student's understanding. >When I was in college I found I could usually pass any MC test, even >if I knew nothing of the subject. (We bet bottles of beer in those >days, and I won many more than I lost.) The procedure is to read >each response and see which is the most likely, semantically, to fit >with the question or statement it is supposed to complete. In more >than half the cases the semantics alone show the correct -- i.e. the >"original" completion first composed by the test originator -- with >the other possible responses showing their "tacked-on" quality. Case in point: I recently took a Cell Biology Final without ever taking a cell bio course (I've never taken college chem, but I have taken an intro bio course three years ago). Yes, I took it for fun. It was a two-hour MC test with 5 choices for each question. I finished it in less than an hour and ended up with ~40%. This was the class mean. The test WAS NOT scaled, so the best I could've done, by random guessing, was 20%. Note of above: Yes, I get my jollies by taking finals for the fun of them. Clarence
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (01/09/89)
In article <9286@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: =In article <548@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: => => =I won't get started on multiple-choice testing ... => => It's possible to write good MC tests. The benefit is that they are easy => to grade. But it's probably harder to make up good ones. When I have a => good one, I collect it from the students after returning it for => discussion. That way, I can use it again in the future. = =OK, you've got me started. = =In my view, there are NO good multiple-choice tests -- the very format =precludes its use as a sensitive probe of a student's understanding. I guess I could show you a couple that refute your statement, but I guess that you'd still not agree, considering your starting point. =When I was in college I found I could usually pass any MC test, even =if I knew nothing of the subject. (We bet bottles of beer in those Agreed: there are lots of lousy MC tests. =Multiple-choice tests can have a harmful effect as well. On the =first test of a recent semester I graded a test in which the student =had written "shawod" for "shadow." I asked her if she was familiar =with the term "dyslexia"; she was not. After some investigation she Statistically meaningless. Stomp on her elementary school system for that. Pete -- Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334 1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
rrw@naucse.UUCP (Robert Wier) (01/09/89)
Regarding multiple choice exams, it is possible to give them so that they access a student's knowledge to some extent (although still probably not as well as with an essay or fill-in-the-blank format). One semester I found myself supervising the administration of all the exams to some 900 introduction to programming students in a large state university. Multiple choice, computer graded exams were the only practical answer to such a large number of exams. One piece of advice I would give to anyone making up multiple choice exams is to check out the article "How to Pass A Multiple Choice Test When You Don't Know the Answers" by William I. Orr, which appeard in the April, 1975 issue of CQ magazine (a ham radio magazine - germane since the FCC uses multiple choice exams for radio licenses). This is a humerous, but serious piece on exploiting flaws in multiiple choice exam formats. If you as an instructor make your MC exams so that these suggestions DON'T work, then you have a much more comprehensive exam. Example: "The fourth rule is: Alternatives which include the words "all", "always", "none", or "never" tend to be wrong. The corollary of this rule is: Alternatives which include the words "most", or "some" tend to be correct." If I can get permission from the author, and I can get our ocr software to read it, I will post the rest of the article here if there is any interest. -Bob Wier at Flagstaff, Arizona Northern Arizona University ...arizona!naucse!rrw | BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | *usual disclaimers*
darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson) (01/11/89)
In article <9286@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In article <548@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >> =I won't get started on multiple-choice testing ... >In my view, there are NO good multiple-choice tests -- the very format >precludes its use as a sensitive probe of a student's understanding. Actually, I had a very difficult MC test, that did indeed show student understanding. In order for an answer to count, you had to show your work! Instead of 20 questions filling up a page, there were maybe 4. (I think the reason it was done this way was that students were asking for a multiple choice test :-) The work either consisted of showing the math, or giving a reference or examples. The nice thing about the test being multiple choice, is that you could easily spot simple errors (such as having an answer the same as one of the choices, but having the wrong sign). In general, most of the MC tests I have taken were only 10-20% of the test, and were used to check if the student had read the material, attended lecture, etc. rather than just showing up on test days. I don't think a student displays more or less knowledge if the question is worded "which of these 5 is an example of x" instead of "name 3 examples of x". Also, having been a T.A./grader, I could actually tell something about the student by comparing the score on the MC section with the rest of the test (some actually did very well overall, but not very well on the MC questions). Still, having an all MC, or mostly MC test is a poor test of student knowledge. Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com) "You can't fight in here! This is the war room.."
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/11/89)
In article <407@laic.UUCP> darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson) writes: >The work either consisted of showing the math, or giving a reference >or examples. The nice thing about the test being multiple choice, is >that you could easily spot simple errors (such as having an answer the >same as one of the choices, but having the wrong sign). I had one guy who would give a test where each of the MC items was either the correct answer or the answer that one would arrive at if one made one of the common mistakes in working out the solution! Any MC tests that I ever took did not provide room for showing the work. The problem with this is that it is an all or nothing proposition. In addition, because the work that produced the answer is not physically on the test sheet, when the time comes to go over the test in the class most people will not remember how they arrived at the answer they chose. Why is this important? Because part of testing is to see the mistakes you made in arriving at the incorrect answer and learn from the experience! That is extremely hard to do with an MC test. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/12/89)
In article <407@laic.UUCP>, darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson) writes: > In article <9286@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: > >In article <548@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: > >> =I won't get started on multiple-choice testing ... > >In my view, there are NO good multiple-choice tests -- the very format > >precludes its use as a sensitive probe of a student's understanding. The mail annotation mechanism is far from perfect, and has identified the second comment above as Pete Holsberg's. Both comments were mine; Pete was not guilty of either one of them. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
panoff@hubcap.UUCP (Robert M. Panoff) (01/12/89)
> > Why is this important? Because part of testing is to see the mistakes > you made in arriving at the incorrect answer and learn from the experience! > That is extremely hard to do with an MC test. > I have combined the Multiple Choice / short answer form of testing/grading to include "getting it right the first time" as part of an "A" grade: No partial credit is ever given for wrong answers, but students may turn in their own (honor system here) complete, correct solutions to problems missed on the weekly quizzes (which comprise 70% of their course grade) and get half the missed credit back. On a strict 90,80,70 scale for A,B,C this means that someone getting 4 out of 7 questions each week on the quizzes (a failing mark) could still end up with a 5.5 average out of 7, which puts them in striking distance for a B with a decent final. The purpose of testing is not so much for the instructor/grader to see where the mistake was made, but for the student to demonstrate the ability to perform an assigned task. The experience to be learned is that you either get it right, or you have to do it over. A lot closer to the real world, no? rmp, for the Bob's of the world -- rmp, for the Bob's of the World
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (01/13/89)
In article <9345@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: =In article <407@laic.UUCP>, darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson) writes: => In article <9286@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: => >In article <548@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: => >> =I won't get started on multiple-choice testing ... => >In my view, there are NO good multiple-choice tests -- the very format => >precludes its use as a sensitive probe of a student's understanding. = =The mail annotation mechanism is far from perfect, and has identified the second =comment above as Pete Holsberg's. Both comments were mine; Pete was not guilty =of either one of them. = =-- =Ed Nather =Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin Thanks, Ed. Nobody's perfect. :-) -- Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334 1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (01/14/89)
in article <5313@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) says: > In article <407@laic.UUCP> darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson) writes: >>The work either consisted of showing the math, or giving a reference >>or examples. The nice thing about the test being multiple choice, is >>that you could easily spot simple errors (such as having an answer the >>same as one of the choices, but having the wrong sign). > Any MC tests that I ever took did not provide room for showing the > work. The problem with this is that it is an all or nothing > proposition. I took a couple of Physics courses where the instructor gave multiple-choice tests of the first type (with room to show work). In addition, when there was a number of equations, he'd either write them on the board or allow you to bring a single 3x5" notecard. Easy, you say? I made that mistake, once -- "oh, I don't need to study, I'll just bring a notecard with all the formulas." I'll give you a hint -- it didn't work. Those were my favorite courses among those I've taken. When I work problems involving mathematics, once I've figured out how to do it, I tend to dive right into the calculations and scribble so fast and hard that I leave a trail of broken pencil lead ;-). Unfortunately, that doesn't do much for my computational accuracy... the ability to spot simple errors is a godsend, & frees the teacher from the agony of trying to figure out what partial credit to give. -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509