LSU removes tough professor, raises students' grades
Posted 23h 10m ago | Comment | Recommend E-mail | Save | Print |
By Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed
Dominique G. Homberger won't apologize for setting high expectations for her students. The biology professor at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge gives brief quizzes at the beginning of every class, to assure attendance and to make sure students are doing the reading. On her tests, she doesn't use a curve, as she believes that students must achieve mastery of the subject matter, not just achieve more mastery than the worst students in the course. For multiple choice questions, she gives 10 possible answers, not the expected 4, as she doesn't want students to get very far with guessing.
Students in introductory biology don't need to worry about meeting her standards anymore. LSU removed her from teaching, mid-semester, and raised the grades of students in the class. In so doing, the university's administration has set off a debate about grade inflation, due process and a professor's right to set standards in her own course.
To Homberger and her supporters, the university's action has violated principles of academic freedom and weakened the faculty.
"This is terrible. It undercuts all of what we do," said Brooks Ellwood, president of the LSU Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, and the Robey H. Clark Distinguished Professor of Geology. "If you are a non-tenured professor at this university, you have to think very seriously about whether you are going to fail too many students for the administration to tolerate."
Even for those who, like Homberger, are tenured, there is a risk of losing the ability to stick to your standards, he said, Teaching geology, he said, there are students who get upset when he talks about the actual age of the earth and about evolution. "Now students can complain to a dean" and have him removed, Elwood said. "I worry that my ability to teach in the classroom has been diminished."
Kevin Carman, dean of the College of Basic Sciences, did not respond to requests for a phone interview Wednesday. But he issued a statement through the university's public relations office that said: "LSU takes academic freedom very seriously, but it takes the needs of its students seriously as well. There was an issue with this particular class that we felt needed to be addressed.
i"The class n question is an entry-level biology class for non-science majors, and, at mid-term, more than 90% of the students in Dr. Homberger's class were failing or had dropped the class. The extreme nature of the grading raised a concern, and we felt it was important to take some action to ensure that our students receive a rigorous, but fair, education. Professor Homberger is not being penalized in any way; her salary has not been decreased nor has any aspect of her appointment been changed."
In an interview, Homberger said that there were numerous flaws with Carman's statement. She said that it was true that most students failed the first of four exams in the course. But she also said that she told the students that — despite her tough grading policies — she believes in giving credit to those who improve over the course of the semester.
At the point that she was removed, she said, some students in the course might not have been able to do much better than a D, but every student could have earned a passing grade. Further, she said that her tough policy was already having an impact, and that the grades on her second test were much higher (she was removed from teaching right after she gave that exam), and that quiz scores were up sharply. Students got the message from her first test, and were working harder, she said.
"I believe in these students. They are capable," she said. And given that LSU boasts of being the state flagship, she said, she should hold students to high standards. Many of these students are in their first year, and are taking their first college-level science course, so there is an adjustment for them to make, Homberger said. But that doesn't mean professors should lower standards.
Homberger said she was told that some students had complained about her grades on the first test. "We are listening to the students who make excuses, and this is unfair to the other students," she said. "I think it's unfair to the students" to send a message that the way to deal with a difficult learning situation is "to complain" rather than to study harder.
Further, she said that she was never informed that administrators had any concerns about her course until she received a notification that she was no longer teaching it. (She noted that the university's learning management system allowed superiors to review the grades on her first test in the course.)
And while her dean authorized her removal from teaching the course, she said, he never once sat in on her course. Further, she said that in more than 30 years of teaching at LSU, no dean had ever done so, although they would have been welcome.
"Why didn't they talk to me?" she asked.
Homberger said that she has not had any serious grading disputes before, although it's been about 15 years since she taught an introductory course. She has been teaching senior-level and graduate courses, and this year, she asked her department's leaders where they could use help, and accepted their suggestion that she take on the intro course.
In discussions with colleagues after she was removed from the course, Homberger said that no one has ever questioned whether any of the test questions were unfair or unfairly graded, but that she was told that she may include "too many facts" on her tests.
Ellwood, the campus AAUP chapter president, said that his group had verified that no one informed Homberger of concerns before removing her from the course, and that no one had questioned the integrity of her tests. He also said that the scores on the second test were notably better than the first one, suggesting that students were responding to the need to do more work. "She's very rigorous. There's no doubt about that," he said.
Based on its investigation, the AAUP chapter has sent a letter to administrators, arguing that they violated Homberger's academic freedom and due process rights and demanding an apology. (No apology has been forthcoming.)
Cary Nelson, national president of the AAUP, said that the organization has always believed that "an instructor has the responsibility for assigning grades," and that the LSU case was "disturbing in several respects." He noted that "the practice of assigning tough grades in an early assignment as a wake-up call to students is quite common" and that "the instructor made it clear that she had no intention of failing that many students when it came time for final grades."
If administrators were concerned, he said, they had a responsibility to "discuss the matter fully with the instructor" before taking any action. And he said that "removal from the classroom mid-semester is a serious sanction that requires all the protections of due process." Nelson said that the incident "raises serious questions about violations of pedagogical freedoms."
Stuart Rojstaczer, a former Duke University professor who is the founder of GradeInflation.com, a website that publishes research on grading, questioned whether LSU was really trying to help students. "How many times has Dean Carman removed a professor from a class who was giving more than 90% As?" he asked.
LSU's public affairs office did not respond to follow-up questions about the statement it issued, and to the criticisms made by various faculty members.
Homberger declined to give out the names of students who have expressed support, saying that to do so would violate her confidentiality obligations. But she released (without student names) answers to a bonus question on the course's second test. The question asked students to describe "the biggest 'AHA' reaction" they had had during the course.
Many of the reactions were about various issues in biology — with evolution as a major topic. But a number dealt with grades and work habits. One was critical: "When I found out my test grade, I almost had a heart attack."
But many other comments about the course standards were positive, with several students specifically praising Homberger's advice that they form study groups. One student wrote: "My biggest 'AHA' reaction in this course is that I need to study for this course every night to make a good grade. I must also attend class, take good notes, and have study sessions with others. Usually a little studying can get me by but not with this class which is why it is my 'AHA' reaction."
Hmm. I don't see anything wrong with her teaching method.
Obviously to get such lousy grades on a multiple choice test, even with 10 answers per question, shows more about lack of student learning than her teaching methods.
I don't know, I'd have to see some sample test question before I leveled judgment. The fact that the course was supposed to be biology for students not majoring in a hard science raises some red flags for me in terms of student behavior. That's the sort of class people take in order to focus on other courses. I know, I've taken those classes, and they often end up being more difficult than anticipated. If she's telling the truth, and there was a significant improvement in later scores, then I could see this being little more than a mass error of expectations on the part of students.
On one hand, it's biology for non-science majors. And there are some real nutjobs in academia with all kinds of weird quirks, beliefs and hangups.
On the other hand, what the heck is biology for non-science majors? At my university (not LSU size but still probably 30K total student body), bio was bio. Is it intended to be a joke version of the real class? And if so, why is LSU scheduling joke classes?
During my freshman year, the class mean for my bio lab was something like 60%. Now, they did use a curve, although that generally just creates a lot of "C" grades and doesn't exactly help anyone's GPA. Anyway, we just chalked it up to bio lab being a really tough class. Which it was, and it was intended to be that. They wanted to see what you were made of.
I tend to think this was probably the case of an overzealous professor who was also well within her right to put demands upon her students. I think 10 multiple choice answers would actually be a very good way of determining mastery of the material.
A very important question here is whether athletes were in that class. It could be a class that the athletic advisors steered athletes to, only to see them risk their athletic eligibility because of the class's difficulty. If so, that would have put more internal pressure on the dean to do something, compared to some random complaining students.
Probably just Northern bias talking, but you kinda hear things about some of those Southern schools, and stories like this kinda get you wondering.
And while her dean authorized her removal from teaching the course, she said, he never once sat in on her course. Further, she said that in more than 30 years of teaching at LSU, no dean had ever done so, although they would have been welcome.
"Why didn't they talk to me?" she asked.
Most likely because you would've asked them a question and offer 10+ answers.
Her teaching is absolutely absurd, she doesn't realize that non-science majors won't use biology and i she was teaching for biology major students then maybe I could accept that, but no, her teaching method is absolute garbage.
When I was in college, I had several classes in the physics department where the highest grade in the class was below 60% (the traditional cut-off point for passing).
But, at the end of the class, the 'A' grade range was from 50-60%. The professor knew he gave sickeningly difficult tests (often due more to time constraints than actual question difficulty), and the final grades earned in the class didn't differ horribly from any other class.
I had another class, a political science class, where the teacher would always include 10 True/False questions on the exams. Inevitably, nine of them would be false, because, in his words, "he'd try to get a 50% true/false balance, but when he read the questions closer, he'd realize there was one aspect of it that made the statements false." As you can imagine, this meant that most people lost a ton of points on those questions.
Again, the final class grades reflected this though. It was accounted for at the end of the class.
My dad is a college professor, so I'm very familiar with how it should be done. I've also taught college courses as an instructor (non tenure-track teaching post). The very idea that a professor would be removed from a class in the middle of a semester for her grading policy is ridiculous. Nothing prevents the department head from making adjustments later, if the final grades really are that far off base. But she should have been given the opportunity to normalize the results herself first.
Finally, while I realize that the article above says she was teaching bio for non-science majors, there are some classes (like, say, structural engineering, or brain surgery) where I'd be uncomfortable with a professor having a 'must-pass' rate. Sometimes, if students don't get it, they need to be failed to keep the public safe. Again - I realize that this isn't the fact in this case, but it's something to consider.
gorgon wrote:
On the other hand, what the heck is biology for non-science majors? At my university (not LSU size but still probably 30K total student body), bio was bio. Is it intended to be a joke version of the real class? And if so, why is LSU scheduling joke classes?
I never took bio for non-science majors, but I did take a physics course for non-science majors. Basically, it was like a serious version of The Universe; theoretical physics without the mathematical component. At my school, about 2k students, the class existed in order to:
1. Provide a means by which non-science majors could fulfill their science requirement. Other examples included "Nuclear Physics", and "Nuclear Engineering" (the two largest departments at my school were International Affairs and Political Science).
2. Attract undecided students to the Physics program. Most science departments had a similar course.
Frazzled wrote:Lets revisit. At mid term 90% had dropped or were failing. 90%.
So? My wife (currently in college) has a class where the professor has weekly quizzes to assure attendance (it's an 8AM class too, which means she has to leave the house before 6am to get there). People dropped her class because they didn't want to have to attend every 8am class.
College students are getting whinier and whinier every year. It's an entry-level biology class. They're probably treating it like a blow-off class. I'd be willing to take any of her quizzes, without having taken a bio class since 1986, and I bet I could pass it. If they're not doing the work, they deserve to fail. And it is the professor's right to set the standard in her class.
They're not "failing" the class until it is over. Until then, they simply have a number. Meaning to that number can be changed at any point until final grades are turned in.
(I should preface I took biology and received a high A-thought the class was very interesting)
In the article the professor stated that "some students in the course might not have been able to do much better than a D, but every student could have earned a passing grade. "
She wasn't grading on a curve doing accounting for her horrible tests. I too have had classes whwere the tests were horrible but the grade reflected that curve.
For every ten students that started only one was passing or still there. I've never seen a class like that where the professor was back the next semester (have seen that once and the professor was indeed gone).
Like I said, there are some strange ducks in academia, and maybe she's some psycho going out of her way to make the class harder than it had to be. Maybe there are some things we don't know that change this story dramatically.
But when I read things like this:
One student wrote: "My biggest 'AHA' reaction in this course is that I need to study for this course every night to make a good grade. I must also attend class, take good notes, and have study sessions with others. Usually a little studying can get me by but not with this class which is why it is my 'AHA' reaction."
Like, oh my god, I like, have to prepare for class and study and stuff. *facepalm*
I don't think this professor is going to have a hard time getting hired elsewhere, if this is really all there is to the story.
Fraz, you either know it or you don't. If they can't identify the right answer, then that means they'd fail a short answer test too, and that says to me they should simply be studying harder.
Frazzled wrote:
In the article the professor stated that "some students in the course might not have been able to do much better than a D, but every student could have earned a passing grade. "
She wasn't grading on a curve doing accounting for her horrible tests. I too have had classes whwere the tests were horrible but the grade reflected that curve.
For every ten students that started only one was passing or still there. I've never seen a class like that where the professor was back the next semester (have seen that once and the professor was indeed gone).
She wasn't - at that time. Like I said, I've been around academia all my life, and I've been part of the system (both as student and as teacher). One of two things is going on - either, students taking "bio for non-science" are not trying at all and deserve to fail, or she would have curved at the end, regardless of what she's saying now.
Either way, if the department head didn't like the outcome, at the end of the class, they could amend the grades then. That they're replacing her as a teacher in the middle of the semester is extremely unprofessional.
Also, I'd be interested to know how many were actually failing, and how many dropped. If I was looking for an easy science credit, and picked this bio-for-non-scientists, and realized, before the drop date, that it wasn't the blow-off class I was hoping for, I might drop it too. What if this is her first semester teaching the class, and the teacher the semester before really was a blow-off? All those kids tell their friends 'take this, it's super-easy', and they take it, and find themselves neck deep. That's not what they signed on for, so they drop. That wouldn't surprise me at all.
I have seen classes where more than half the class is expected to fail too. They're generally called weeder classes, and they're usually offered early in a program, basically acting as an alert to the students that if they want to be in this program, they better get with it and spend more time studying and less time going to topless beaches (really Frazzled, the advice you give to the kids headed to college for the first time, and then wonder why 90% might fail... ). They're also prerequisites for much of the rest of the program, so until you pass that class, you're not getting any further. I doubt bio for non-scientists is anything like that, but the practice of having classes with high fail-out rates isn't unheard of.
gorgon wrote:Fraz, you either know it or you don't. If they can't identify the right answer, then that means they'd fail a short answer test too, and that says to me they should simply be studying harder.
I thought that to until I started taking law school multiple choice tests.
Thats not correct. You can word a question or answers such that it is difficult to get the correct answer. If you're going to be a dillweed and do that you really should be doing essay tests. You're just trying to trip people up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
In the article the professor stated that "some students in the course might not have been able to do much better than a D, but every student could have earned a passing grade. "
She wasn't grading on a curve doing accounting for her horrible tests. I too have had classes whwere the tests were horrible but the grade reflected that curve.
For every ten students that started only one was passing or still there. I've never seen a class like that where the professor was back the next semester (have seen that once and the professor was indeed gone).
She wasn't - at that time. Like I said, I've been around academia all my life, and I've been part of the system (both as student and as teacher). One of two things is going on - either, students taking "bio for non-science" are not trying at all and deserve to fail, or she would have curved at the end, regardless of what she's saying now.
Either way, if the department head didn't like the outcome, at the end of the class, they could amend the grades then. That they're replacing her as a teacher in the middle of the semester is extremely unprofessional.
Also, I'd be interested to know how many were actually failing, and how many dropped. If I was looking for an easy science credit, and picked this bio-for-non-scientists, and realized, before the drop date, that it wasn't the blow-off class I was hoping for, I might drop it too. What if this is her first semester teaching the class, and the teacher the semester before really was a blow-off? All those kids tell their friends 'take this, it's super-easy', and they take it, and find themselves neck deep. That's not what they signed on for, so they drop. That wouldn't surprise me at all.
I have seen classes where more than half the class is expected to fail too. They're generally called weeder classes, and they're usually offered early in a program, basically acting as an alert to the students that if they want to be in this program, they better get with it and spend more time studying and less time going to topless beaches (really Frazzled, the advice you give to the kids headed to college for the first time, and then wonder why 90% might fail... ). They're also prerequisites for much of the rest of the program, so until you pass that class, you're not getting any further. I doubt bio for non-scientists is anything like that, but the practice of having classes with high fail-out rates isn't unheard of.
Frazzled wrote:Take a ten question multiple choice. Thats designed to screw you up, not test your knowledge.
As opposed to a fill-in-the-blank, which is essentially an infinite-question multiple choice question, right?
What's easier:
In 1902, the British Empire won _____.
or
In 1902, the British Empire won ______.
a) World War I
b) The Napoleonic Wars
c) The American Revolution
d) The Second Boer War
e) World War II
f) The Vietnam War
g) The Battle of Hastings
h) all of the above
i) none of the above
Frazzled wrote:Take a ten question multiple choice. Thats designed to screw you up, not test your knowledge.
As opposed to a fill-in-the-blank, which is essentially an infinite-question multiple choice question, right?
What's easier:
In 1902, the British Empire won _____.
or
In 1902, the British Empire won ______.
a) World War I
b) The Napoleonic Wars
c) The American Revolution
d) The Second Boer War
e) World War II
f) The Vietnam War
g) The Battle of Hastings
h) all of the above
i) none of the above
Then why do you need ten resopnses other than to be a dick?
Frazzled wrote:
Thats not correct. You can word a question or answers such that it is difficult to get the correct answer. If you're going to be a dillweed and do that you really should be doing essay tests. You're just trying to trip people up.
Try taking a 50 question T/F logic test in 70 minutes.
Frazzled wrote:90% failing? That sounds like psycho teacher.
Agreed. She's at a public university with students of widely disparate abilities. In a non-major class for first-year students at such a university a major concern for the professor and the institution is retention. They should not be hazed by the faculty.
Frazzled wrote:Then why do you need ten resopnses other than to be a dick?
Why shouldn't you have ten responses. It has always been a teacher's right to set the questions on their own tests. If she wants to do a ten-question multiple choice, rather than a fill-in-the-blank, so what? It doesn't make it any harder - if you know the answer, in either case, you will get it right. If you don't, you get it wrong. More answers doesn't make it any easier or harder to get the answer right if you know it. All it does is make it harder to get it right by blind guessing. And why not?
I am not sure how I feel about this situation, I understand that professors need to keep their class learning, but I feel that there are simply limits to such a basic course.
On face value I agree with Frazz, and if I was at this college, I would probably avoid this overzealous professor like the plague. If I have 16 waking hours in the day, minus 4 hours for transportation/cooking/cleaning, etc... that leaves me approximately 12 hours, 6 days a week to work on school (study 7 days a week, every available hour? No... no thank you), and around 4-6 hours of that per day will be spent in class.
I am all for providing varied modes of education, to make more well rounded students, but that needs to balance out with the reality of why many students are there in the first place. Professors that don't give two gaks about your stress levels, and push you to 'master' some obscure field, of which you will have literally no use for in the future, are usually grade 'A' douche-bags. I don't want to master geology, or biology, or physics, and forcing me to fail because I don't have the time to study that intensely on one class, completely unrelated to my field, is douche-baggery.
All of that said, again, I am not sure how I feel about this, but I would hazard a guess that the Prof needs to take a chill pill. It does seem odd that they would cut the class off mid-semester, but the administration, very well may have had good reasons to do so.
Redbeard wrote:Why shouldn't you have ten responses. It has always been a teacher's right to set the questions on their own tests. If she wants to do a ten-question multiple choice, rather than a fill-in-the-blank, so what? It doesn't make it any harder - if you know the answer, in either case, you will get it right. If you don't, you get it wrong. More answers doesn't make it any easier or harder to get the answer right if you know it. All it does is make it harder to get it right by blind guessing. And why not?
Why shouldn't you have 100 choices? What specific purpose does it serve but to place even more doubt in the students themselves? It can be very easy to mix up facts when you have 2-3 midterms to take in one day, and having one teacher provide a completely random and opinion based alternative mode of testing, makes very little sense to me. I understand that teachers need flexibility, and 10 choices really doesn't sound that bad, but you fail testing on a 1:4 ratio when guessing anyway. It seems like a way to make people feel terrible, really.
"I knew that answer, but I had so many options that I doubted myself"
Common underhanded psych trick, not a fancy way of being a good teacher, more of a way to simply make your students annoyed. 6 more answers to check, is 12 more seconds of reading, give or take. If students are indeed being tested on their knowledge, and not their psychological fortitude, fill in the blank is the best option, and multiple choice is simply a waste of paper space.
On the other hand Wrex you have single moms/dads going to school full time who are able to pass their classes and find time to study on top of raising kids and being a parent.
Sure the kids might be in daycare or with a sitter part or most of a day but most college students don't spend 12 hours a day studying/doing homework. I'd guess about 8 hours a day drinking, 2 hours getting laid and or puking and then 2 hours doing homework and studying and then wondering why they can't pass a certain class (or don't graduate at all).
I know nurses who were single moms, went to college full time and still found time to pass their classes AND raise a family.
As Redbeard said, if you know the answer to a question it won't matter if there are 50 answers or 3 answers. The difference being it will take longer to narrow down your choices but if you know the answer you won't even have to read the rest of the choices, you just will immediately see the right one jump off the page at you (at least that's how my brain works).
If they were worded in such a way as for there to be more than one possible answer I could see it being douchey but until a copy of the test goes up for the world to see so we can see for ourselves what kind of test it was we only have her word and the students, and as quoted earlier by one student of hers I'm more inclined to think these kids expected an easy A and now need to whine because they can't be bothered to actually study or attend class.
Whiny, lazy students = fail students, not fail teacher.
In my experience at uni the work load is usually to much to learn the way she is trying to teach.. To know something inside out especially a science which has soo much info to begin with is a really tall order.
I must say though I thought the standards are pretty low when I first got to uni, IRL if your right only 50% of the time you get fired.
Redbeard wrote:It has always been a teacher's right to set the questions on their own tests.
Actually, that's not exactly true. Having GONE to LSU, I know for a fact that certain departments have mandatory department tests/exams that teachers HAVE to administer and don't have the right to alter in any way.
Frazzled wrote:(For those not from the South LSU is a good college but not Ivy League)
I think its also important to note that we don't have enough information to come to a definitive conclusion either way. Without access to the tests in question, there really is no way to determine whether this was a matter of an overzealous professor, a failure of student expectations, or some combination of the two.
Redbeard wrote:It has always been a teacher's right to set the questions on their own tests.
Actually, that's not exactly true. Having GONE to LSU, I know for a fact that certain departments have mandatory department tests/exams that teachers HAVE to administer and don't have the right to alter in any way.
Frazzled wrote:(For those not from the South LSU is a good college but not Ivy League)
Redbeard wrote:It has always been a teacher's right to set the questions on their own tests.
Actually, that's not exactly true. Having GONE to LSU, I know for a fact that certain departments have mandatory department tests/exams that teachers HAVE to administer and don't have the right to alter in any way.
Frazzled wrote:(For those not from the South LSU is a good college but not Ivy League)
They also have a live tiger for a mascot.
Respect. We had a mountain lion.
We have the largest Tiger in captivity(currently at ~420 lbs, expected to reach 600-700 lbs when fully grown), as well as the largest area for any single tiger in captivity(15,000 sq ft). Interesting factoid: Mike V(the previous tiger who died in 2007) actually had a cousin named Tony.
I like how the teacher is completely out of line or the students are all clearly lazy. No middle ground? I know my girlfriend is a hard, studious worker and she's swamped up at UNT. I think the amount of work given outside of class needs to have some kind of limit as some of these kids need to work to earn a living and keep going there too. I know many professor's assume their class is the most important, but you can teach people effectively without giving tons of stress to them.
Redbeard wrote:It has always been a teacher's right to set the questions on their own tests.
Actually, that's not exactly true. Having GONE to LSU, I know for a fact that certain departments have mandatory department tests/exams that teachers HAVE to administer and don't have the right to alter in any way.
Frazzled wrote:(For those not from the South LSU is a good college but not Ivy League)
They also have a live tiger for a mascot.
Respect. We had a mountain lion.
We have the largest Tiger in captivity(currently at ~420 lbs, expected to reach 600-700 lbs when fully grown), as well as the largest area for any single tiger in captivity(15,000 sq ft). Interesting factoid: Mike V(the previous tiger who died in 2007) actually had a cousin named Tony.
We had the fattest. in texas, even our mascots eat well.
dogma wrote:I think its also important to note that we don't have enough information to come to a definitive conclusion either way. Without access to the tests in question, there really is no way to determine whether this was a matter of an overzealous professor, a failure of student expectations, or some combination of the two.
Again, this is very important, even though I do have expectations that if we do actually see the tests, it will be clear as day that the Prof was on a personal tangent.
Fateweaver wrote:On the other hand Wrex you have single moms/dads going to school full time who are able to pass their classes and find time to study on top of raising kids and being a parent.
Sure the kids might be in daycare or with a sitter part or most of a day but most college students don't spend 12 hours a day studying/doing homework. I'd guess about 8 hours a day drinking, 2 hours getting laid and or puking and then 2 hours doing homework and studying and then wondering why they can't pass a certain class (or don't graduate at all).
This is a pretty common strawman, and the actual number of people that succeed at this lifestyle is very limited. You should be able to study 4-8 hours, 6 days a week, without a family to raise, and achieve a comfortable 'B' grade in doing so. With 4-7 classes a week, there are simply limits to the amount of time you can invest in individual classes, and with a family, you will require support on that front to be able to study that vigorously in the first place. Either kids are in daycare due to their parents having the ability to provide it, or Grandma/Auntie takes care of the kids as a part-time job.
I know very few college students that actually drink every single day, and have sex every single day, then study for only 2 hours. I do know many that don't study more than 3 hours a day, which is usually not enough, depending on their given field.
I also know people who can run up walls and do back-flips... DO A BACK-FLIP, FOOL!!! IF THEY CAN, YOU CAN!!!
As Redbeard said, if you know the answer to a question it won't matter if there are 50 answers or 3 answers. The difference being it will take longer to narrow down your choices but if you know the answer you won't even have to read the rest of the choices, you just will immediately see the right one jump off the page at you (at least that's how my brain works).
You don't get more than 2-3 hours for most serious tests, and the simple fact that I would EXPECT a prof with tendencies like this one, to sneak in obscure mind games within those 10, 50, or 100 different options; is more than enough for one to be wary of such methods of testing.
If they were worded in such a way as for there to be more than one possible answer I could see it being douchey but until a copy of the test goes up for the world to see so we can see for ourselves what kind of test it was we only have her word and the students, and as quoted earlier by one student of hers I'm more inclined to think these kids expected an easy A and now need to whine because they can't be bothered to actually study or attend class.
This isn't about an easy 'A' grade, it is about simply passing a required class. A comfortable and achievable goal for most classes should be a 'B' grade, but from the sound of it, aside any double curve-based grading system that has not been completely explained to us via the article, you would have a hard time working your ass off for a 'C' grade. Any student not focusing on the sciences will have a hard time, while ones who are 'science-ready', can enter the class for an achievable 'A', further extending the curve for the rest of the class.
Whiny, lazy students = fail students, not fail teacher.
Yes, yes... I understand that Profs and Teachers are rarely put on the spot for actually doing their jobs...
Fateweaver wrote:On the other hand Wrex you have single moms/dads going to school full time who are able to pass their classes and find time to study on top of raising kids and being a parent.
Sure the kids might be in daycare or with a sitter part or most of a day but most college students don't spend 12 hours a day studying/doing homework. I'd guess about 8 hours a day drinking, 2 hours getting laid and or puking and then 2 hours doing homework and studying and then wondering why they can't pass a certain class (or don't graduate at all).
This is a pretty common strawman, and the actual number of people that succeed at this lifestyle is very limited. You should be able to study 4-8 hours, 6 days a week, without a family to raise, and achieve a comfortable 'B' grade in doing so. With 4-7 classes a week, there are simply limits to the amount of time you can invest in individual classes, and with a family, you will require support on that front to be able to study that vigorously in the first place. Either kids are in daycare due to their parents having the ability to provide it, or Grandma/Auntie takes care of the kids as a part-time job.
I know very few college students that actually drink every single day, and have sex every single day, then study for only 2 hours. I do know many that don't study
I know nurses who were single moms, went to college full time and still found time to pass their classes AND raise a family.
As Redbeard said, if you know the answer to a question it won't matter if there are 50 answers or 3 answers. The difference being it will take longer to narrow down your choices but if you know the answer you won't even have to read the rest of the choices, you just will immediately see the right one jump off the page at you (at least that's how my brain works).
You don't get more than 2-3 hours for most serious tests, and the simple fact that I would EXPECT a prof with tendencies like this one, to sneak in obscure mind games within those 10, 50, or 100 different options; is more than enough for one to be wary of such methods of testing.
If they were worded in such a way as for there to be more than one possible answer I could see it being douchey but until a copy of the test goes up for the world to see so we can see for ourselves what kind of test it was we only have her word and the students, and as quoted earlier by one student of hers I'm more inclined to think these kids expected an easy A and now need to whine because they can't be bothered to actually study or attend class.
This isn't about an easy 'A' grade, it is about simply passing a required class. A comfortable and achievable goal for most classes should be a 'B' grade, but from the sound of it, aside any double curve-based grading system that has not been completely explained to us via the article, you would have a hard time working your ass off for a 'C' grade. Any student not focusing on the sciences will have a hard time, while ones who are 'science-ready', can enter the class for an achievable 'A', further extending the curve for the rest of the class.
Whiny, lazy students = fail students, not fail teacher.
Yes, yes... I understand that Profs and Teachers are rarely put on the spot for actually doing their jobs...
It boils down to how many questions. It sounds like they were pop quiz length (possibly 10-15 questions), not mid-term or finals length. Obviously she wouldn't let the students take the entire hour if she does this every morning as no learning would get done but 10 questions of multiple choice with 10 answers EACH should take no more than 20 minutes. 2 minutes to pick the right answer from 10. Even if you have to stop and think for a little bit 2 minutes should be more than enough per question with only 10 choices.
10 Essay questions in 20 minutes would be a lot harder.
Again, we don't know the test structure and/or how much time she gave. There are douche bag teachers but one student admitted he didn't feel like taking a test every morning for an 8am class. That doesn't sound like a faculty problem to me, more like a student problem.
dogma wrote:I think its also important to note that we don't have enough information to come to a definitive conclusion either way. Without access to the tests in question, there really is no way to determine whether this was a matter of an overzealous professor, a failure of student expectations, or some combination of the two.
Again, this is very important, even though I do have expectations that if we do actually see the tests, it will be clear as day that the Prof was on a personal tangent.
Fateweaver wrote:On the other hand Wrex you have single moms/dads going to school full time who are able to pass their classes and find time to study on top of raising kids and being a parent.
Sure the kids might be in daycare or with a sitter part or most of a day but most college students don't spend 12 hours a day studying/doing homework. I'd guess about 8 hours a day drinking, 2 hours getting laid and or puking and then 2 hours doing homework and studying and then wondering why they can't pass a certain class (or don't graduate at all).
This is a pretty common strawman, and the actual number of people that succeed at this lifestyle is very limited. You should be able to study 4-8 hours, 6 days a week, without a family to raise, and achieve a comfortable 'B' grade in doing so. With 4-7 classes a week, there are simply limits to the amount of time you can invest in individual classes, and with a family, you will require support on that front to be able to study that vigorously in the first place. Either kids are in daycare due to their parents having the ability to provide it, or Grandma/Auntie takes care of the kids as a part-time job.
I know very few college students that actually drink every single day, and have sex every single day, then study for only 2 hours. I do know many that don't study more than 3 hours a day, which is usually not enough, depending on their given field.
I know nurses who were single moms, went to college full time and still found time to pass their classes AND raise a family.
As Redbeard said, if you know the answer to a question it won't matter if there are 50 answers or 3 answers. The difference being it will take longer to narrow down your choices but if you know the answer you won't even have to read the rest of the choices, you just will immediately see the right one jump off the page at you (at least that's how my brain works).
You don't get more than 2-3 hours for most serious tests, and the simple fact that I would EXPECT a prof with tendencies like this one, to sneak in obscure mind games within those 10, 50, or 100 different options; is more than enough for one to be wary of such methods of testing.
If they were worded in such a way as for there to be more than one possible answer I could see it being douchey but until a copy of the test goes up for the world to see so we can see for ourselves what kind of test it was we only have her word and the students, and as quoted earlier by one student of hers I'm more inclined to think these kids expected an easy A and now need to whine because they can't be bothered to actually study or attend class.
This isn't about an easy 'A' grade, it is about simply passing a required class. A comfortable and achievable goal for most classes should be a 'B' grade, but from the sound of it, aside any double curve-based grading system that has not been completely explained to us via the article, you would have a hard time working your ass off for a 'C' grade. Any student not focusing on the sciences will have a hard time, while ones who are 'science-ready', can enter the class for an achievable 'A', further extending the curve for the rest of the class.
Whiny, lazy students = fail students, not fail teacher.
Yes, yes... I understand that Profs and Teachers are rarely put on the spot for actually doing their jobs...
There's probably some blame on both sides. But as Redbeard said, it's EXTREMELY unprofessional to remove a professor halfway through the semester without -- if her allegation is correct -- even discussing it with her. And to do that based on complaints from some first-year students is fairly shocking, really. Either there's some significant information we're lacking, or this dean went way overboard in his actions.
I still would be interested to know if any athletes were in the class. It changes a lot if this professor was about to make someone ineligible. That's a whole 'nuther kind of pressure on the dean at a school like LSU. Although even in that case you'd think the dean would have the conversation first.
FW wrote:Again, we don't know the test structure and/or how much time she gave. There are douche bag teachers but one student admitted he didn't feel like taking a test every morning for an 8am class. That doesn't sound like a faculty problem to me, more like a student problem.
Well... 8 AM is early...
I assume that out of a class that could very well number in the hundreds, this individual could only be described as anecdotal evidence. There is one of these students in every single class I have attended, for my entire life. I have also attended many classes that simply do not provide enough time for all material to be covered in full. Add in a disorganized Prof, and you got a lot of studying to do, in order to keep pace with the curve.
I do not promote skipping mini-tests (quizzes, whatever you want to call them), but I also can't rule out that individual student actually having run the stats on that invested time. Should he have done the reading, bit his lip, and just done the tests? Probably. Is it likely that he is a bad student? Exceedingly so. Mini-tests are usually no more than 10% of your grade, and during midterms, investing time intelligently is key to success. Focusing so heavily on such a small portion of your grades can be a very bad idea.
Again, 5-7 classes is a massive work-load, and no individual class can really stand out as that much more important than another; at least in terms of your GPA.
Which of the following is True:
a) Ultramarines are blue colored
b) Dark Angels are bone colored
c) Blood Angels are red colored
d) All of the above
e) None of the above
f) A and B, but not C
g) A and C, but not B
h) B and C, but not A
i) A and C, but sometimes B
j) Always A, and sometimes B and C
pombe wrote:Which of the following is True:
a) Ultramarines are blue colored
b) Dark Angels are bone colored
c) Blood Angels are red colored
d) All of the above
e) None of the above
f) A and B, but not C
g) A and C, but not B
h) B and C, but not A
i) A and C, but sometimes B
j) Always A, and sometimes B and C
HEHE... Ok lets look at the classic "curve" grading method....
Highest is auotmatic pass, lowest is a definite Fail.
Now AVERAGE the scores.
Plot the center as a "C"
Now Plot the Mean, or the center of the "C" line.
Where it crosses the Curve above "C" is a "B", Where it crosses below "C" its a "D".
One extraordinary student can destroy the curve for the "average" students. If, say, that one student scores only 10 points better than the next lowest it can affect where the "B" and "D" fall. especially if the lowest misses by less than 10 points.
Face it if you are taking Bio for non sci majors then you are probably there to party. Most likely a football player or an arts major. suck it up and do the work.
helgrenze wrote:
Face it if you are taking Bio for non sci majors then you are probably there to party. Most likely a football player or an arts major. suck it up and do the work.
Or any other freeking field besides medicine, which is, er, all of them.
Curves is the stupidest grading scale ever invented.
If a course has a possible 100 pts than break it down.
I went to school with one girl who did extra credit and had a 4.0 in the class so she was actually closer to a 5.0. It botched the curve so much that the lowest student in the class got a 70%.
On a non-curve 70% is a C. In that class it was a D-. I should have gotten a B+ with an 85% but it ended up being a C+, which lowered my GPA for that class from a 3.0 to a 2.5
helgrenze wrote:
Face it if you are taking Bio for non sci majors then you are probably there to party. Most likely a football player or an arts major. suck it up and do the work.
Or any other freeking field besides medicine, which is, er, all of them.
I am working towards a degree in Landscape Architecture, and I have literally NO NEED WHATSOEVER, for knowledge pertaining to several science fields. I also have experience in the field, and as a contractor, I have to cope with reality. If a client wants to know about geology, or something even more ridiculous... like, say... Soil sciences/Botany (two ENTIRELY different professional fields... FFS!!!)... I would have to stop myself from laughing in their faces, handing them 3 textbooks, and telling them to have fun studying.
Why would anyone feel the need to ask a designer, about how their tomatoes 'work', on top of hinging response to bids on a job. Because they are freaking silly, that's why.
Frazzled wrote:Your example used too many numbers. I need cute pics people.
Actually, a true bell curve would take into account only 2 values:
1) the mean
2) the standard deviation
The mean would set the C.
The standard deviation would set the boundaries for A/B, B/C, C/D, D/F.
If you are above 2 standard deviations from the mean, you get an A. If you are above the mean by 1 standard deviation, you get a B.
The funny exams are when the curve is bimodal...meaning that the shape of the curve isn't a single bell shape, but has two bells.
Of course, most professors are kind enough to consider the mean the boundary between a B and a C, which raises the average grade of the course.
I know for a fact that most professors shoot for an average grade between 3.2 and 2.5 (A being 4, B being 3, C being 2, D being 1) for the course at the end, which varies on how smart that particular class is.
I bet that professor's rating at www.ratemyprofessors.com nosedived after that fiasco. She definitely seemed like one of those psycho hardass types which is understandable since she's an ancient academic that hadn't taught an introductory course in 15 years; and this was one intended for non-sci majors to boot so she seems out of touch or "a fish out of water" if you will.
She also seems the type to add a bunch extra points due to attendance, improvement, or something entirely intangible to boost the final grade however even after the first test it seemed some could at best only reach a 'D'. Also having a 90% failure/drop rate is simply an inexcusable statistic to have in such a course. In just about any other job you'd be fired for such poor performance and teaching is no exception imo.
Also seemed like an instance of "the straw that broke the camel's back" since she wasn't made aware of the situation behind the scenes.
Recommending study groups for a beginner's level bio class for non-sci majors? That alone seems like a bad enough sign
Biology for non-majors means "Biology for those who need to know something about bio, but aren't pre-Med". As an Engineer, I took the Chem version for non-majors, along with the rest of the Engineers. This keeps the pre-Med stuff from being affected one way or the other.
90% failing? Perhaps something's not right, even if it's Louisiana State.
There's a balance to be had, and it's too bad nobody bothered to speak with her about what that balance should be. Also, nothing wrong with assigning grades on a curve for this kind of thing. For every 10 students, just sort them: 1 A 5 B 3 C 1 D (or Fail, if lazy) Easy!
Fateweaver wrote:Curves is the stupidest grading scale ever invented.
If a course has a possible 100 pts than break it down.
I went to school with one girl who did extra credit and had a 4.0 in the class so she was actually closer to a 5.0. It botched the curve so much that the lowest student in the class got a 70%.
On a non-curve 70% is a C. In that class it was a D-. I should have gotten a B+ with an 85% but it ended up being a C+, which lowered my GPA for that class from a 3.0 to a 2.5
5.0 GPAs are imaginary figures that individuals use to sell themselves on the college market. They are an unnecessary boost for people that have means beyond others in their class, to succeed in academia.
On a scale of (F/d)1-4(A), there is no fifth degree. You fail on a 1, pass on a 2, do well on a 3, and are extremely successful, within the class on a 4. There is no 5 on this scale, and it annoys me that there is actual value in an imaginary investment. Within a single class, 5.0 means to me, that the person is the teachers assistant, and should not be treated as an obstacle to the rest of the class.
The bag of rice is one pound, you can buy portions of a single bag, but only in increments of 4. If you want more than 4 parts, buy a second set from the next bag of rice, and leave the rest of the damn class the feth alone.
There's not much of a difference between a D and an F at most schools. In general, D's do not grant credit towards anything except graduation. They also, frequently, count for 0 quality points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:Curves is the stupidest grading scale ever invented.
It depends on the class. If the class is a hard science, then curve systems can be a good way of checking instructor's ability. If you're teaching an essay course, which depends more on internal consistency and citation record than numerical accuracy, then a curve is a poor choice as the students' grades are not tied to a central criterion.
dogma wrote:There's not much of a difference between a D and an F at most schools. In general, D's do not grant credit towards anything except graduation. They also, frequently, count for 0 quality points.
Ds are the teachers way of saying, "Well you did try, right?".
On a personal level it can mean something, perhaps retaking the course with the teacher 'knowing' that you invest heavily to do so, but it doesn't mean squat towards your GPA. It is opinion based nonsense though, and if you fail, take it again, transfer to another course, or simply invest the time if possible to not fail in the future.
The biggest difference is that a D is a 1.0, while an F is a 0.
Unless your school is really hardcore, then D's are a 0, and F's are a -1.0. I only know of 3 schools that do that, though, and they're all combined BA/MA programs.
If I were to transfer, and questions were asked about a D, I would prefer to answer, "Why did you get an F?". A much more flexible response can be had for an F, and I am simply talking human interaction here. One F is bad, but understandable, multiple Ds is just too many factors to explain. You were obviously attending the class, what impeded you from achieving a flat 'C'? Besides... F reads fail clearly, as such can be explained with relative ease from the side of the student (damage control, eh? ), while a D would speak to me as a half-assed attempt at failing, instead of being flexible means of accomplishing other, more important goals.
Jump to reach the hoop, failing is complicated, being successful is simple.
The number of multiple choice answers are irrelevant. No one would be complaining if they were simple answer tests with no choices given at all, and those are far harder than any number of multiple choices. The issue is the content of the questions and whether they were too advanced for the curriculum and student body to handle. Given that the teacher had previously been teaching upper level education classes to seniors or graduate students it would pretty heavily imply a loss of perspective as to the capabilities of non science major students in an introductory courses. 90% dropped out or failing is unacceptable and it either speaks to an incapable teacher, poor method, or administrative error in calculating grades. My assumption is that the course was simply too difficult as presented for the student body to handle.
Perhaps it's a bit of both. Maybe the teacher was more used to working with upper-classmen. But, maybe also, the entry level, non-science-major students had absolutely no idea how much work is expected in college-level science classes, didn't put the required effort in, and got poor grades as a result.
Knowing many college students and teachers, I simply cannot believe that the teacher is so out-of-touch that this is all her fault.
Example: My (evil) step-mother is a math professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology, which is primarily an engineering and architecture school. This last semester she was teaching an intro-level math class called college algebra for business majors. Over dinner the other night she was lamenting how completely unprepared freshmen college students have become in the last few years and told us how she asked a simple question about interest on a recent test, if you invested $100 at 6% interest for a year, how much would you have at the end of the year. (The answer, using simple interest, is $106, BTW). She had students coming up with answers in the millions of dollar range.
The high school education in this country has gotten so bad that freshmen heading to college are frequently out of their depth, especially in the maths and sciences. I don't believe that college level classes should be called upon to lower their standards, punishing the students who didn't sleep through high school, in order to make up for this.
Redbeard wrote:
Example: My (evil) step-mother is a math professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology, which is primarily an engineering and architecture school. This last semester she was teaching an intro-level math class called college algebra for business majors. Over dinner the other night she was lamenting how completely unprepared freshmen college students have become in the last few years and told us how she asked a simple question about interest on a recent test, if you invested $100 at 6% interest for a year, how much would you have at the end of the year. (The answer, using simple interest, is $106, BTW). She had students coming up with answers in the millions of dollar range.
I attend this institute (EDIT b/c I'm crabby this evening)
Perhaps it's a bit of both. Maybe the teacher was more used to working with upper-classmen. But, maybe also, the entry level, non-science-major students had absolutely no idea how much work is expected in college-level science classes, didn't put the required effort in, and got poor grades as a result.
Were that the case the professor would have been failing her upper level students as well. Student quality is endemic to the institutions which they are being raised in, and if the were really that stupid then the professor would have encountered issues previously.
Knowing many college students and teachers, I simply cannot believe that the teacher is so out-of-touch that this is all her fault.
Not all, but 90% is a significant failing on the part of the professor to educate to the standards being demanded.
My (evil) step-mother is a math professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology, which is primarily an engineering and architecture school. This last semester she was teaching an intro-level math class called college algebra for business majors. Over dinner the other night she was lamenting how completely unprepared freshmen college students have become in the last few years and told us how she asked a simple question about interest on a recent test, if you invested $100 at 6% interest for a year, how much would you have at the end of the year. (The answer, using simple interest, is $106, BTW). She had students coming up with answers in the millions of dollar range.
Maybe she should have taught those things.
The high school education in this country has gotten so bad that freshmen heading to college are frequently out of their depth, especially in the maths and sciences. I don't believe that college level classes should be called upon to lower their standards, punishing the students who didn't sleep through high school, in order to make up for this.
I would argue that its more symptomatic of the requirement of a modern american working force to have a college degree or better. The lazy and uneducated used to just get paid 14 dollars an hour making car parts, now they have to go to school. There are a myriad number of reasons, but since this isn't an issue with every single science class across the country I doubt "lazy high schools" is the answer here.
ShumaGorath wrote:The number of multiple choice answers are irrelevant. No one would be complaining if they were simple answer tests with no choices given at all, and those are far harder than any number of multiple choices. The issue is the content of the questions and whether they were too advanced for the curriculum and student body to handle. Given that the teacher had previously been teaching upper level education classes to seniors or graduate students it would pretty heavily imply a loss of perspective as to the capabilities of non science major students in an introductory courses. 90% dropped out or failing is unacceptable and it either speaks to an incapable teacher, poor method, or administrative error in calculating grades. My assumption is that the course was simply too difficult as presented for the student body to handle.
I had an econ 100 prof who hated that because econ was a general arts class people from outside of econ could take he tried to fail every last person who did take it. She sounds a lot like him.
ShumaGorath wrote:The number of multiple choice answers are irrelevant. No one would be complaining if they were simple answer tests with no choices given at all, and those are far harder than any number of multiple choices. The issue is the content of the questions and whether they were too advanced for the curriculum and student body to handle. Given that the teacher had previously been teaching upper level education classes to seniors or graduate students it would pretty heavily imply a loss of perspective as to the capabilities of non science major students in an introductory courses. 90% dropped out or failing is unacceptable and it either speaks to an incapable teacher, poor method, or administrative error in calculating grades. My assumption is that the course was simply too difficult as presented for the student body to handle.
I had an econ 100 prof who hated that because econ was a general arts class people from outside of econ could take he tried to fail every last person who did take it. She sounds a lot like him.
Weird. Economics are actually really simple, I find it bizarre that she would be so bitter.
I thought the teaching method was pretty solid....
.... until I read that its a non-major course, It which I thought it was pretty stupid. I can see pushing people who are majoring in it that much, but not someone who just picked it up as a beginners type of thing, thats just inconceivable.
Colleges & Schools (A - Z)
•Agriculture
•Art & Design
•Arts & Sciences
•Basic Sciences
•Business, E. J. Ourso
•Coast and Environment
•Continuing Education
•Education
•Engineering
•Graduate School
•Honors College
•Library & Information Science
•Mass Communication, Manship School of
•Music & Dramatic Arts
•Social Work
•University College
•Veterinary Medicine
Now remove the Science related items.... four total.... Graduate school (upperclassmen) and Honors and University colleges (seperate programs.) and Continuing Ed.
that leaves
•Agriculture
•Art & Design
•Business, E. J. Ourso
•Education
•Engineering
•Library & Information Science
•Mass Communication, Manship School of
•Music & Dramatic Arts
•Social Work
Ag and Social work Could require a "hard" bio class....
Leaving Business and Engineering as the top end classes both being Math heavy.
Leaving the following
•Art & Design
•Education
•Library & Information Science
•Mass Communication, Manship School of
•Music & Dramatic Arts
This list is the kind of fluffy bunny classes they put (Insert sport here) players in to "help" them keep up a GPA that allows them to play, in accordance with NCAA rules. These are also the programs that would have a base bio requirement in them.
"But Coach... This class is so Hard. Can't you do something?"
helgrenze wrote:ok its a class for Non Science Majors.... Lets look at the programs LSU Offers.... (from the schools official site... http://www.lsu.edu/students/academics.shtml )
Colleges & Schools (A - Z)
•Art & Design
•Education
•Library & Information Science
•Mass Communication, Manship School of
•Music & Dramatic Arts
This list is the kind of fluffy bunny classes they put (Insert sport here) players in to "help" them keep up a GPA that allows them to play, in accordance with NCAA rules. These are also the programs that would have a base bio requirement in them.
"But Coach... This class is so Hard. Can't you do something?"
I can't speak for Arts and sciences but Library Sciences at any College is not fluffy bunny, nor are Education and Mass Communication.
I should note this is particularly the case for Library and Information Science as it is not ever an entry level program, but rather a Master's program.
The professor is tenured, and you don't get tenure from running a first year bio class one time.
I think the most likely thing here is that senior staff member, probably who's worked mostly in research or postgrad, has been given a first year class. I know around my uni there's a lot of really skilled researchers that should never, ever be let near a lecture hall. There should have been better process followed in the lead up to removing her from the class, but removing her from the class seemed well justified, that 90% drop out/fail rate is absurd.
The only bit that really worried me was "there are students who get upset when he talks about the actual age of the earth and about evolution." What the hell is that?
Since no one actually failed the teachers class I'm not sure how we are even having this conversation. It was the possibility that there might have been a lot of failed students.
sebster wrote: The only bit that really worried me was "there are students who get upset when he talks about the actual age of the earth and about evolution." What the hell is that?
THAT is a result of LSU being in the South and close to the Bible Belt. Sadly, much of America is still very religious, and many of them(especially in areas that include large numbers of Baptists, Methodists, and Evangelicals[which Baton Rouge has an Evangelical seminary school within 8-10 miles of LSU]) are fundamentalist. Evolution is still a touchy subject in many parts of America and many parents don't want it taught to their children as they feel it devalues their Christian faith/beliefs.
Ok.... lets look at the Prof....
Dominique G. Homberger
Tenured...... this doesnt just get handed out as a tenure for a Prof is technically a lifetime contract.
Published.... 12 books in 3 languages all concerning Biology with a focus on disection.
First published in 1976... more than 30 years ago
Most recently published in 2007... a CRAM101 textbook outline.
(sounds kinda like an expert on the subject to me.)
Now, it is true that she hasn't taught an intro course in 15 years. BUT, She offered to teach more classes and the school suggested this class to her.
Also, Tenure is SUPPOSED to allow for academic freedom and insure the integrity of the grading system, without pressure from the administration to issue higher grades.
The removal was prompted by "Student Complaints". The First exam of FOUR given in the class was the only real evidence for the removal. The Prof states that she gives credit for improvement over the course of the class.
So the University is in the wrong here.... and sets a dangerous precident....
Honestly, entry-level bio for non-science that sounds a little strict to me. The only thing I could compare it to is entry-level physics which is more the opposite since medical etc students don't take it.
The first time I TA'd a course 100%of the class failed the first test, and the highest mark was 38%. A bit of an eye-opener about how stupid some people are.
"Even for those who, like Homberger, are tenured, there is a risk of losing the ability to stick to your standards, he said, Teaching geology, he said, there are students who get upset when he talks about the actual age of the earth and about evolution. "Now students can complain to a dean" and have him removed, Elwood said. "I worry that my ability to teach in the classroom has been diminished."
How did this nugget of crazy get missed? Why would these people even take geology classes?
I've seen some pretty whiny undergrads (and in my current course, some exceptionally whiny postgrads), but at the same time, I've been in some badly run lecture series. Once in physics in third year, we had a guy try to cram a terms worth of statistical mechanics into a six week intro course. I loved it, because statistical mechanics is really interesting, but none of us did well on the exam because even for someone studious and interested there was just too much information to take in when you factored in our other coursework.
"Even for those who, like Homberger, are tenured, there is a risk of losing the ability to stick to your standards, he said, Teaching geology, he said, there are students who get upset when he talks about the actual age of the earth and about evolution. "Now students can complain to a dean" and have him removed, Elwood said. "I worry that my ability to teach in the classroom has been diminished."
How did this nugget of crazy get missed? Why would these people even take geology classes?
Further, why is evolution being taught in a geology class?
"Even for those who, like Homberger, are tenured, there is a risk of losing the ability to stick to your standards, he said, Teaching geology, he said, there are students who get upset when he talks about the actual age of the earth and about evolution. "Now students can complain to a dean" and have him removed, Elwood said. "I worry that my ability to teach in the classroom has been diminished."
How did this nugget of crazy get missed? Why would these people even take geology classes?
Further, why is evolution being taught in a geology class?
Geology includes at least a basic understanding of Fossils and fossil fuels and is a required precourse for students in both archeology and paleontology.
Tacobake wrote:Honestly, entry-level bio for non-science that sounds a little strict to me. The only thing I could compare it to is entry-level physics which is more the opposite since medical etc students don't take it.
I say fail.
Did she really have to get FIRED though? Weird.
She didn't get fired, Fraz's thread title is wrong. She's tenured and couldn't get fired if the school wanted to. They actually just took her off the course, which is probably reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote:THAT is a result of LSU being in the South and close to the Bible Belt. Sadly, much of America is still very religious, and many of them(especially in areas that include large numbers of Baptists, Methodists, and Evangelicals[which Baton Rouge has an Evangelical seminary school within 8-10 miles of LSU]) are fundamentalist. Evolution is still a touchy subject in many parts of America and many parents don't want it taught to their children as they feel it devalues their Christian faith/beliefs.
Yeah, I knew there were issues and all of that, and I could kind of accept them impacting primary and secondary education, but the idea of someone at college taking a course and the complaining about the science just, well, that's really the point at which it's gotten far too silly.
"Even for those who, like Homberger, are tenured, there is a risk of losing the ability to stick to your standards, he said, Teaching geology, he said, there are students who get upset when he talks about the actual age of the earth and about evolution. "Now students can complain to a dean" and have him removed, Elwood said. "I worry that my ability to teach in the classroom has been diminished."
How did this nugget of crazy get missed? Why would these people even take geology classes?
Further, why is evolution being taught in a geology class?
Geology includes at least a basic understanding of Fossils and fossil fuels and is a required precourse for students in both archeology and paleontology.
Often times the evolutionary time scale is used as a stepping stone in bringing students to an appreciation of the geologic time scale.
It isn't like this guy said he taught evolution in class. He said he talked about. Professors sometimes (read: frequently) go off on tangents.
More to the point: why are people complaining about a teacher relating information about a point of view? You go to class to learn, and learning doesn't necessarily have anything to do with truth. At least not in the sense that the truth of a statement must correlate with the substance of a statement.
Shuma,
When Darwin went on the HMS Beagle journey he had two prized books: Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology" and Thomas Malthus's "Essay on Population." In order for the theory of evolution the Earth needs to be really old; Lyell's book established this. If you combine a huge duration (Lyell) with a struggle for resources (Malthus) you get natural selection.
dogma wrote:Often times the evolutionary time scale is used as a stepping stone in bringing students to an appreciation of the geologic time scale.
It isn't like this guy said he taught evolution in class. He said he talked about. Professors sometimes (read: frequently) go off on tangents.
More to the point: why are people complaining about a teacher relating information about a point of view? You go to class to learn, and learning doesn't necessarily have anything to do with truth. At least not in the sense that the truth of a statement must correlate with the substance of a statement.
If you are a strict Bishop Ussher believer, the world was created 6006 years ago or something. Evolution and Geology are both nonsense because the time during which they are supposed to have happened didn't exist.
I present the most extreme form of the argument for the sake of illustration.
I assume these people's faith is so weak that it precludes any presentation of a point of view which would challenge them.
gorgon wrote:
On the other hand, what the heck is biology for non-science majors? At my university (not LSU size but still probably 30K total student body), bio was bio. Is it intended to be a joke version of the real class? And if so, why is LSU scheduling joke classes?
I know my university requires you to take a bunch of classes unrelated to your major. Could have been something like that.
helgrenze wrote:Ok.... lets look at the Prof....
Dominique G. Homberger
Tenured...... this doesnt just get handed out as a tenure for a Prof is technically a lifetime contract.
Published.... 12 books in 3 languages all concerning Biology with a focus on disection.
First published in 1976... more than 30 years ago
Most recently published in 2007... a CRAM101 textbook outline.
(sounds kinda like an expert on the subject to me.)
Now, it is true that she hasn't taught an intro course in 15 years. BUT, She offered to teach more classes and the school suggested this class to her.
Also, Tenure is SUPPOSED to allow for academic freedom and insure the integrity of the grading system, without pressure from the administration to issue higher grades.
The removal was prompted by "Student Complaints". The First exam of FOUR given in the class was the only real evidence for the removal. The Prof states that she gives credit for improvement over the course of the class.
So the University is in the wrong here.... and sets a dangerous precident....
Dont like your grades.... WHINE.
Thats asinine. If 90% of the class is gone she would be gone.
Frazz... Since the only information we have on the students in the class is.....
more than 90% of the students in Dr. Homberger's class were failing or had dropped the class.
.... We cannot tell how many dropped vs howmany were at that point failing.
The OP then goes on to explain....(my bold)
At the point that she was removed, she said, some students in the course might not have been able to do much better than a D, but every student could have earned a passing grade. Further, she said that her tough policy was already having an impact, and that the grades on her second test were much higher (she was removed from teaching right after she gave that exam), and that quiz scores were up sharply. Students got the message from her first test, and were working harder, she said.
Note that the Professor states that she believes the remaining students would pass the course.
Homberger declined to give out the names of students who have expressed support, saying that to do so would violate her confidentiality obligations. But she released (without student names) answers to a bonus question on the course's second test. The question asked students to describe "the biggest 'AHA' reaction" they had had during the course.
Many of the reactions were about various issues in biology — with evolution as a major topic. But a number dealt with grades and work habits. One was critical: "When I found out my test grade, I almost had a heart attack."
But many other comments about the course standards were positive, with several students specifically praising Homberger's advice that they form study groups. One student wrote: "My biggest 'AHA' reaction in this course is that I need to study for this course every night to make a good grade. I must also attend class, take good notes, and have study sessions with others. Usually a little studying can get me by but not with this class which is why it is my 'AHA' reaction."
The first "AHA moment" here is a statement of SHOCK. Almost as if the student was expecting to skate the course. get an easy "A". The second "AHA moment" is one of REALIZATION. This isnt Highschool, its not about who you hang with, or what uniform you wear. Its college... where you have to apply yourself and actually study.
One final note from the middle of the OP that I fully agree with.....
"We are listening to the students who make excuses, and this is unfair to the other students," she said. "I think it's unfair to the students" to send a message that the way to deal with a difficult learning situation is "to complain" rather than to study harder.
But that is exactly the message the Dean of her department is sending. Don't Study.. Whine.. and they will give you better grades... which is what the school did.
Pass a course means your grade is crap. You want to good to a good grad school you need better grades than crap, given to you by a professor who clearly doesn't have a clue and should be fired.
In the real world (TM) she would have been immediately fired.
Kevin Carman, dean of the College of Basic Sciences, told the student newspaper that his decision to yank Homberger was justified:
"Seventy-five percent of the students were failing, and fewer than 8 percent of students had grade C or better," Carman said. "The number of students failing the course was out of line with that class in any history. Therefore I took action because I felt it was in the best interest of the students."
Carman said 27.8 percent of students had dropped the class.
The AAUP—which is already investigating the firing of a former deputy
One... 27.8% is a very specific number. How many student have to be in the class at the beginning to get that exact %?
As for the remaining class, 25% were already passing at the point the professor was removed and their grades got bumped by 25% on the first exam with no mention of the second (midterm) exam.
More to the point though.... if you followed the links in the lower part of the piece you just quoted.... (Links to the appropriate forum posts.)
if a longtime tenured professor can be removed for awarding low marks to students, it's no wonder professors like this one,
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,67416.0.html who shared her concern in the Forums about a freshman-comp class in which nearly everyone is failing, are sweating over students' grades. Imagine the heat this adjunct,
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,67408.0.html must be feeling to pass a student who complained to the administration about his or her grade.
The trouble I still have is that no one had failed, they were failing, which is not that same thing. They had just started to climb the mountain and gave up because they didn't make it to the top in the first few hours. We don't know how things would have looked by the end of the semester, just that a bunch of whiney people threw fits because college required study and work. If these were the stats at the end of the semester I could understand it, but they fired the Prof with incomplete information.
Ahtman wrote:The trouble I still have is that no one had failed, they were failing, which is not that same thing. They had just started to climb the mountain and gave up because they didn't make it to the top in the first few hours. We don't know how things would have looked by the end of the semester, just that a bunch of whiney people threw fits because college required study and work. If these were the stats at the end of the semester I could understand it, but they fired the Prof with incomplete information.
The smart ones dropped the course. Risking an F is not sane. I remember one class in particular, taught by a guy who's grasp of English was minimal and who attempted to gon into high end formulas for a basic survey course as well. Took the test, walked over and dropped the class. While waiting three other students from the class showed up as well.
Ahtman wrote:The trouble I still have is that no one had failed, they were failing, which is not that same thing. They had just started to climb the mountain and gave up because they didn't make it to the top in the first few hours. We don't know how things would have looked by the end of the semester, just that a bunch of whiney people threw fits because college required study and work. If these were the stats at the end of the semester I could understand it, but they fired the Prof with incomplete information.
The smart ones dropped the course. Risking an F is not sane. I remember one class in particular, taught by a guy who's grasp of English was minimal and who attempted to gon into high end formulas for a basic survey course as well. Took the test, walked over and dropped the class. While waiting three other students from the class showed up as well.
While I don't disagree, that is neither here nor there as to whether or not they would have failed by the end of the semester. The point is still that with incomplete information they fired someone.
I had an English Prof start the class with a short lesson in Quantum Physics. Covering the creation of the universe right up to the creation of Language within the first 2 hour class.
The second class he chose to spend 15 minutes on his 2 favorite words is all of English. (Sorry, violates posting rules to put them in the forum.)
These had little do do with the subject at hand but were part of the midterm exam.
Had another teacher put the following question in both the midterm and final of a Lit class.
"What does Tom pick up on the road in the first chapter of The Grapes of Wrath?"
Its such a fine detail of the book, but its one that is not in the Cliffnotes.
With everything out there that Teacher and Professors have to compete with for students attention, they often have to find ways to shock their pupils into paying attention.
I personally would like to see the Dean get fired over this.
Frazzled wrote:In the real world (TM) she would have been immediately fired.
No, in the real world the manager (professor) would have fired those that couldn't cut it. And those that quit would probably have to leave the job off their resume or risk trying to explain to a new potential employer that they quit a job a few weeks in because it was too much work.
The real world that I live in doesn't tolerate slackers or quitters, no matter how tough the boss is.
Frazzled wrote:In the real world (TM) she would have been immediately fired.
No, in the real world the manager (professor) would have fired those that couldn't cut it. And those that quit would probably have to leave the job off their resume or risk trying to explain to a new potential employer that they quit a job a few weeks in because it was too much work.
The real world that I live in doesn't tolerate slackers or quitters, no matter how tough the boss is.
Inocrrect. The professor is there to teach. If that many are failing she didn't do her job.
Dreadwinter wrote:Entry level biology class for non-science majors.
That is really all that needs to be said.
So its ok to have that as a fluff class then? Because that is wht it just became. A fluff class.... like Introductory Dirigible Recognition. Or HS Art Class, required but not seen as important.
With the prices you guys are paying for third level education I'd be expecting top class service. If that many were failing in one of my classes, I'd look at my teaching practices again and try and rectify it. That said, there are certain standards that have to maintained and if the class weren't meeting them, then they fail.
Remember that these students are paying massive money to be there, and university lecturers are fairly well paid for their work, which on the lecturing side of things is pretty easy. Don't be too quick to blame the students.
Da Boss wrote:With the prices you guys are paying for third level education I'd be expecting top class service. If that many were failing in one of my classes, I'd look at my teaching practices again and try and rectify it. That said, there are certain standards that have to maintained and if the class weren't meeting them, then they fail.
Remember that these students are paying massive money to be there, and university lecturers are fairly well paid for their work, which on the lecturing side of things is pretty easy. Don't be too quick to blame the students.
I'd expect a certain number of failings and drops, thats a given. But this amount is extremely indicative of a bad professor.
Agreed with Frazz. In addition to those numbers lets not forget she didn't teach an intro class in 15 years much less an intro-class designed for non-majors.
That amount of withdrawals, people failing (some could at best only get a D), and imo the idea of study groups for an intro science class for non-majors seems pretty indicative of a bad professor for the job.
Frazzled wrote:Inocrrect. The professor is there to teach. If that many are failing she didn't do her job.
I think you know better than that Fraz. It is a portion of what Professors are hired for, but not the main thrust. They are to be pretty dolls the university can show off.
Frazzled wrote:Inocrrect. The professor is there to teach. If that many are failing she didn't do her job.
I think you know better than that Fraz. It is a portion of what Professors are hired for, but not the main thrust. They are to be pretty dolls the university can show off.
No we have football teams and cheerleaders for that in Texas.
Well, a lot of academics get paid to lecture and to research, but when you're paid to lecture you should actually go for it properly. With high end stuff, the challenge a lecturer faces is dealing with very specialised questions and problems, and staying current with the field. Good academics of that sort can answer really odd and challenging questions, and qupte the relevant research.
At an entry level though, it's a different ball game. Part of what you're doing is capturing interest, part is giving students the basics. Their questions are likely to be a lot easier to answer. For that reason, I'd expect more energy to be put into the teaching end of things. In fairness to the academic in question, she hardly sounds lazy- preparing tests for every class is time consuming and shows dedication. It seems like she may have been inflexible in her views or not very reflective though, if the failure and retention rates were as they were and she continued without adapting.
Dreadwinter wrote:Entry level biology class for non-science majors.
That is really all that needs to be said.
So its ok to have that as a fluff class then? Because that is wht it just became. A fluff class.... like Introductory Dirigible Recognition. Or HS Art Class, required but not seen as important.
I agree entirely with Dreadwinter. This is not an example of a fluff class, it is a required course that most students in the college will not clearly benefit from in the long run. I would argue that instead of forcing the largest majority of most student bodies (within most colleges at least) to take random courses in nearly every field, they should be able to focus on their field of choice. There are many different styles of college though, and this method is standard within the U.S.
This professor made it clear that she wanted people to 'master' the material, which IMHO is ridiculous. Instead of trying to adjust her teaching style, she stuck to her guns, and in all likelihood she would have encouraged a handful of students to do well; while ignoring the 'lazy' ones. You know... the ones that have OTHER classes, and need to spend time on those as well? An introductory course that requires students to join study groups in order to well in the course, is again the mark of a bad teacher, at least within an introductory format.
Da Boss wrote:Well, a lot of academics get paid to lecture and to research, but when you're paid to lecture you should actually go for it properly. With high end stuff, the challenge a lecturer faces is dealing with very specialised questions and problems, and staying current with the field. Good academics of that sort can answer really odd and challenging questions, and qupte the relevant research.
At an entry level though, it's a different ball game. Part of what you're doing is capturing interest, part is giving students the basics. Their questions are likely to be a lot easier to answer. For that reason, I'd expect more energy to be put into the teaching end of things. In fairness to the academic in question, she hardly sounds lazy- preparing tests for every class is time consuming and shows dedication. It seems like she may have been inflexible in her views or not very reflective though, if the failure and retention rates were as they were and she continued without adapting.
I don't think she was lazy, it just seems that she was not an appropriate Professor for the job. It sounds like both the administration and the Prof, made an error in judgment, and actions have been taken to remedy it. Intro courses do require flexibility from the Prof, in the form of adapting to their students, as possible. No need to bend over backwards, but the majority of your class should be able to pull of a 'B' with an appropriate amount of effort. If you expect most students to just pass, damaging their GPA in the process, you should be dealing with advanced classes, and not introductory ones.
Introductory doesn't mean easy. I'm still of the opinion that the students didn't want to put the required work into a science course, even a non-major science course, and that their failings are a direct result of this. Punishing a teacher for having standards is ridiculous.
Redbeard wrote:Introductory doesn't mean easy. I'm still of the opinion that the students didn't want to put the required work into a science course, even a non-major science course, and that their failings are a direct result of this. Punishing a teacher for having standards is ridiculous.
Nonsense. 75% were failing. Thats 3 out of every four students. On top of that nearly 30% had already dropped the course.
So nearly all of the class that started were losers who didn't want to "put the effort in?" At what point would you say they aren't losers? 95%? 99%?
I think that COULD be right, Redbeard, but lacking data I tend to assume the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, and as the person paid to teach, I'd put the onus on the lecturer to alter her strategies to better suit her student's needs. I would be interested to see the material though. I've met some horrendously incompetant and whiney undergrads in my time in university and so I can believe that it's possible the whole class were that lazy, but it seems unlikely.
(I've been a year in a postgraduate level teacher training course now. In the last lecture today, we were discussing the final assignment. The course co-ordinator was saying that we needed to back up our arguments with reference to the literature, and reccomending journal articles over books for ease of access and specificity to our topics. One student asks "Is there like, a journal of education, or something, that we can look up?"
I literally facepalmed.)
Redbeard wrote:Introductory doesn't mean easy. I'm still of the opinion that the students didn't want to put the required work into a science course, even a non-major science course, and that their failings are a direct result of this. Punishing a teacher for having standards is ridiculous.
Intro bio course for non-majors does mean easy imo. Those are the classes that are generally the easiest for a student's career.
Punishing a teacher for having such overly-demanding standards isn't ridiculous.
It'd be like taking a beginner's basketball course and being evaluated like you're supposed to be ready for competitive venues or expected to play for your school.
Redbeard wrote:Introductory doesn't mean easy. I'm still of the opinion that the students didn't want to put the required work into a science course, even a non-major science course, and that their failings are a direct result of this. Punishing a teacher for having standards is ridiculous.
Nonsense. 75% were failing. Thats 3 out of every four students. On top of that nearly 30% had already dropped the course.
So nearly all of the class that started were losers who didn't want to "put the effort in?" At what point would you say they aren't losers? 95%? 99%?
Again, they were failing, but hadn't failed, and it was just the beginning of the year. Some Professors like to do a wake up call to students. I bet those that didn't drop probably would have been better at Bio then people taking the easier class. The Professor even stated that her curve isn't normal but that it the students would improve their grade over time. There is no one theory or philosophy of how to teach. I know multiple professors and each have a different approach.
This isn't to say that the university shouldn't have talked to the Professor to find out what the deal was but they jumped the gun and went straight to firing w/o seeing what the results would be.
Redbeard wrote:Introductory doesn't mean easy. I'm still of the opinion that the students didn't want to put the required work into a science course, even a non-major science course, and that their failings are a direct result of this. Punishing a teacher for having standards is ridiculous.
Nonsense. 75% were failing. Thats 3 out of every four students. On top of that nearly 30% had already dropped the course.
So nearly all of the class that started were losers who didn't want to "put the effort in?" At what point would you say they aren't losers? 95%? 99%?
Again, they were failing, but hadn't failed, and it was just the beginning of the year. Some Professors like to do a wake up call to students. I bet those that didn't drop probably would have been better at Bio then people taking the easier class.
Or they would have failed, or been negatively impacted tin their other classes, their real classes.
Getting a D because a professor ist DER FUHRER or incompetent is not my idea of successfully learning the course material.
But as Da Boss noted, the truth is somewhere in between.
Frazzled wrote:
Nonsense. 75% were failing. Thats 3 out of every four students. On top of that nearly 30% had already dropped the course.
So nearly all of the class that started were losers who didn't want to "put the effort in?" At what point would you say they aren't losers? 95%? 99%?
In this case percentages are only useful for their ability to raise a flag next to a problematic course.
You cannot reach a conclusion here without a qualitative review of the course material. No one has access to that information, so this entire argument regarding where the blame should lay is just a pissing contest.
I'm with Helegrenze on this one. I'd like to know more details before damning the proff.
@Frazz- As a texan, you know the leading curriculum at LSU is Sports. I could be wrong but this entire fiasco smacks of internal politics. It would be interesting to know if any of the star atheletes were in this class.
If this is the case then finding out if the Proff has any personal issues with athelete students could explain why this became such an issue.
Frazzled wrote:
Nonsense. 75% were failing. Thats 3 out of every four students. On top of that nearly 30% had already dropped the course.
So nearly all of the class that started were losers who didn't want to "put the effort in?" At what point would you say they aren't losers? 95%? 99%?
If only 25% of the students in the class bother to study, and only 25% of the students in the class bother to do the homework, and only 25% of the studends deign to attend class then only 25% of the students in the class deserve to pass the class. I'm sorry, it isn't the professor's job to keep lowering her standards until students who think that the purpose of college is to see how many beer-bongs they can drink pass her class.
Yes, I have a low opinion of underclassmen at large state universities. It's based on observing how most underclassmen at large state universities tend to behave. Most college freshmen have no idea how to study. It isn't the job of a professor to impart study habits on their students. If the students do not put in the effort, they do not deserve to pass the class.
focusedfire wrote:I'm with Helegrenze on this one. I'd like to know more details before damning the proff.
@Frazz- As a texan, you know the leading curriculum at LSU is Sports. I could be wrong but this entire fiasco smacks of internal politics. It would be interesting to know if any of the star atheletes were in this class.
If this is the case then finding out if the Proff has any personal issues with athelete students could explain why this became such an issue.
Edited for clarity
You have an excellent point there. Mess with the athletics program and you will be out on your keister fast.
Frazzled wrote:
Nonsense. 75% were failing. Thats 3 out of every four students. On top of that nearly 30% had already dropped the course.
So nearly all of the class that started were losers who didn't want to "put the effort in?" At what point would you say they aren't losers? 95%? 99%?
If only 25% of the students in the class bother to study, and only 25% of the students in the class bother to do the homework, and only 25% of the studends deign to attend class then only 25% of the students in the class deserve to pass the class. I'm sorry, it isn't the professor's job to keep lowering her standards until students who think that the purpose of college is to see how many beer-bongs they can drink pass her class.
Yes, I have a low opinion of underclassmen at large state universities. It's based on observing how most underclassmen at large state universities tend to behave. Most college freshmen have no idea how to study. It isn't the job of a professor to impart study habits on their students. If the students do not put in the effort, they do not deserve to pass the class.
I don't think it was the case here, but colleges are definitely stepping up to teach
"study skills" classes that are sometimes obviously study skills classes and sometimes
called "Introduction to Whatever this Teacher Wants to Teach." So colleges are aware
that student retention is a problem.
Cane wrote:Intro bio course for non-majors does mean easy imo. Those are the classes that are generally the easiest for a student's career.
Punishing a teacher for having such overly-demanding standards isn't ridiculous.
It doesn't have to be easy, although it can be, just reasonable in the investment expected from students. I could learn to walk around on my hands, it isn't exactly going to be easy... and, well... I would be walking around on my hands...
It'd be like taking a beginner's basketball course and being evaluated like you're supposed to be ready for competitive venues or expected to play for your school.
Some view student retention as a problem. Others view a lack of student retention as part of the program.
I recall sitting in an auditorium at a larger school, for an orientation session, and the school's president saying something along the lines of 'look to your left and right, in four years one of you will be graduating.' This was intended as a warning, that college was hard work...
It's not a bad plan. They collect a year's tuition from a bunch of people who have no business being in college, and weeded those students who weren't willing, or able, to do college-level studies out so that they didn't dumb down the classes for the students who were serious about learning and weren't there to treat college as a four-year party.
One of my brothers fell into this situation too. He attended Michigan State for a year, and did little more than play video games. They didn't take attendance, so he figured classes weren't mandatory, and didn't go. They didn't grade homework, so he figured it was optional and didn't do it. Instead, he played console games. Needless to say, he left college after a semester and joined the armed forces.
Many eighteen year-olds are not mature enough to deal with what a college education should entail, and far too many see it as party-time. Then they whine when a teacher is unwilling to adjust her class to their new lifestyle.
It blows my mind that people could pay that much for education and then not attend. I mean, in Ireland undergraduate education is free (unless you fail a year) and anyone who is below a certain income band gets a grant to help pay living costs. So you can imagine, a lot of people go just because that's what's done. But at that, the majority attend lectures and do the work. There's one week of severe partying a year (RAG week) and the rest of the time, parties are fairly rare and generally to celebrate certain occaisions. (My american friend who attended here thought we were pretty laid back though, until exam times. We're not generally heavily continuously assessed, but the exams can be difficult. Anyway, getting OT)
Paying what an american pays to go to university, I'd go to EVERYTHING and work my arse off, just to make it worth my money.
Well, there's a big reason that doesn't happen, and that's because in the middle (and certainly upper-middle) class, going to college isn't seen as a privilege as much as a right or an expectation.
And, many jobs seem to view having a degree as a requirement, even when the job could be done by a trained monkey. Most entry-level receptionist positions, for example, are requiring a college degree these days. Considering that a receptionist is largely making coffee, and copies, and answering and routing phones, this doesn't exactly require four years of higher education. But then, I guess there has to be some way to ensure that people with liberal arts degrees have something to do?
The whole system is messed up. People with no business going to college are going because it's expected of them, and then goofing around. The jobs with no realistic need for a degree are requiring them, perpetuating this myth as well.
The thing about paying for it is the students get a sense of entitlement. We have started to see English students suing universities because they did not get good enough grades, or low quality courses or whatever.
To some extent this is positive as there are bad lecturers and bad universities. But there are bad students too, some of whom probably shouldn't have started the degree in the first place. I suspect the number of bad students is greater, since you can always do studying by yourself whatever the lecturer is like.
Da Boss wrote:
Paying what an american pays to go to university, I'd go to EVERYTHING and work my arse off, just to make it worth my money.
One of my most significant regrets is that I didn't go to class often enough, or do enough work. My attendance record sat around 66%, and I usually only did 3-4 hours of work each week. The rest of the time I drank, played sports, and went to graduate conferences (though I suppose those were good a investment of time). Senior year, when I subconsciously decided that I had already graduated, (I had finished my three majors, so in part that was true) my attendance fell to around 25% and the amount of work I did dropped to 3-4 hours a month.
Thing is, this wasn't uncommon (though my case is a little more extreme than most), and I attended a top 25 school with a graduation rate above 90%. College students aren't stupid (not all of them anyway), they generally understand what they need to do in order to get the grades they want. Reading and lectures can usually be substituted for one another and, unless you're in hard science, much of the work can be done inside a dorm room. Its gotten to the point where you pay for a paper, and do you're actual learning while digging through journal catalogs.
You know, a lot here have complained about the classes 90 % fail rate being:
1) inaccurate in determining student ability
2) Unfair to the student
3) An unexpected difficulty that the student shouldn't have to deal with
4) A sign of the instructor being too tough
It seems to me that a large part of a universities job is to prepare the student for the real world. A place where:
1) Everyone fails at some point
2) Life is not fair
3) Unexpected difficulties come at you whether your prepared or not.
4) Bosses are tough and don't accept excuses
This whole story has given me the amusing mental image of Kirk complaining that the Kobiashi Moru is too hard and unfair.
There are a couple schools of thought about Grades....
1) Everyone starts the term or class with an "A" and that gets adjusted down with course work and time.
2) Everyone starts with a "0" and it goes up with coursework and time.
3) Everyone starts with a "C" and that gets adjusted up or down depending on the coursework.
This Prof seems to be in the second group from what we know from the various articles.
That means that at one point the whole class was, in point of fact, "Failing". It wasnt until after being informed of the grading and expectations of the instructor, taking daily quizzes to review that weeks lesson and readings, and one exam of four to be given that the students complained about their grades.
Those students that dropped the course probably did so early as there are time limits on how far into the semester a class can be dropped. If you do the research you will probably find that intro classes have a similar drop rate falling between 1/4 and 1/3.
As for the profs expectation that the students "master the material", I would expect some-one not taking an english major to still be able to read "See Dick run" even if they don't need to study, understand, outline and dissect Chaucer.
Like excuses that a 90% fail rate was not your fault as the teacher of a class?
Like that?
Teacher never denied culpability but rather told everyone from the start what was going to happen. Most colleges give you the opportunity to drop or swap a class during the first week or two if it isn't what was expected or is too much of a load. If the students don't care enough about their education to show up and and find out or weren't smart enough to belive the prof, Whose fault ist it?
Like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
focusedfire wrote:
Wrexasaur wrote:
4) Bosses are tough and don't accept excuses
Like excuses that a 90% fail rate was not your fault as the teacher of a class?
Like that?
Teacher never denied culpability but rather told everyone from the start what was going to happen. Most colleges give you the opportunity to drop or swap a class during the first week or two if it isn't what was expected or is too much of a load. If the students don't care enough about their education to show up to find out or weren't smart enough to belive the prof, Whose fault ist it?
Redbeard wrote:If only 25% of the students in the class bother to study, and only 25% of the students in the class bother to do the homework, and only 25% of the studends deign to attend class then only 25% of the students in the class deserve to pass the class. I'm sorry, it isn't the professor's job to keep lowering her standards until students who think that the purpose of college is to see how many beer-bongs they can drink pass her class.
There are two scenarios here.
The first is that an established, tenured professor has come into a class with very specific ideas about how she was going to teach that class. She set a very high standard and a really difficult first test, expecting to scare students into achieving a high standard. This caused a lot of students to drop out and a whole lot more to worry about failing. This wasn’t how the school felt the unit should be managed so they took the class off of her hands.
The second option is that the professor came to teach her first intro class in decades and just happened to end up with a classroom full of idiots and lazy students. She failed most of them as that’s what they deserve, but then the school freaked out, worried that giving students what they really deserve will lead to drop outs and cost the school money.
I work at a university, I can tell you that the former happens all the time, and that the latter has never happened in the history of the planet. Yes, there are financial pressures that can lead to pressure being placed on professors to mark differently, but that is limited to specific students, or to passing an extra 5% or so of a class. You just don’t get situations where outliers where 75% of the kids in a class just happen to be stupid/lazy students who deserve to fail.
If this was a general access course and not some weird American thing where they specifically stick dud students into one class, it is simply a case of a professor setting a bizarrely high standard.
focusedfire wrote:I'm with Helegrenze on this one. I'd like to know more details before damning the proff.
@Frazz- As a texan, you know the leading curriculum at LSU is Sports. I could be wrong but this entire fiasco smacks of internal politics. It would be interesting to know if any of the star atheletes were in this class.
If this is the case then finding out if the Proff has any personal issues with athelete students could explain why this became such an issue.
Edited for clarity
You guys don't know how true this is regarding LSU(except that "don't mess with the Athletic department thing"). Every single program minus ONE(Sports) has had to cut teachers and classes for a lack of funding. The Sports department receives so much money(through donations and other means) every year that they are actually giving some to vital departments.
That said, Focused, if they're in an INTRO level class, they're NOT the star athletes, as first year players aren't starting players at LSU. PERIOD(even if they transfer in at later years). One MS star player decided against transferring to LSU his last year when Katrina hit because he found that out. However, the Sports department is also very serious about players keeping up their grades there. If you're on academic probation, you're off the team, no matter who you are. Teachers have been thanked for telling coaches early that their players are in danger of failing. Those players suddenly had private tutors.
focusedfire wrote:Teacher never denied culpability but rather told everyone from the start what was going to happen.
That 90% of them were going to fail midterms? I don't remember reading about that in the article...
Most colleges give you the opportunity to drop or swap a class during the first week or two if it isn't what was expected or is too much of a load.
So... the option for 90% the entire class was to drop? I mean... unless they are really looking forward to just passing an intro biology course.
If the students don't care enough about their education to show up to find out or weren't smart enough to belive the prof, Whose fault ist it?
I have to reference Sebster here, as I feel it is a pure fantasy to assume an entire class of college level students are A.) Lazy, B.) Stupid, or C.) Apathetic. Most first year students are actually quite engaged, aside fear of sounding stupid, because the teacher already thinks 90% of the class are morons.
I am sure its pretty awesome for an English Major to have to worry about if they are going to be able to get their degree because their Bio teacher went on some power trip.
@ Platuan4th- Thanks for the info about LSU. My college experience was over 20 years back when LSU was as much of a sports mill as OU, Nebraska, and certain Texas institutions that I'll refrin from naming so as to no anger a certian Mod(Thats right frazz, don't want you on my back and I don't know if your colour is burnt orange or maroon and white). I'm glad that they have cleaned up their act, though, I'd wager there are still those in various departments whom have issues and don't play team ball.
Could you explain which type of intro level course. There is the intro level zero course that is a primer that brings the student up to college level and the normal introductory level one first year classes that can be taken at any time in your acedemic career but are pre-requisites for getting your degree. If this class was just a normal level one pre-requisite then you can have second, third, or even fourth year students taking the course for a variety of reasons. If LSU Doesn't allow the students to set their course loads in this manner, please let me know. Now, if it was the zero level course, one would wonder why the school would assign a teacher that should be dealing with gifted students to a remedial level class.
@Wrex- First quote reply: Your being intentionally obtuse in order to crack wise. You know the Prof told the students during intro exactly what was going to be expected. If the Students couldn't wake up and make it to that first class introduction or choose to not take the Prof seriously then fault lies with the students.
Second quote reply: Yes, drop the class, re-schedule for a different instructor, schedule for a time where you make it to the class if your to hung-over at 8 in the morning(before you say they are to young, remember, this is Lousiana. Point is that the student is the primary person responsible for their academic career. Note, that while some students complaine at first, I find it interesting that apparently none have talked to their advisors or councilors about this. This last is an eyebrow raiser for me.
Third quote reply, You and Sebster are attempting to box people in with words they never used. There are other otions to lazy, stupid, and apathetic. The most common alternatives and the downfall of most first year students is lack of discipline, poor study habits, and the distractions of being away from home for the first time. Now if this class was a remedial version of the class the intelligence could, also, play a roll.
focusedfire wrote:Could you explain which type of intro level course. There is the intro level zero course that is a primer that brings the student up to college level and the normal introductory level one first year classes that can be taken at any time in your acedemic career but are pre-requisites for getting your degree. If this class was just a normal level one pre-requisite then you can have second, third, or even fourth year students taking the course for a variety of reasons. If LSU Doesn't allow the students to set their course loads in this manner, please let me know. Now, if it was the zero level course, one would wonder why the school would assign a teacher that should be dealing with gifted students to a remedial level class.
It's a 100 level course(so typically first years take it, but it's only a pre-req for your degree). The thing with the Athletes is that it's almost like being in ROTC: in addition to the grade requirements, if you're on scholarship, you generally have a time limit to finish it or lose/repay it. So they only have 4-5 years to finish their degrees on scholarship, which means following a laid out course list(but not obligatorily) to finish on time, so they generally finish the lower classes early, unless an early semester is entirely filled with pre-reqs for later degree class, which is rare in the first couple of semesters, at least when I was starting out in Mech Engineering.
So yes, some higher level athletes could be in the class, but it's doubtful, and if they are, they're not starters.
LSU's been drastically overhauling a lot to focus more on education as a whole(there's even talk of increasing penalties for alcohol violations in dorms, which are already pretty strict). They've been losing rankings in the "Top Ten Party Schools" list gradually every year.
focusedfire wrote:
@Wrex- First quote reply: Your being intentionally obtuse in order to crack wise. You know the Prof told the students during intro exactly what was going to be expected. If the Students couldn't wake up and make it to that first class introduction or choose to not take the Prof seriously then fault lies with the students.
Actually, he doesn't know that. No one knows that. We can't know it, because we do not have the relevant information which is required to establish knowledge. You're assuming it, and its a poor assumption. Many professors are unclear about their standards. That's why sites like ratemyprofessors.com exist.
focusedfire wrote:
Third quote reply, You and Sebster are attempting to box people in with words they never used. There are other otions to lazy, stupid, and apathetic. The most common alternatives and the downfall of most first year students is lack of discipline, poor study habits, and the distractions of being away from home for the first time. Now if this class was a remedial version of the class the intelligence could, also, play a roll.
Sebster, and Wrex by extension, both have a point. The probability that an entire class of students will display incompetence is much lower than the probability that a single professor will display odd, or unrealistic tendencies. Me? I expect that the professor was overzealous, and the students expected a much easier course. This doesn't mean the professor is bad, or that the students are stupid. It simply means that the expectations of both parties failed to align. It happens all the time in the course of finding easy ways to fill prerequisites.
dogma wrote:This doesn't mean the professor is bad, or that the students are stupid. It simply means that the expectations of both parties failed to align. It happens all the time in the course of finding easy ways to fill prerequisites.
Like art courses that actually involve serious study... and the fear sets in...
focusedfire wrote:You know the Prof told the students during intro exactly what was going to be expected. If the Students couldn't wake up and make it to that first class introduction or choose to not take the Prof seriously then fault lies with the students.
No, I actually don't know that the prof was clear as sunshine. I have no problem with the idea that a few students may have been badly prepared, but to have a huge majority be that way, strikes me as close to impossible.
Yes, drop the class, re-schedule for a different instructor, schedule for a time where you make it to the class if your to hung-over at 8 in the morning(before you say they are to young, remember, this is Lousiana.
Drunken bastards...
Point is that the student is the primary person responsible for their academic career. Note, that while some students complaine at first, I find it interesting that apparently none have talked to their advisors or councilors about this. This last is an eyebrow raiser for me.
Students surely are responsible for their academic career, as teachers are responsible to aid them in that effort. I guess we just have opposing views on the subject of effective education, as I can hardly begin to justify what I see as the failure of this professor, in HER duty to the students. I assume that you would have no problem if this was a regular occurrence, even in graduate programs, where educational zealousness would need to be at least twice that of the professor we are currently discussing. Why can't a professor simply raise their standards too high? What stops them from doing that, besides actions like those that were taken by administration?
You and Sebster are attempting to box people in with words they never used. There are other otions to lazy, stupid, and apathetic. The most common alternatives and the downfall of most first year students is lack of discipline, poor study habits, and the distractions of being away from home for the first time. Now if this class was a remedial version of the class the intelligence could, also, play a roll.
Again, I already agree with you here, but the fact remains that a large majority of first year students have no excess of those particular attributes. You may run into a large concentration of students that lack necessary skills, but I simply can't imagine more than 20% of the class having that much of a problem, without the teacher being a large part of the issue.
None of this strikes me as particularly complicated... I guess in my own way, I am presenting the same ideals as this professor.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Like art courses that actually involve serious study... and the fear sets in...
I went on academic probation during my junior year because I was failing Music Appreciation at midterm. Ended up with a B due to well constructed essays, but I failed both the final and midterm exam due to a lack of interest in the number of scenes in a Baroque opera.
focusedfire wrote:Third quote reply, You and Sebster are attempting to box people in with words they never used. There are other otions to lazy, stupid, and apathetic. The most common alternatives and the downfall of most first year students is lack of discipline, poor study habits, and the distractions of being away from home for the first time. Now if this class was a remedial version of the class the intelligence could, also, play a roll.
Your distinction doesn't really matter. Whether it's laziness, stupidity, unfamiliarity, por study habits or whatever that might cause a kid to fail, the norm for students is to pass. When 75% are failing and another 15% drop out because they expect to fail, that's a really bizarre concentration of poor students in one classroom. It's far, far more likely that the prof was enforcing a very high standard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:a lack of interest in the number of scenes in a Baroque opera.
sebster wrote:Your distinction doesn't really matter. Whether it's laziness, stupidity, unfamiliarity, por study habits or whatever that might cause a kid to fail, the norm for students is to pass. When 75% are failing and another 15% drop out because they expect to fail, that's a really bizarre concentration of poor students in one classroom. It's far, far more likely that the prof was enforcing a very high standard.
Yet such concentrations of students is common place. Colleges are not above throwing what records would indicate as marginal students into the same classroom. Now as to whom failed who might be answered by looking at the system. The American educational system is producing less rounded and poorer performing students every year. Teachers in this country constantly complain that they do not teach the subject but rather the accreditation tests that help determine school funding. When scores drop then lawsuits are filled claiming there is a bias built into the tests so the test get rewritten. This, IMO, has produced a sliding baseline effect. Throw Students from the nobody loses andeveryone gets a trophy into a class that has real difficulty and potential for failure and this is what you get.
Your last sentence I question. What is wrong with enforcing high standards? As long as the Prof tayed within the approved Textbooks for the course, she has the right to expect that the students will learn every page and master the material. If she was bringing in 3 year or graduate level material as a part of her cirriculumn then there would be a problem.
focusedfire wrote:Teachers in this country constantly complain that they do not teach the subject but rather the accreditation tests that help determine school funding. When scores drop then lawsuits are filled claiming there is a bias built into the tests so the test get rewritten.
That doesn't happen. That's what people who want to verify a fatalist worldview believe happens, but that's not what actually happens.
focusedfire wrote:
This, IMO, has produced a sliding baseline effect. Throw Students from the nobody loses and everyone gets a trophy into a class that has real difficulty and potential for failure and this is what you get.
This is lazy old man nonsense. You may as well make a comment about walking to school uphill, both ways. The youth aren't corrupt, the world isn't scary, and your insights aren't based on contemporary information.
focusedfire wrote:
What is wrong with enforcing high standards?
Its not a matter of height, its a matter of use. Does Joe Accountant need to understand Ternary Logic? No. But he might need to pass a logic course in order to obtain his degree.
focusedfire wrote:
As long as the Prof tayed within the approved Textbooks for the course, she has the right to expect that the students will learn every page and master the material.
No, she doesn't. The fact that you believe that indicates to me that you don't understand reasonable expectations of priority.
focusedfire wrote:Yet such concentrations of students is common place. Colleges are not above throwing what records would indicate as marginal students into the same classroom.
Nothing indicated this was a remedial class, nor do I believe they’d give a remedial class to a tenured professor with thirty years of publishing history.
Now as to whom failed who might be answered by looking at the system. The American educational system is producing less rounded and poorer performing students every year. Teachers in this country constantly complain that they do not teach the subject but rather the accreditation tests that help determine school funding. When scores drop then lawsuits are filled claiming there is a bias built into the tests so the test get rewritten. This, IMO, has produced a sliding baseline effect. Throw Students from the nobody loses andeveryone gets a trophy into a class that has real difficulty and potential for failure and this is what you get.
I can see you’ve got a general worldview (public education sucks because of this and that…) and I won’t go into that, I’ve heard some things but haven’t done anything like the reading needed to know the scope of the problem, if one exists at all. For the purposes of this thread it doesn’t really matter, as this is about one professor failing the majority of her class.
Even if the decline is true, it is ludicrously unlikely that it impacted so acutely on this one class, while no professors anywhere else have found themselves having to fail 75% of their class.
People have a general worldview, and they will accept anything that fits neatly with that worldview in order to stay on that side. Now, I don’t have an opinion on the state of public education in the US, I’ve heard some things but at this stage I’ll keep from forming an opinion. But I will say that if US educational standards are slipping, it is ludicrously unlikely they’ve slipped to a point where 75% (90% really) of kids deserve to fail a biology elective.
Your last sentence I question. What is wrong with enforcing high standards?
Nothing, given that standard is sensible. Would it be sensible to set an assignment that each student is to get one published article in a peer reviewed article by the end of their Intro to Biology class, or do you accept a limit on how high the standard should be?
And once you consider that, you have to wonder how practical it is to enforce an extremely high standard on a peripheral unit. I don’t know about you but I’d think I’d prefer engineering students to be piling hours of study time into the principals of engineering, and not so much time into biology electives. There should be a standard for the biology unit or otherwise what’s the point, but a standard that sees 75% of kids failing is a stupid, counter-productive standard.
Unless of course somehow this really was a class where 75% of the kids were awful students, but I find that much harder to believe than that a professor set an excessively high standard.
dogma wrote:That doesn't happen. That's what people who want to verify a fatalist worldview believe happens, but that's not what actually happens.
Yes, it does and your denial shows either niavte or an innability to grasp what happens when tests are designed with political comitee oversight.
dogma wrote:This is lazy old man nonsense. You may as well make a comment about walking to school uphill, both ways. The youth aren't corrupt, the world isn't scary, and your insights aren't based on contemporary information.
1)Never said they were corrupt or the world is scary, Those are your words, not mine. Nice smear tactic, though. What year of debate did you learn it?
2)And the Coral reefs are as beautiful as ever, right? Dealing with the current group coming into the work force as a small business owner I guarantee that my information is contemporary because these same kids come asking about work as opposed to looking for it. When confronted with the prospect of real work they either wilt or don't have the discipline/attention span for it.
3)I would like to ask you to be careful when calling me or my generation lazy. I've pulled more 12-16 hour shifts than you probably have accrued days in the workforce.
dogma wrote:Its not a matter of height, its a matter of use. Does Joe Accountant need to understand Ternary Logic? No. But he might need to pass a logic course in order to obtain his degree.
If the college is approving cirriculum material that is beyond what you wish to study, then move to a school with lower acedemic standards or petition to lower the schools standards.
dogma wrote:No, she doesn't. The fact that you believe that indicates to me that you don't understand reasonable expectations of priority.
I understand prioritization, I understand enough that if I am assigned material to learn then I learn the material. If the material is beyond me then I schedule a conference first with the teacher then if that doesn't work the school ccouncilor/advisor. I now refer you to my statement above about moving to a more appropriate school if meeting the approved cirriculum is to difficult. There is no shame in admiting ones limitations.
Your statement about her not having the right means that any time the students deccide that they don't need to learn a particular subject they can claim that the course exceeds the "reasonable" expectations of priority. IMO, This thought process seems to be an epidemic in this country in that the younger generations believe that their personal priorities superceed those of our bosses, educators, and neighbors.
And I did walk uphill to school both ways, why when I was young.....ramble....ramble....You kids Get of of my lawn!
focusedfire wrote:
Yes, it does and your denial shows either niavte or an innability to grasp what happens when tests are designed with political comitee oversight.
It doesn't happen because no college in the US selects specific courses for its students. They might create a requirement schedule, but they do not determine anything beyond that.
focusedfire wrote:
1)Never said they were corrupt or the world is scary, Those are your words, not mine. Nice smear tactic, though. What year of debate did you learn it?
The one I taught to people your age.
focusedfire wrote:
2)And the Coral reefs are as beautiful as ever, right? Dealing with the current group coming into the work force as a small business owner I guarantee that my information is contemporary because these same kids come asking about work as opposed to looking for it. When confronted with the prospect of real work they either wilt or don't have the discipline/attention span for it.
I hire and fire about 30 people every month. In general its the older people who fail to keep up. They either lack knowledge, or energy for the work we do. Given the information that I'm supplied with through other channels, I suspect that the judgment of work ethics tends to be constructed around age association. I have no patience for that nonsense, even in myself. As such, I do not refuse to hire older workers, nor do I claim that the elderly are naturally incompetent. Doing so would indicate that I have a preference for anecdotes which is naturally unfounded.
focusedfire wrote:
3)I would like to ask you to be careful when calling me or my generation lazy. I've pulled more 12-16 hour shifts than you probably have accrued days in the workforce.
I work 100 hour weeks. I'm at work right now.
It would be best if you didn't attempt to push a comment on your argumentative strategy into one on your nominal worth.
focusedfire wrote:
If the college is approving cirriculum material that is beyond what you wish to study, then move to a school with lower acedemic standards or petition to lower the schools standards.
That's what happened, and you're complaining.
focusedfire wrote:
I understand prioritization, I understand enough that if I am assigned material to learn then I learn the material.
You've already failed to appreciate the comment.
focusedfire wrote:
If the material is beyond me then I schedule a conference first with the teacher then if that doesn't work the school ccouncilor/advisor. I now refer you to my statement above about moving to a more appropriate school if meeting the approved cirriculum is to difficult. There is no shame in admiting ones limitations.
All of which cost time and money; thereby eliminating them for many people. You're very bad at this whole negotiation of options thing.
Also, this was a blow-off course by any reasonable description. Stop pretending as though it were something akin to cardiovascular anatomy for heart surgeons.
focusedfire wrote:
Your statement about her not having the right means that any time the students deccide that they don't need to learn a particular subject they can claim that the course exceeds the "reasonable" expectations of priority.
Yes, they can. The administration also has the ability to shoot down that argument.
focusedfire wrote:
IMO, This thought process seems to be an epidemic in this country in that the younger generations believe that their personal priorities superceed those of our bosses, educators, and neighbors.
The presentation of a challenge does not indicate the belief in a certain superiority. You're equivocating. Lazy.
focusedfire wrote:Teacher never denied culpability but rather told everyone from the start what was going to happen.
That 90% of them were going to fail midterms? I don't remember reading about that in the article...
Most colleges give you the opportunity to drop or swap a class during the first week or two if it isn't what was expected or is too much of a load.
So... the option for 90% the entire class was to drop? I mean... unless they are really looking forward to just passing an intro biology course.
If the students don't care enough about their education to show up to find out or weren't smart enough to belive the prof, Whose fault ist it?
I have to reference Sebster here, as I feel it is a pure fantasy to assume an entire class of college level students are A.) Lazy, B.) Stupid, or C.) Apathetic. Most first year students are actually quite engaged, aside fear of sounding stupid, because the teacher already thinks 90% of the class are morons.
Exactly. I don't know where the naysayers went but when I was in school: 1) writing was invented, but it wook a while to catch on; and 2) Most of us were on loans and working so we had a strong vested interest to do well and get the hell out. Maybe thats different in one of the vaunted party schools.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Third quote reply, You and Sebster are attempting to box people in with words they never used. There are other otions to lazy, stupid, and apathetic. The most common alternatives and the downfall of most first year students is lack of discipline, poor study habits, and the distractions of being away from home for the first time. Now if this class was a remedial version of the class the intelligence could, also, play a roll.
Your distinction doesn't really matter. Whether it's laziness, stupidity, unfamiliarity, por study habits or whatever that might cause a kid to fail, the norm for students is to pass. When 75% are failing and another 15% drop out because they expect to fail, that's a really bizarre concentration of poor students in one classroom. It's far, far more likely that the prof was enforcing a very high standard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:a lack of interest in the number of scenes in a Baroque opera.
Philistine!
I love Baroque art. But Baroque opera? Nay I say!
On the positive in art appreciation I met a gal with ruby red toenails who drove a ruby red mustang.
ShumaGorath wrote:The number of multiple choice answers are irrelevant. No one would be complaining if they were simple answer tests with no choices given at all, and those are far harder than any number of multiple choices. The issue is the content of the questions and whether they were too advanced for the curriculum and student body to handle. Given that the teacher had previously been teaching upper level education classes to seniors or graduate students it would pretty heavily imply a loss of perspective as to the capabilities of non science major students in an introductory courses. 90% dropped out or failing is unacceptable and it either speaks to an incapable teacher, poor method, or administrative error in calculating grades. My assumption is that the course was simply too difficult as presented for the student body to handle.
Agreed with Shuma, fully.
I've been in weeder classes for engineers that didn't fail or cause 90% of the students to drop. High level, intensive, degree oriented weeder classes that culled maybe 33% of the class if they were really bad. An introductory level class for non-majors shouldn't be axing 90% of its students, ever. There's no excuse for that. Study groups for an intro class for non-majors? Are you kidding me?
I've had a class where everyone was failing. The difference is we expected it. Intro Chemistry, our professor told us on day one that we would fail every single test he gave us, that the most exceptional students in the class might, might make a D if they did nothing but obsess about his class. However we weren't supposed to worry about that. Study your material, know what you're doing and you'd pass. It was a simple, reassuring lecture that let us not worry about our grades and focus on the subject. I started off making a 22 on my first test but was up to about a 45 on my final. I got a B in the class. If this professor was going to curve things then she should have handled it with the students better. Telling them "Better form a study group," is a professor's way of telling you to piss off.
If you've got an F at mid-term then you're in serious trouble in a class. Even with a very high F you'd have to start making A's to have a chance to pull the grade up to passing and if so far all you've done is consistently fail the odds of that happening are low. A lot of students are on scholarships with GPA requirements. Better to drop a class and get no grade and then make it up by taking another one next semester then take a D on your transcript when you've got a scholarship that requires a 3.0 or better.
Now I don't think from the information presented that the school handled it the best way. If they didn't talk to her at all then that's just wrong. Contact her, tell her your concerns and ask her to do something about it. If at the end of the semester she's still failing an inordinate number of students then adjust their grade and inform her she's never allowed to teach intro anything ever again.
focusedfire wrote:@Frazz- As a texan, you know the leading curriculum at LSU is Sports. I could be wrong but this entire fiasco smacks of internal politics. It would be interesting to know if any of the star atheletes were in this class.
If this is the case then finding out if the Proff has any personal issues with athelete students could explain why this became such an issue.
Yep...said that more than once in this thread. That's the only way I can see the university taking this action without even having a conversation with the prof. I have a feeling someone was staring down ineligibility.
Cane wrote:It'd be like taking a beginner's basketball course and being evaluated like you're supposed to be ready for competitive venues or expected to play for your school.
Now that's hyperbole, and seemingly inaccurate.
Do we have any evidence that she was straying from the curriculum? It seems that -- using your analogy -- she wasn't trying to teach the finer points of the triangle offense. She was teaching basic basketball, but being very demanding in her evaluation of those basics. Different thing.
focusedfire wrote:@Frazz- As a texan, you know the leading curriculum at LSU is Sports. I could be wrong but this entire fiasco smacks of internal politics. It would be interesting to know if any of the star atheletes were in this class.
If this is the case then finding out if the Proff has any personal issues with athelete students could explain why this became such an issue.
Yep...said that more than once in this thread. That's the only way I can see the university taking this action without even having a conversation with the prof. I have a feeling someone was staring down ineligibility.
Cane wrote:It'd be like taking a beginner's basketball course and being evaluated like you're supposed to be ready for competitive venues or expected to play for your school.
Now that's hyperbole, and seemingly inaccurate.
Do we have any evidence that she was straying from the curriculum? It seems that -- using your analogy -- she wasn't trying to teach the finer points of the triangle offense. She was teaching basic basketball, but being very demanding in her evaluation of those basics. Different thing.
From the article:
On her tests, she doesn't use a curve, as she believes that students must achieve mastery of the subject matter, not just achieve more mastery than the worst students in the course. For multiple choice questions, she gives 10 possible answers, not the expected 4, as she doesn't want students to get very far with guessing.
She wanted students to master a course that means very little in the long term and also wanted her students to devote an incredible amount of time just to pass. This does straw away from how these intro courses for non-majors are conducted which is no surprise since she's a fish out of water here - she's ancient and hadn't taught an intro course in 15 years much less one to non-majors.
Yea the analogy may not be bullet proof but you get the drift. It'd be like taking a beginner's basketball course and being asked to prepare for it like you were a college athlete through numerous hours of preparation only to find yourself dropping out (withdrawing), getting cut (failing), making it (C+), or just getting through by sitting on the bench (D average student). Even though its just a damn beginner's course and not some sort of NCAA try out camp.
As for whether or not there were college athletes or the like involved here; I'd imagine it would be a part of the story since thats too good of a detail for journalists to pass up and its not like favoritism towards 'em isn't recognized and criticized across the nation. You'd figure that there'd be a quote from a student or the faculty about such but without this detail I'm going to side that it more of a case of a psycho professor out of her element since her classroom performance numbers were staggeringly bad. She'd be fired in just about any other job, good move by LSU.
focusedfire wrote:
Yes, it does and your denial shows either niavte or an innability to grasp what happens when tests are designed with political comitee oversight.
dogma wrote:It doesn't happen because no college in the US selects specific courses for its students. They might create a requirement schedule, but they do not determine anything beyond that.
Forgive me for not being clear. This statement goes back several posts and was intended as a reference to the college prepatory education american students receive. Makes sense and is accurate when not taken out of context.
focusedfire wrote:
1)Never said they were corrupt or the world is scary, Those are your words, not mine. Nice smear tactic, though. What year of debate did you learn it?
dogma wrote:The one I taught to people your age.
So you are the reincarnation of Mrs. Abernathy, Doesn't do much for your credibility, but it is good to hear from you again, I still remeber your first lesson on parlimentary procedure,
focusedfire wrote:
2)And the Coral reefs are as beautiful as ever, right? Dealing with the current group coming into the work force as a small business owner I guarantee that my information is contemporary because these same kids come asking about work as opposed to looking for it. When confronted with the prospect of real work they either wilt or don't have the discipline/attention span for it.
dogma wrote:I hire and fire about 30 people every month. In general its the older people who fail to keep up. They either lack knowledge, or energy for the work we do. Given the information that I'm supplied with through other channels, I suspect that the judgment of work ethics tends to be constructed around age association. I have no patience for that nonsense, even in myself. As such, I do not refuse to hire older workers, nor do I claim that the elderly are naturally incompetent. Doing so would indicate that I have a preference for anecdotes which is naturally unfounded.
Thats nice for you, sounds like the company has an employee retention problem, though. In our small business I'm not isolated in a personel dept. but work alongside the employees.
With the older employees my experience has been that I show them what to do, invest a couple of days watching over them correcting mistakes they make, and afterward I
can reasonably expect that they will from that point on do their job. The problem I have with the older employees is that they require more money for their families and they move on to better pay after a couple of months.
With the younger employees I give them the same training and watch over them until they get it down, but when it comes time for me to be able to focus on my portion of production they wander off. I have to babysit them to keep them at their work station. I'm not saying every employee follows this pattern but there is a definite trend.
Thing is, I "am" getting older and slowing down. I need the younger employees that step up so that I can start focusing less on production and more on product developement. I have found one that has stepped up and am grooming him for management but I still have to baby sit him some and keep him focused if he gets in a bad mood.
focusedfire wrote:
3)I would like to ask you to be careful when calling me or my generation lazy. I've pulled more 12-16 hour shifts than you probably have accrued days in the workforce.
dogma wrote:I work 100 hour weeks. I'm at work right now.
It would be best if you didn't attempt to push a comment on your argumentative strategy into one on your nominal worth.
Nice slam from someone slacking at work.
focusedfire wrote:
If the college is approving cirriculum material that is beyond what you wish to study, then move to a school with lower acedemic standards or petition to lower the schools standards.
dogma wrote:That's what happened, and you're complaining.
Actually, the article never states that is what happened. The article reads as if the college took the action without following the established channels. In the article The Prof asked, Why no one had talked to her?.
focusedfire wrote:
I understand prioritization, I understand enough that if I am assigned material to learn then I learn the material.
dogma wrote:You've already failed to appreciate the comment.
Hey you gave me an opening, I took it. I appreciate it.
focusedfire wrote:
If the material is beyond me then I schedule a conference first with the teacher then if that doesn't work the school ccouncilor/advisor. I now refer you to my statement above about moving to a more appropriate school if meeting the approved cirriculum is to difficult. There is no shame in admiting ones limitations.
dogma wrote:All of which cost time and money; thereby eliminating them for many people. You're very bad at this whole negotiation of options thing.
Also, this was a blow-off course by any reasonable description. Stop pretending as though it were something akin to cardiovascular anatomy for heart surgeons.
May cost time and "Possibly" money but it is the standard established protocol, which both school and students failed to follow. Wasn't aware that we were in an options negotiation, Thought it was a casual debate.
What are the options to negotiate? Is this a hostage situation? If so I want a Jet that has enough fuel and range to reach Argentina.
You say blow off course like it is acceptable to get credit for a course without doing the required work. I disagree with this. Ethics dictate that if a task is worth doing then it worth doing, and should be done, properly and right.
Again you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I Never said it was cardiovascular anatomy for heart surgeons and more importantly niether did the article. Pls take your inflated hyperbole to a different debate.
focusedfire wrote:
Your statement about her not having the right means that any time the students deccide that they don't need to learn a particular subject they can claim that the course exceeds the "reasonable" expectations of priority.
dogma wrote:Yes, they can. The administration also has the ability to shoot down that argument.
Actually, the administration has left themselves open for litigation by not following the established protocols.
focusedfire wrote:
IMO, This thought process seems to be an epidemic in this country in that the younger generations believe that their personal priorities superceed those of our bosses, educators, and neighbors.
dogma wrote:The presentation of a challenge does not indicate the belief in a certain superiority. You're equivocating. Lazy.
Not a matter of superiority or inferiority, but rather, a speculation on the possible effects of narcisism within oue society. The last two sentences were originally written together. Breaking them apart in an effort to give them seperate meanings is a blatant effort to misrepresent the context of theoriginal statement.
focusedfire wrote:
Thats nice for you, sounds like the company has an employee retention problem, though. In our small business I'm not isolated in a personel dept. but work alongside the employees.
I'm not in personnel. Personnel is just one of my responsibilities.
focusedfire wrote:
Nice slam from someone slacking at work.
Being the boss, at least until the owner is on the premises, has its privileges.
focusedfire wrote:
Actually, the article never states that is what happened. The article reads as if the college took the action without following the established channels. In the article The Prof asked, Why no one had talked to her?.
Generally, there are no established procedures for the review of an instructor for reasons that do not relate to employment. That's part of the naturally disorganized manner in which the academy functions. The professor might have preferred that she had been spoken to, and it may have been preferable for such a conversation to take place. But when a course receives a large number of complaints, or is somehow flagged for review, the administration is under no obligation to consult the instructor prior to her removal.
Of course, such procedures might be in place at LSU, but we have no way of knowing that on the basis of the information provided.
focusedfire wrote:
May cost time and "Possibly" money but it is the standard established protocol, which both school and students failed to follow.
That varies from institution to institution, and certainly is not something that is enshrined contractually.
focusedfire wrote:
You say blow off course like it is acceptable to get credit for a course without doing the required work. I disagree with this. Ethics dictate that if a task is worth doing then it worth doing, and should be done, properly and right.
Yes, ethics dictate that a task worth doing should be done well. Ethics also dictate no such thing. There are many ethics, and they do not generally come to consensus.
That aside, a blow off course is not a course that you receive credit for without doing the required work. A blow off course is a course which requires minimal work, because it is not intended to produce, or lead to, mastery. Many such courses exist so as to establish conceptual familiarity amongst students who don't require the knowledge to work directly in the discipline.
focusedfire wrote:
Again you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I Never said it was cardiovascular anatomy for heart surgeons and more importantly niether did the article. Pls take your inflated hyperbole to a different debate.
I'm making a comment on the appearance of your perception in order to illustrate my perspective on your argument. This is the proper, and valid, usage of ad hominem in the course of debate.
To me it appears as though you would demand limitless precision in a course where it is not warranted. Introductory courses do not require the amount of work described in the article. That is why they're introductory courses. They do not exist to establish mastery. Indeed, given current theories of expertise, it would be temporally impossible for them to do so.
focusedfire wrote:
Actually, the administration has left themselves open for litigation by not following the established protocols.
That hasn't been established per any available information.
focusedfire wrote:
Not a matter of superiority or inferiority, but rather, a speculation on the possible effects of narcisism within oue society.
Narcissism of the sort that takes offense to being presented with challenges with respect to the quality of your work?
focusedfire wrote:
The last two sentences were originally written together. Breaking them apart in an effort to give them seperate meanings is a blatant effort to misrepresent the context of theoriginal statement.
No, nothing I did significantly altered the meaning of either sentence, as you clearly rephrased your objection in the latter one. Context always affects meaning, but it isn't always important to it.
Hmm... Further research into this matter has coughed up some interesting information.
The class size was alleged to be between 300-400 students.
The course material was basically the same as the one for Science Majors.
(courtesy of the LSU website) BIOL 1001 Information: Course description: General concepts in cell biology, genetics, ecology, and evolution.
It's a Sophomore class (at least for Industrial Engineer students.) listed as 3 semester hours.
The IE program lists a required 2.0 overall for graduation.
It is one of 3 science courses REQUIRED for a BS in IE. along with 2 Chem courses.
it is one of over 30 science courses that are designated for the "General Ed Natural Science Requirement."
Then ther is this..... also from the LSU website. (and yeah I excelled at doing stupid research.)
). They're also prerequisites for much of the rest of the program, so until you pass that class, you're not getting any further. I doubt bio for non-scientists is anything like that, but the practice of having classes with high fail-out rates isn't unheard of.
why when I was young.....ramble....ramble....You kids Get of of my lawn!