Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Yep.

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.

Failing due to lack of attendance is one thing; failing because the professor is bitter and angry is a different thing.

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.

It's very similar over here, but you don't get a crushing debt. But then our military probably couldn't protect us from an angry swarm of bees.

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.

Anyway, it is all part of life's rich pattern.

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.

Aye, those are valuable skills too though. I guess if you can get the qualification, you're doing well.

A 90% failure rate in an introductory class is ridiculous. Especially when a good portion of the students weren't even majoring in Science.

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.

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?

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.

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 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?

Like that.

Edit sentence structure

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.

Entry level course for non-majors in the subject.

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.


Edit for spacing

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.

Philistine!

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!

dogma wrote:
due to a lack of interest in the number of scenes in a Baroque opera.

It's like I don't even know you anymore.


Yes I know a joke was already done about this, but I already thought of this one before I saw Sebster's.

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.