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.

Wrexasaur wrote:

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.

gorgon wrote:

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.


Edit Quotes

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.)

http://www.biology.lsu.edu/introbio/Core%20Concepts%20%20for%20General%20Biology/mainpage.htm

Please note that the 1001/2 are the "intro" courses for non majors and the 1201/2 are the "Intro" classes for Science Majors.