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.

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.

Or given a promotion for quality control.

A little more-note source for a view though
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Removal-of-Professor-Causes/22573/

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Entry level biology class for non-science majors.

That is really all that needs to be said.

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.

gorgon wrote:

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.

Ahtman wrote:

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.

helgrenze wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Edited for clarity

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.

Redbeard wrote:

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.