"It's time to prioritize what students want and need over what we want to teach"

Started by spork, October 03, 2019, 03:16:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ciao_yall

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 10, 2019, 11:10:51 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 10, 2019, 10:37:59 AM
Just because our students can't just have information and ways of thinking downloaded to their brains, doesn't mean the whole idea of a broad based education is a lost cause.

It's not that it's a "lost cause"; the question is whether, with a finite amount of resources, this is the best way to allocate them. (And those resources include the students' time. Is 4 years of a person's life reasonable to spend on this? For everyone?)

Define "finite" resources. We live in a global, information and knowledge-based economy where we need to make sure our 18+ year-olds are exposed to a variety of hard and soft skills in order to participate.

Other countries are figuring out a way to make sure higher education is available to a growing set of the population. Wealthy people make darn sure their kids are getting to college.

Why is the rest of America letting itself slide behind?

marshwiggle

Quote from: ciao_yall on October 10, 2019, 11:17:27 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 10, 2019, 11:10:51 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 10, 2019, 10:37:59 AM
Just because our students can't just have information and ways of thinking downloaded to their brains, doesn't mean the whole idea of a broad based education is a lost cause.

It's not that it's a "lost cause"; the question is whether, with a finite amount of resources, this is the best way to allocate them. (And those resources include the students' time. Is 4 years of a person's life reasonable to spend on this? For everyone?)

Define "finite" resources. We live in a global, information and knowledge-based economy where we need to make sure our 18+ year-olds are exposed to a variety of hard and soft skills in order to participate.

Other countries are figuring out a way to make sure higher education is available to a growing set of the population. Wealthy people make darn sure their kids are getting to college.

Why is the rest of America letting itself slide behind?

And are those countries pushing a broad-based higher education, or is it more targeted towards professional programs?
It takes so little to be above average.

Caracal

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 10, 2019, 11:10:51 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 10, 2019, 10:37:59 AM
Just because our students can't just have information and ways of thinking downloaded to their brains, doesn't mean the whole idea of a broad based education is a lost cause.

It's not that it's a "lost cause"; the question is whether, with a finite amount of resources, this is the best way to allocate them. (And those resources include the students' time. Is 4 years of a person's life reasonable to spend on this? For everyone?)

Seems like part of this particularly American belief that you can fix everything through education, oddly married to consistently underfunding the same educational systems that are supposed to fix everything. The underlying problems are inequality and lack of opportunity. I don't see how remaking the entire college education system based on the unproved benefits of more focused job training is likely to help much.

ciao_yall

Quote from: Caracal on October 10, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 10, 2019, 11:10:51 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 10, 2019, 10:37:59 AM
Just because our students can't just have information and ways of thinking downloaded to their brains, doesn't mean the whole idea of a broad based education is a lost cause.

It's not that it's a "lost cause"; the question is whether, with a finite amount of resources, this is the best way to allocate them. (And those resources include the students' time. Is 4 years of a person's life reasonable to spend on this? For everyone?)

Seems like part of this particularly American belief that you can fix everything through education, oddly married to consistently underfunding the same educational systems that are supposed to fix everything. The underlying problems are inequality and lack of opportunity. I don't see how remaking the entire college education system based on the unproved benefits of more focused job training is likely to help much.

Hall of Fame!

marshwiggle

Quote from: Caracal on October 10, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Seems like part of this particularly American belief that you can fix everything through education, oddly married to consistently underfunding the same educational systems that are supposed to fix everything. The underlying problems are inequality and lack of opportunity. I don't see how remaking the entire college education system based on the unproved benefits of more focused job training is likely to help much.

Here's an interesting paradox: The disciplines that have the most serious adjunct problem are the humanities fields; i.e. ones where an undergraduate degree is not supposed to be "job training". It appears that people who get a degree, and don't see job opportunities, double down for a Master's and then triple down for a PhD.

So in other words, in fields where a degree is NOT "job training", you have the biggest problem with people desperate to find employment which requires their degree.....
It takes so little to be above average.

RatGuy

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 10, 2019, 12:58:24 PM
Quote from: Caracal on October 10, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Seems like part of this particularly American belief that you can fix everything through education, oddly married to consistently underfunding the same educational systems that are supposed to fix everything. The underlying problems are inequality and lack of opportunity. I don't see how remaking the entire college education system based on the unproved benefits of more focused job training is likely to help much.

Here's an interesting paradox: The disciplines that have the most serious adjunct problem are the humanities fields; i.e. ones where an undergraduate degree is not supposed to be "job training". It appears that people who get a degree, and don't see job opportunities, double down for a Master's and then triple down for a PhD.

So in other words, in fields where a degree is NOT "job training", you have the biggest problem with people desperate to find employment which requires their degree.....

I'll disagree here. I live in an area that has a deep economic interest in the oil and gas business. During a recent downturn in that market, a large number of chemical and mechanical engineers I know were laid off. Among those I personally knew, one of them took a job at a dog-washing service, another went to work for Pier 1, and a third became a cashier at an upscale grocery store. That last applied for an ASM position at that store, but didn't get it. Two years later, none of them have rejoined the oil business, and not for lack of trying. Their laments of "I don't know how to do anything else" isn't all that different from those desperate people you mention.

marshwiggle

Quote from: RatGuy on October 10, 2019, 01:08:40 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 10, 2019, 12:58:24 PM
Quote from: Caracal on October 10, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Seems like part of this particularly American belief that you can fix everything through education, oddly married to consistently underfunding the same educational systems that are supposed to fix everything. The underlying problems are inequality and lack of opportunity. I don't see how remaking the entire college education system based on the unproved benefits of more focused job training is likely to help much.

Here's an interesting paradox: The disciplines that have the most serious adjunct problem are the humanities fields; i.e. ones where an undergraduate degree is not supposed to be "job training". It appears that people who get a degree, and don't see job opportunities, double down for a Master's and then triple down for a PhD.

So in other words, in fields where a degree is NOT "job training", you have the biggest problem with people desperate to find employment which requires their degree.....

I'll disagree here. I live in an area that has a deep economic interest in the oil and gas business. During a recent downturn in that market, a large number of chemical and mechanical engineers I know were laid off. Among those I personally knew, one of them took a job at a dog-washing service, another went to work for Pier 1, and a third became a cashier at an upscale grocery store. That last applied for an ASM position at that store, but didn't get it. Two years later, none of them have rejoined the oil business, and not for lack of trying. Their laments of "I don't know how to do anything else" isn't all that different from those desperate people you mention.

And how many of those unemployed engineers are going back for Masters' and PhDs' in engineering to get teaching jobs?
It takes so little to be above average.

mahagonny

Quote from: ciao_yall on October 10, 2019, 12:04:02 PM
Quote from: Caracal on October 10, 2019, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 10, 2019, 11:10:51 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 10, 2019, 10:37:59 AM
Just because our students can't just have information and ways of thinking downloaded to their brains, doesn't mean the whole idea of a broad based education is a lost cause.

It's not that it's a "lost cause"; the question is whether, with a finite amount of resources, this is the best way to allocate them. (And those resources include the students' time. Is 4 years of a person's life reasonable to spend on this? For everyone?)

Seems like part of this particularly American belief that you can fix everything through education, oddly married to consistently underfunding the same educational systems that are supposed to fix everything. The underlying problems are inequality and lack of opportunity. I don't see how remaking the entire college education system based on the unproved benefits of more focused job training is likely to help much.

Hall of Fame!

Higher ed has already fixed the 'problem of being chronically underfunded' to its own satisfaction. Instead of closing they went for a bonanza of temporary hiring, then told the public they are using a few faculty who don't need money. And therefore are in no position to ask for/be trusted with more. Public funding is as likely to decrease as increase going forward. Not to mention, makes little effort to befriend republican voters.

Caracal

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 10, 2019, 12:58:24 PM


Here's an interesting paradox: The disciplines that have the most serious adjunct problem are the humanities fields; i.e. ones where an undergraduate degree is not supposed to be "job training". It appears that people who get a degree, and don't see job opportunities, double down for a Master's and then triple down for a PhD.

So in other words, in fields where a degree is NOT "job training", you have the biggest problem with people desperate to find employment which requires their degree.....

Nice try but..."for young people (aged 25-34) in the US, the unemployment rate of those with a humanities degree is 4%. An engineering or business degree comes with an unemployment rate of a little more than 3%." And those jobs are fine mostly, he median salary levels for humanities majors (with and without graduate degrees) was about $7,000 lower than those with similar degree attainment, but well above the $42,000 average for all American workers. "

And humanities majors on average say they're just as happy with their jobs as STEM majors. Which is also relevant. So, to summarize. No, you're wrong.

kaysixteen

Two different points:
1.  It ain't so much that those laid off engineers are whining about not being able to do anything else, but rather that mostly employers won't consider hiring them for professional or managerial jobs outside their educational experience, witness the one who's cashiering but couldn't get the assistant mgr job there.  This is likely also why these MAs and especially PhDs in engineering won't bother to go back to school for a teaching credential, as they likely realize that most principals would almost certainly shy away from hiring them, viewing them as vastly overqualified.
2. Wrt the remedial reading class I'm teaching this semester... Most of the native speakers of English I have are grads of crappy inner city hss, woefully underprepared for college, and many are, as someone said in the thread I started about this course, pretty clearly unmotivated and/or resentful of having to take it.  I haven't figured out what to do about this, but I have no reason to suspect that any of them aren't capable of college success, if they can hang in to acquire the reading and study success skills I am teaching them.  But it wouldn't do to downplay this issue, nor to think on what potential solutions thereto there might be.

polly_mer

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 10, 2019, 06:16:43 PM
Two different points:
1.  It ain't so much that those laid off engineers are whining about not being able to do anything else, but rather that mostly employers won't consider hiring them for professional or managerial jobs outside their educational experience, witness the one who's cashiering but couldn't get the assistant mgr job there.  This is likely also why these MAs and especially PhDs in engineering won't bother to go back to school for a teaching credential, as they likely realize that most principals would almost certainly shy away from hiring them, viewing them as vastly overqualified.

It may sound strange to humanities folks, but very few people who earn graduate degrees in engineering want to teach at any level, although mentoring is fairly common.  Only about 10% of the qualified folks go into academia and almost none of them will be found at institutions where research is a minor part of the job.  Thus, going back for a 8-12 teaching certificate is not even on the radar.

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 10, 2019, 06:16:43 PM
2. Wrt the remedial reading class I'm teaching this semester... Most of the native speakers of English I have are grads of crappy inner city hss, woefully underprepared for college, and many are, as someone said in the thread I started about this course, pretty clearly unmotivated and/or resentful of having to take it.  I haven't figured out what to do about this, but I have no reason to suspect that any of them aren't capable of college success, if they can hang in to acquire the reading and study success skills I am teaching them.  But it wouldn't do to downplay this issue, nor to think on what potential solutions thereto there might be.

One thing that is overlooked by many faculty at the college level is that first-year college students usually already have 13 years of formal education.  Many of those students have drawn conclusions from their extended personal experiences that are in conflict with what professors desire in their students.  The lower the academic standards for previous educational experience and the more the experience was "mandatory" box-checking, the less likely the students came to college eager to learn for even more general education that repeats much of what they didn't acquire earlier.

When I was teaching in Appalachia, I was stunned when I checked with my colleagues in local high schools to find out that the assertion that teachers can't fail students who have made any discernible effort and committed minimal acts of violence was true.  That situation was why students were in my college classroom unable to multiply by 10 without a calculator and unable to read a whole page of instructions in under 10 minutes.
Quote from: hmaria1609 on June 27, 2019, 07:07:43 PM
Do whatever you want--I'm just the background dancer in your show!

Aster

Quote from: polly_mer on October 11, 2019, 04:49:36 AM
One thing that is overlooked by many faculty at the college level is that first-year college students usually already have 13 years of formal education.  Many of those students have drawn conclusions from their extended personal experiences that are in conflict with what professors desire in their students.  The lower the academic standards for previous educational experience and the more the experience was "mandatory" box-checking, the less likely the students came to college eager to learn for even more general education that repeats much of what they didn't acquire earlier.

When I was teaching in Appalachia, I was stunned when I checked with my colleagues in local high schools to find out that the assertion that teachers can't fail students who have made any discernible effort and committed minimal acts of violence was true.  That situation was why students were in my college classroom unable to multiply by 10 without a calculator and unable to read a whole page of instructions in under 10 minutes.

+1. And this is why my non-passing rates at Big Urban College typically hover at no more than 50%. We have a very high percentage of students who don't seem to want to be here, are not eager at all to learn, just want a degree as fast as possible, and are angry that their random box-checking on my assessments is not magically resulting in them getting A's and B's like it did in whatever passed itself off as K-12 education for them. The majority of high schools in my state are rated as "failing" and/or given "D/F" designations. Only the wealthy, the out-of-staters, and a few lucky students attending the handful of regional "A/B" rated schools seem to be well prepared for even basic-level college work.

Hibush

Quote from: Aster on October 11, 2019, 12:07:23 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on October 11, 2019, 04:49:36 AM
One thing that is overlooked by many faculty at the college level is that first-year college students usually already have 13 years of formal education.  Many of those students have drawn conclusions from their extended personal experiences that are in conflict with what professors desire in their students.  The lower the academic standards for previous educational experience and the more the experience was "mandatory" box-checking, the less likely the students came to college eager to learn for even more general education that repeats much of what they didn't acquire earlier.

When I was teaching in Appalachia, I was stunned when I checked with my colleagues in local high schools to find out that the assertion that teachers can't fail students who have made any discernible effort and committed minimal acts of violence was true.  That situation was why students were in my college classroom unable to multiply by 10 without a calculator and unable to read a whole page of instructions in under 10 minutes.

+1. And this is why my non-passing rates at Big Urban College typically hover at no more than 50%. We have a very high percentage of students who don't seem to want to be here, are not eager at all to learn, just want a degree as fast as possible, and are angry that their random box-checking on my assessments is not magically resulting in them getting A's and B's like it did in whatever passed itself off as K-12 education for them. The majority of high schools in my state are rated as "failing" and/or given "D/F" designations. Only the wealthy, the out-of-staters, and a few lucky students attending the handful of regional "A/B" rated schools seem to be well prepared for even basic-level college work.

Is sounds as if there is only a small area of overlap among the three content areas (what students want, what students need, what you want to teach). For some students, perhaps none. How do you select what to teach (as distinct from what to grade)?

Aster

At Big Urban College, professors don't really get much flexibility in choosing instructional content. Nor do we really need such freedom. We are a typical state community college, with the typical community college narrow offerings of the mostly generic, easily transferable, lower division course types.

College Calculus I is College Calculus I. Physical Geology is Physical Geology. Our instructional formats are mostly standardized to conform with most public universities. We're pretty much cookie cutter for what we choose to teach. In some ways this is nice. Students really can't complain that we're teaching the wrong courses, or that what we're teaching is wrong or useless. We let the 4-year universities take the heat for that, ha ha.

Wahoo Redux

Quote from: Caracal on October 10, 2019, 04:14:40 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 10, 2019, 12:58:24 PM


Here's an interesting paradox: The disciplines that have the most serious adjunct problem are the humanities fields; i.e. ones where an undergraduate degree is not supposed to be "job training". It appears that people who get a degree, and don't see job opportunities, double down for a Master's and then triple down for a PhD.

So in other words, in fields where a degree is NOT "job training", you have the biggest problem with people desperate to find employment which requires their degree.....

Nice try but..."for young people (aged 25-34) in the US, the unemployment rate of those with a humanities degree is 4%. An engineering or business degree comes with an unemployment rate of a little more than 3%." And those jobs are fine mostly, he median salary levels for humanities majors (with and without graduate degrees) was about $7,000 lower than those with similar degree attainment, but well above the $42,000 average for all American workers. "

And humanities majors on average say they're just as happy with their jobs as STEM majors. Which is also relevant. So, to summarize. No, you're wrong.

Marshy seldom knows what he/she is talking about.  I ignore.
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.