A Student Always Absent Because Work

[present_mirth]

The student's expectations are unreasonable. If you enroll in a face to face class, you're making a commitment to show up at a specific time and place on a regular basis. If you can't do that, you need to enroll for a class that meets at a different time, or an online class, or else talk to the professor about an independent study before the semester begins. There are situations that warrant exceptions, but they involve things like military deployment, not a regular job with more-or-less predictable hours.

[polly_mer]

Why is this student taking your particular class that meets at a conflicting time?

Why is someone who is not a permanent resident working at all?  Often, the student visas don't permit outside work since those students are here to study.

I have taught classes where attendance is voluntary.  Anyone who can master the material without lecture and discussion is free to do so because the exams are nearly everything.  I've taught my share of half-empty physics and engineering classes and it sometimes works out for the students who don't need the lecture.

I have taught classes where technically attendance is voluntary, but we do so much graded work in class that earning a passing grade is very difficult.  Again, more power to them if they can pass without being in class, but then the question is why take that particular class intended for people with very little background in the subjects covered.

[Aster]

And this is why so many universities push the idea that "A Syllabus is a Contract".

[pigou]

My own view is that if he understands the material and knows enough to pass the course, then he's done what the course is meant to do, and you should allow him.

I think this really depends on the content of the course. In some cases, it's all about learning the material and it doesn't matter if you just read the textbook or watch lecture recordings and ask questions in office hours. In those cases, it seems purely punitive to me to require attendance: let people learn however they want to. But in many fields and some courses in probably all fields, active participation in the class is a big part of the learning experience. In that case, not showing up means not having fulfilled the requirements of the class.

He said he has to work to support him self and keep his resident permit

I'm always in favor of leniency, but if the student can't attend the class, he needs to drop it. I don't know what his residency or visa status is, but for what it's worth, the default is that you do not get to work off-campus on an F-1 visa and that you must be enrolled as a full-time student. It may be that dropping the class would make him a part-time student and that can cause problems with his visa status.

In general, you have to prove that you have the financial means to support yourself during your studies as a condition of receiving a student visa. Of course life happens and so there are hardship exemptions to get permission to work off-campus. But they're tied to a number of very narrow conditions: https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/sevis-help-hub/student-records/fm-student-employment/f-1-off-campus-employment-and-international-organization-internship

Not something you need to police, but it's at least something the student needs to be aware of. Engaging in visa fraud is something the US government alas takes rather seriously. The university may also be responsible for reporting international students who don't attend classes.

[Hegemony]

But in many fields and some courses in probably all fields, active participation in the class is a big part of the learning experience. In that case, not showing up means not having fulfilled the requirements of the class.

Well, I'd argue that if the student demonstrably can learn the material some other way, then active participation in the class is not really the only way to learn the material.  There are manifestly multiple ways to learn almost anything.  I get that the instructor thinks class participation is essential.  But why?  Is there another goal to the class, apart from learning the material?  As you know, my view is that if the student really can learn the material on his own, as well as working long hours at a job and keeping his visa, why force him to conform to unnecessary requirements?  It seems to me that this is the kind of self-driven, underprivileged student we should prize. Of course, if he's not able to juggle all these things, that's another matter.  But if he is, why throw an unnecessary obstacle in his way? It sounds as if he already has a good many obstacles to cope with.  Being a foreigner, having to work long hours, trying to get his degree, and now the insistence of his instructor that learning is not the point, showing up is the point.

[lightning]

I tell students on the first day of class that my class is a priority over their job. End of story. It's echoed in my syllabus. If their work schedule conflicts with class schedule, then they can drop my class or fail my class.

(And, no, students won't be able to independently learn the material outside of class interactions, and succeed on assessments. I've had students try that and they fail every time).

Exceptions can be made for one-off career-defining career/job-related things are fine (e.g. job interviews, boss sends kid somewhere for one-time mandatory training). I tell them that on the first day, too.

[Diogenes]

Three times now I've had students pull this same thing. While I wouldn't tell them outright to drop the class, I told them that the policies are laid out in the syllabus and that their are some quiz/attendance freebies. But attendance matters and they will not do well without regular attendance because we work on many of the projects in class. And they should consider taking another section. They all chose to stay.

Two out of three of those times after finals grades were submitted I got an angry students going to my Dean crying foul. The third got a D but acknowledges their responsibility in it. From here on out I'm telling them to drop.

[pigou]

But in many fields and some courses in probably all fields, active participation in the class is a big part of the learning experience. In that case, not showing up means not having fulfilled the requirements of the class.

Well, I'd argue that if the student demonstrably can learn the material some other way, then active participation in the class is not really the only way to learn the material.  There are manifestly multiple ways to learn almost anything.  I get that the instructor thinks class participation is essential.  But why?  Is there another goal to the class, apart from learning the material?  As you know, my view is that if the student really can learn the material on his own, as well as working long hours at a job and keeping his visa, why force him to conform to unnecessary requirements?  It seems to me that this is the kind of self-driven, underprivileged student we should prize. Of course, if he's not able to juggle all these things, that's another matter.  But if he is, why throw an unnecessary obstacle in his way? It sounds as if he already has a good many obstacles to cope with.  Being a foreigner, having to work long hours, trying to get his degree, and now the insistence of his instructor that learning is not the point, showing up is the point.

It comes down to what "learning the material" means. In some fields, that may be learning how to solve differential equations or learning how to code, which is just going to require a lot of individual practicing time. Watching lecture recordings and going to office hours could in theory be just as effective as attending class.

But in my area, reading the book or the papers gets you about 30% of the way to competency. There's no shortage of people who confuse that for actual competency, and it shows very quickly. The way you realize how much you know something isn't to apply it on a homework assignment or a paper, but to debate it with others and to have to explain it on the spot. That is, the discussion isn't just there to help you learn what's in a book, but it's how we go beyond the book and make the material useful. If a course is merely a curated reading list, that's a problem with the course.

On top of that, the entire class benefits from watching someone work their way through an argument or drawing from their experience to challenge claims that are made (either in the text or by other students). This works best when there are different perspectives, so international students in particular add a lot of value there.

[Cheerful]

Well, I'd argue that if the student demonstrably can learn the material some other way, then active participation in the class is not really the only way to learn the material.  There are manifestly multiple ways to learn almost anything.  I get that the instructor thinks class participation is essential.  But why?  Is there another goal to the class, apart from learning the material?  As you know, my view is that if the student really can learn the material on his own, as well as working long hours at a job and keeping his visa, why force him to conform to unnecessary requirements?  It seems to me that this is the kind of self-driven, underprivileged student we should prize. Of course, if he's not able to juggle all these things, that's another matter.  But if he is, why throw an unnecessary obstacle in his way? It sounds as if he already has a good many obstacles to cope with.  Being a foreigner, having to work long hours, trying to get his degree, and now the insistence of his instructor that learning is not the point, showing up is the point.

With that logic, why have in-person classes at all and require anyone to attend? 
Who gets to decide which absences are "worthy" of being excused and which are not?

Maybe it depends on academic field.

My courses are mostly discussion-heavy seminars.  The absent student is not there to contribute to and benefit from the quality of the discussion.  The discussion is the dynamic learning event for all enrolled.

[zuzu_]

I teach writing and literature, and a lot of learning/competency is achieved through group discussion, guided writing workshops, and peer revisions/editing.

Yes--this can happen online, and in an online course, there are other students with whom a student could discuss and workshop asynchronously. The activities and assignments are tweaked so that they work well in an online environment.

However if the student is enrolled on campus, there is no online community platform to join. Hence, regular class attendance is critical.

[Hegemony]

With that logic, why have in-person classes at all and require anyone to attend? 

True enough. It's no accident that I was educated in a system in which attendance was not required at all. There was a feeling that you should really stick around, but if you were self-motivated enough that you passed the exams at the end of the year (or at the end of the three years) without attending much or at all, you had learned the material and you got the degree. (And believe me, the exams were not easy. But some aced them without attending much anyway.)  Speaking as someone who now teaches at a mid-to-low-tier U.S. state university, it's true enough that most of our students don't have the motivation to learn on their own. Heck, often they don't even have the motivation to do the tiny amount of supposedly required reading before their mandated appearance in class. So a system in which their attendance is optional would result in nearly all of them failing their course, which would obviously cause an uproar.  The ethos now is "It is the instructor's responsibility to make them want to learn, or at the least to try to make them learn whether they want to or not." But if occasionally there is a student who is ferociously self-motivated, and that student has multiple obligations and is able to learn enough to pass the course without attending, I'd be reluctant to stand in his way.  As I understand it, most of the rest of you would not be reluctant.

[mamselle]

Leafing back through the pages here, mythbuster asked about a discussion with the Dean of Students.

I was wondering about talking with an advisor or program guidance counselor who might know more about the student, their situation, etc.

Also, if they are self-motivated and learn well without full attendance, their previous grades would show that, would they not?

So there may be some background info to help with this situation (or maybe it's already been looked into and/or resolved..)

M.

[marshwiggle]

With that logic, why have in-person classes at all and require anyone to attend? 

True enough. It's no accident that I was educated in a system in which attendance was not required at all. There was a feeling that you should really stick around, but if you were self-motivated enough that you passed the exams at the end of the year (or at the end of the three years) without attending much or at all, you had learned the material and you got the degree. (And believe me, the exams were not easy. But some aced them without attending much anyway.)  Speaking as someone who now teaches at a mid-to-low-tier U.S. state university, it's true enough that most of our students don't have the motivation to learn on their own. Heck, often they don't even have the motivation to do the tiny amount of supposedly required reading before their mandated appearance in class. So a system in which their attendance is optional would result in nearly all of them failing their course, which would obviously cause an uproar.  The ethos now is "It is the instructor's responsibility to make them want to learn, or at the least to try to make them learn whether they want to or not." But if occasionally there is a student who is ferociously self-motivated, and that student has multiple obligations and is able to learn enough to pass the course without attending, I'd be reluctant to stand in his way.  As I understand it, most of the rest of you would not be reluctant.

I'm with you on this. But I wonder how much of peoples' reluctance to consider this has to do with our culture's willingness to blame the instructor (or "the system") for the student's failure? If students would agree not to whine and beg about their grades, I'd be happy to let them do as little as they like and only show up for exams. The main reason to try and enforce attendance is really just to get them as high a grade as possible with as little whining as possible.

[Caracal]

The main reason to try and enforce attendance is really just to get them as high a grade as possible with as little whining as possible.

That isn't really why I take attendance. I found that when I didn't do it, it got to absurdly low levels and I couldn't even count on good students showing up regularly. It made it hard to have good discussions or do class activities.

[apl68]

The main reason to try and enforce attendance is really just to get them as high a grade as possible with as little whining as possible.

That isn't really why I take attendance. I found that when I didn't do it, it got to absurdly low levels and I couldn't even count on good students showing up regularly. It made it hard to have good discussions or do class activities.

So only constant monitoring (and the implicit threat behind that) makes most of the students show up for class?  That suggests a lamentable lack of self-motivation.  Sounds like some of the traditional-age students among them are in for a rude lesson when they enter the world of work.