Posting Hall of Fame

[Cheerful]

From "Favorite" student sentences:

Some of the negative constipation around the vaccination issue is based on individual liberty and religious freedom.

Uh.....

[Hibush]

Had to look up grok, and when searching for SPADFY, most of the results come from the Chronicle, including more than I'm in VT, having relocated to work at a college that is no longer in Dire Straits, and which has instead passed from this mortal coil. It is deceased. Stone cold dead. And while I followed Polly's advice as much as I could in the last ten years (it really is sound advice) I didn't realize said college was bereft of life because it was resting on a perch it had (in fact) been nailed to. It had incredible plumage. Some deft 990s and fraud papered over the deepest trouble, and NECHE's double-secret-probation (which is called, privately, "notice of concern") didn't help. The college I left (in the midwest, which might even be Super Dinky) is a worse college, with worse plumage. It has no pulse, but the time of death has not been called.

Hundreds of other humanities programs are nailed to the perch, and I'd say at least a hundred whole colleges are similarly propped in their cages. The math has caught up with higher ed, and covid-19 has accelerated realizations, while worsening all underlying financials. The colleges that will be here in 2024 will have a brand already, will be nimble, and will have cleaned up their operations over the last ten years (which will necessarily have included one of the following: a) an enormous endowment, or b) a serious and continuing de-emphasis of humanities programming.) I think those colleges will prosper.

I like the rescue plan offered by NAB, and I believe the humanities and SLACs have value and power. Not more value, though, than other things that are similarly *undervalued* by "starve the beast" politicians and consumers who vote with their feet. This retrenching is long overdue, and the scarce resources we've got simply aren't best-allocated toward the humanities. This thread will be useful for those wanting to tell the history of humanities-based higher ed. It was a luxury, and seems like it was a fun ride, but it was never actually the center of the universe, as it had imagined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo

[Hibush]

There was a study comparing active learning to regular lectures which found that students learned more from active learning, but felt they learned more from regular lectures, since it wasn't so HAAAARD.

[polly_mer]

I am heavily in favor of asynchronous. You will have students with all kinds of challenging situations. Some will have poor internet in their buildings. Some will live in rural areas, where internet is still very spotty. Some will be taking care of children during the day, or working, or sharing a computer with other people who have time-essential requirements like working from home. I had a student who couldn't be online one day because he was living back on the family farm and had to help with the lambing, which doesn't stop for a synchronous class. Don't assume they're all carefree young adults with lots of time and technology. When some of them want to get online, they have to drive to McDonald's, which has free wifi, and sit in the parking lot.  Sure, they "should" be more available, and they "should" have other childcare or jobs that don't interfere. But if we want to help the students where they are, and not make things worse for the segment that are strained in time or resources, I think it behooves us to be flexible.

The thing about successful online teaching is that it is not just classroom teaching broadcast via computer. It is a whole different ballgame. Don't try to just import your regular teaching style online.  Your in-person classes sound great, with all the real-time interaction, but that's just not the strength of online classes. Instead of trying for a third-rate version of in-person classes, instead magnify the strengths of what online teaching can do.

One real bonus to online teaching is that both you and the students will have more time to think before you discuss. In asynchronous teaching, nobody is put on the spot, everybody genuinely has an equal chance to contribute, and the formerly shy and hesitant people can also shine.

As an example, my own son has a stutter that only comes out when he feels everyone is looking at him. Occasionally he feels confident enough to speak in class, enough so that his teachers deny to me that there is a problem. But I know there is one, because he's confided in me and because I've observed it. The real result is that he very rarely speaks in class, because he dreads the stutter coming out. But he's voluble and thoughtful in online classes, because he can write out his thoughts and post them when he's ready, and no one will ever hear that he has a stutter. There are more of these hesitant students than you may think. You will love hearing from them in an online discussion board.

But about the lectures. They simply don't work. It's not a format that works online. It is boring as hell — a talking head droning online. Even if it were synchronous, it's far removed and impersonal-seeming, and students will feel very awkward chiming in. They will also not watch long videos. YouTube has done a lot of study of this, and the average YouTube video is watched for under 4 minutes. I don't mean that the average YouTube video is under 4 minutes — I mean it's longer and the viewer gives up in under 4 minutes. I also had occasion to watch a number of recorded lectures of my fellow professors, a while back. OMG, the tedium. Not only are they grueling to watch, but you are competing with the polish of TV, which every student will be familiar with. Look at how news broadcasts do it. They break frequently, they have fancy graphics, they have clips — there is no footage of just a head talking for many minutes in a row. That's for a reason. And TED talks? Massive rehearsal, polished script, polished graphics, walking around — those are as good as it gets, and none of us are going to have that degree of polish.

Go ahead and watch these online lecturers, who are trying hard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AycTgPJtBP0 (quick roundup of the history of philosophy)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fbrl6WoIyo (introduction to psychology)

How long before your attention started to wander? And these guys are doing a good job. They are much better than a random prof talking in front of a computer screen. But still — I can bet you stopped watching partway in.

Also, if you have a either a video of you talking or a lecture in real time, how do hearing-impaired students access it? You will need to interpret or caption it — in fact the ADA requires it. Hearing-impaired and deaf students take more online classes in greater proportions than other students, because they are more accessible. So when you think about formats, think about whether it's easy to make it accessible for them.

Instead of lectures transferred online, put the same information up spread between a variety of formats. If you insist, have a 1-2 minute video of you talking informally and showing something visual that is relevant to the course — a Napoleon hat, or a fossil, or something you can light on fire, or something. Then have a little online video made by a professional outfit, like a TV documentary about Napoleon, or whatever. There are tons of these for almost every subject. Bonus: they will usually be already professionally close-captioned. You can also include the occasional delightful video, like a relevant song from Horrible Histories, or a clip of Monty Python doing the Philosophers' Football Match.

Then have a little sheet of interest facts and questions about Napoleon, with pictures. TOP TEN MYTHS ABOUT NAPOLEON, or whatever. Sneak a lot of learning and thinking in there. Then have a substantive PowerPoint about Napoleon's campaigns, with snazzy graphics and information they should know. Then have the readings, which will be the same readings as an in-person class.

Then have the lively discussion board, with an intriguing question that requires real thought (but not outrageously complex) and allows for differing interpretations. They have to make the first post by a certain point in the week, and then two substantive responses to others' posts later in the week. Grade these posts afterwards by slapping a number on them. (I give full points for each unless the post is really, really stupid — but I make it clear up front that saying "I agree!" or "I really like your remark" gets a failing grade. But you won't have that trouble — they love the discussion boards.) Comment widely yourself on the boards, in supportive ways, but redirecting in a kindly way if they start to get facts wrong or interpretations that really won't fly. Divide your discussions ahead of time into groups of 8-12, or they become too big for everyone to read everything. The computer will divide them automatically (be sure to do this at the beginning of the course — it won't divide them once discussion has started).

Then have a short computer-graded multiple-choice quiz about the essentials. Make sure it's uncheatable (have the system select random questions from a larger question bank, have it mix up the order of the answers, and make it time-limited). That will keep them on their toes, focused on the facts as well as the interpretations, and give an incentive not to slack on the reading.

At regular intervals you also have short writing assignments (2-4 pages works best, I find) that allow them to integrate the material and work on questions at greater length.

These elements let students go back over the material and find things with ease, and the combination of words and visuals makes providing the visual material easier than in an in-person class.  Another bonus is that you can set it up ahead of time (indeed, you have to) and push a button and it does run by itself. Then what you do is to send out chatty reminders when deadlines are approaching — summing things up and providing a personal touch — stop by the discussion boards when discussion is going (this part is really fun and you will have to restrain yourself from being on there too much), and grade assignments when they come in.

I've done this for a number of years and I find them really great. The student feedback is that they find these classes engaging, admirably organized, and very worthwhile — and that they really appreciate the flexibility and the lack of demand to be synchronous. That's in normal years — even more so in a pandemic.

I actually have handouts on how to do all this if anyone is interested and wants to PM me — but it's basically the same as I've said here, with some details about the LMS.

[Cheerful]

No. My university administration has not really embraced communication with faculty and staff as a critical tool.

[Vkw10]

From The things you wish you could say

Blanket policy decisions are typically both too broad and too narrow.

[Hibush]

Shoot. I thought I existed. My bad.

Well now you know.

From How can people still take the Bible or other the religious texts literally?

[AmLitHist]

I have to set goals with my dept head during each annual review.  I wonder if I can amend them all to read, "Get out of this shit show alive."

Words to live by.

[little bongo]

Maybe some places it works, but I know of places that do have strong unions and it is still a disaster.

Unions exist to protect the faculty. Tenure exists to protect academic freedom. I know there are those that don't understand what tenure protects, or who tell stories that confuse ineffective administration with tenure, but that's what it's there for and what it does in practice. Unions and tenure are completely different animals that can coexist or stand on their own.

More correctly, unions exist to protect themselves. Unions despise non-union workers in any field, including academia, and they're even not very supportive of faculty who belong to the bargaining unit but choose not to join the union. They often oppose flexibility in work arrangements because the more uniform they can make working conditions the more they can ensure that faculty interests align with union interests. Where they differ, union interests win.

You've always been a fan of the blanket statement, Marshy.  Careful with those.  What you've said is not necessarily true.

A long time ago, when I was unskilled blue-collar, I worked for a union shop.  It was Big Brother.  It coddled the incompetent.  I also defended the weak.  I landed right after the union sued our employer for forcing workers to finish their shifts off the clock if they didn't get their work done.  Illegal and immoral.  The union defended truck drivers who would be awakened in the middle of the night at their motels by shift managers who could not locate this or that on a palate.  I don't know about you, but I don't want a driver hauling one of those big rigs through mountain passes who's been awakened at 2am after a hard day driving----yay union.

We've worked for both a non-union and a union school.   

God Bless the union.

I might suggest watching fewer movies.

[Cheerful]

From Preparing for Coronavirus thread:

Excuse me please, I'm looking for The Fora.  I accidentally seem to have wandered into an episode of Doomsday Preppers.

[San Joaquin]

Pure genius from apl68:

"Who knew that getting an education required learning so much stuff?"

[WidgetWoman]

From FishProf in Favorite Student Emails:

When I have a syllabus that doesn't need to be updated to close another "loophole for the stupid" I will have found the Holy Grail and shall retire.

It doesn't look likely anytime soon.

:edit: link to post

[spork]

Someone once said to me, "Don't get on a negative power trip."

I think they meant, don't go down the slope of assumptions that start with the idea that you have no power and no agency and the only way out is down so you might as well self-immolate to begin with (to mix destructive metaphors).

I don't have enough experience from my own perspective, but I've worked for people who did things like turn all the reviewer's objections around by the end of the week, and saw their piece out before the rival lab on the other coast.

So it might be worth it to stay in the game longer--you can't talk anymore to someone you've hung up on.

M.

Boldface added.

[permanent imposter]

From the legalization of heroine thread:

I invite you to come smell me if you like, you may be pleasantly surprised.

[mamselle]

From the mental health thread:

I think the key is that our lives are not worthwhile in proportion to the amount we produce, the career objectives we achieve, or the number of people we interact with, or even to what degree we help those people or inspire warm and fuzzy feelings in them. I always remember what a determined and happy friend said once: "Your life is for you."

It's true that as academically minded people, we're used to looking at how well we scored on that exam or the grade we earned in that class, and that translates into "What career achievements do I have?" when we graduate into being professionals. And if we want to do those things (actually want to do them and savor them, not just cross them off the list or feel we are "keeping up'), then we should aim at a reasonable amount of them. But there's no finish line where someone says, "You have kept up with the highest performers in your peer group, you are now worthy, you can feel comfortable now." We're used to that finish line (the test scores come out, the class grades come out). We have to adjust to the lack of that as adults.

And we all have a tendency to look at the people who perform best at the easily measured things and compare ourselves to them. The person from the grad school cohort who got the job at Harvard or the big grant or the TV gig, or maybe all three. And the people who come right after that person, with visibly "successful" lives. Of course even those don't tell the whole story. I once talked to someone who deals with a lot of the top Hollywood celebrities. She said, "They're rich and famous, but none of that insulates you from family difficulties, health problems, and emotional pain. Believe me. They have as much of that as anyone. I have talked to them a lot and I know."

But comparing ourselves to the high achievers doesn't give us a true sense of where we stand in the scheme of things, even if we're determined to measure our success in relation to other people. How many people from your high school got derailed and never finished, or finished under a cloud? How many are struggling in part-time grocery store jobs with no benefits? I would imagine more than one would think, because those people are typically less visible on our personal radar. People have children with terrible problems, siblings with terrible problems, a whole range of challenges and difficulties. All of us were led to believe we had bright shiny futures and if they didn't turn out bright and shiny, something was badly wrong (probably with us, but maybe we were uniquely targeted by fate) and it is all bad and a failure. But the truth is that everybody's life is a mixture. (I am leaving out people with genuinely appalling life circumstances, like traumatized refugees and the desperately poor in ravaged countries, and people like that — although they're on the scale of what our lives could have been like too.)

But anyway, everyone's life is a mixture of benefits and hardships. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with us or that we were uniquely singled out. It's the human condition. And the human challenge is to learn to savor the good things, despite the hardships. Because they are there, and they're there for us. Gladioli, ice cream sundaes, bath beads, puppies, a book lent by an old friend, a pillow that is just right, lovely remarks on Twitter (try Tom Cox), whatever pleasures speak to you — all those things are there for us. Despite all the rest of the challenges. The one doesn't cancel out the other, though our response depends a lot on where we turn our attention. It is an act of kindness to ourselves to let ourselves have a space where we relish and savor those things that are there despite how we feel about our CVs or our life achievements. Sometimes we have to bring our attention back to the good things a hundred times a day, because our internal alarm system has set itself on high and is determined to pay attention only to the ways we can feel bad. Turning our attention back to the good is a practice that rewards itself. Hang in there.