Logic and Cornel West
Art Clemons
African-American is supposed to be educated enough to be able to make decisions
that whites don't agree with without being attacked in the media? Let's see,
Cornel recorded a CD (not on Harvard's dime or time), supported a political
candidate publicly and is likely to support another in 2004, and his books are
not supposed to be intellectual enough.
First, let me note that other professors at Harvard and other Ivy level schools
publish books which don't get published by the academic press without being
criticized. The real question incidentally should be the academic content of
the book, not whether or not it sells well. Second as far as I know, Cornel
has missed teaching exactly one class during his teaching career, so it's
meaningless to complain about his time spent campaigning, speaking or otherwise
making money. Incidentally, is it just me, but if Alzheimer affected Ronald
Reagan could earn one million dollars for speeches filled with platitudes and
not much else, why can't Cornel also make money giving speeches with concepts
that Cornel actually came up with? Third, Cornel West at Harvard at best is
likely to teach three courses of the minimum 32 courses a Harvard undergrad is
likely to succeed, why is it his fault that grade inflation is occuring? In
other words if a student graduates with a 3.9 average and took a course with
Cornel, why aren't other professor's grades equally suspect? I note that
recently most of the graduating class of Harvard did so with honors.
Finally, I'm tired of the closet racists who come out to attack any
African-American who doesn't track a conservative intellectual course. It's
amusing that folks who are less well educated than Cornel feel capable of
judging his intellectual and academic standards.
I've also begun to wonder just when the hidden racists will give up, but I
sadly suspect that the answer is long after I'm dead.
-art clemons-
Pilar Quezzaire
: First, let me note that other professors at Harvard and other Ivy level
: schools publish books which don't get published by the academic press
: without being criticized.
It's exceedingly rare, much moreso than most think. Those that do receive
similar criticism, perhaps not to the same degree. That's less a race
thing thana jealousy thing.
: The real question incidentally should be the
: academic content of : the book, not whether or not it sells well.
True, but Cornell's "popular" books are not all that intellectually
powerful. There is a difference between writing for academics and writing
academically for the public. I prefer the latter, but I am in the
minority.
Second
as far as I know, Cornel : has missed teaching exactly one class during
his teaching career, so it's : meaningless to complain about his time
spent campaigning, speaking or otherwise : making money.
PUH-leese. THAT'S an exaggeration, I know that for a fact. I also know
that many of the other duties other professors have to students Porfessor
West is largely exempt from by virtue of his schedule. Try going to his
office hours, for instance.
: Third, Cornel West at Harvard at best is
: likely to teach three courses of the minimum 32 courses a Harvard undergrad is
: likely to succeed, why is it his fault that grade inflation is occuring? In
: other words if a student graduates with a 3.9 average and took a course with
: Cornel, why aren't other professor's grades equally suspect? I note that
: recently most of the graduating class of Harvard did so with honors.
They are suspect, and Harvard is paying lip-service by asking professors
to grade more fairly. Problem is the students are more in charge than the
professors.
Professors are dependent on enrollments in order for their depertments to
keep their classes. Harvard has a very powerful course review which
students use like bibles around here. If the course review says that a
professors grades too hard, students won't take the course, whether they
are interested or not. Until Harvard takes the power of the course review
away from students, grade inflation won't change. Hell, my advisor
flat-out told me that I had to grade more leniently, because she was
concerned about enrollments!
: Finally, I'm tired of the closet racists who come out to attack any
: African-American who doesn't track a conservative intellectual course. It's
: amusing that folks who are less well educated than Cornel feel capable of
: judging his intellectual and academic standards.
Welcome to academia. I get it from you guys, why not expect Cornell to get
it from someone else?
BTW, Cornell West IS noted for grading really easily. However, most of his
courses are in fact graded by grad students.
--
Pilar
Rich Thompson
> True, but Cornell's "popular" books are not all that intellectually
> powerful. There is a difference between writing for academics and
> writing academically for the public. I prefer the latter, but I am in the
> minority.
That's a relatively subjective opinion, isn't it?
To this by Art:
> : It's
> : amusing that folks who are less well educated than Cornel feel capable of
> : judging his intellectual and academic standards.
>
> Welcome to academia. I get it from you guys, why not expect Cornell to get
> it from someone else?
Pilar, who on scaam has done anything suggesting that they feel
capable of judging your intellectual and academic standards?
Raymond Wood
"Art Clemons" <artcl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020112190924...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> I am admittedly not an unbiased observer, but I do have to wonder just
when an
> African-American is supposed to be educated enough to be able to make
decisions
> that whites don't agree with without being attacked in the media?
I agree with every point you made.
Just remember ... Cornel isn't that concerned about impressing Black
America's nay sayers. He has dedicated his life to nation building
and, as such, what is most important is how WE view what he says,
writes, and teaches ... and how WE react to it.
If White and White-Wannabe Americans "get it", that is great for
everybody, especially them. But, irregardless of what they think,
we have to do like the late Curtis Mayfield told us ...
Keep on pushing
Don't stop now
Move up a little higher
Someway or somehow
I've got my strength
and it don't make sense
not to keep on pushing
Ray W.
Andrew McMichael
>
>
> First, let me note that other professors at Harvard and other Ivy level schools
> publish books which don't get published by the academic press without being
> criticized.
Well, what they get is a lack of tenure. Then, if they publish non-academic
books they get ignored by their professions. They also get encouraged to go
to a non-Ivy. It is very difficult to understand Ivy league politics and so
forth, even being in one. But, they do get criticized, in fact. And their
departments encourage them to publish academically. But it is usually
private, and stays that way. I've seen it happen, and it takes on the form
of peer-pressure.
I saw an interesting piece on this on CNBC last night. I came in the middle
of the discussion between two African American men, who I didn't see
identified while I was watching. Anyway, one was arguing that
African-American studies programs in the US were an intellectual joke, and
that West was part of the problem.
The other was arguing, against the first, that African-American studies
programs shouldn't be held up to the same standards as "real" academic
programs, and shouldn't be made over-academic anyway.
Mind-boggling.
> The real question incidentally should be the academic content of
> the book, not whether or not it sells well.
True. This is the center of the question surrounding the [now past] problems
between Simmons and West. I've not seen anyone, even West's supporters,
arguing that his books are all that intellectual or academic.
> Second as far as I know, Cornel
> has missed teaching exactly one class during his teaching career, so it's
> meaningless to complain about his time spent campaigning, speaking or otherwise
> making money.
The problem isn't how that relates to his teaching. It is how it relates to
his image as an Ivy league professor. When one of the history professors
here at Princeton went before a Senate committee to defend Clinton during
the Lewinsky affair, the department became incredibly embarrassed. In fact,
it is now one of the things that you will hear first about him. And it isn't
told as a brag.
The problem is that any one thing individually is a quirk. Taken together,
things add up.
As to teaching, I say "so what." We had a letter to our alumni newsletter
here complaining that not enough faculty taught classes. One of the
vice-presidents, or perhaps the president, responded by saying that
virtually all faculty taught. I looked at the four other faculty members in
my office and laughed: none of us teach. Princeton employs plenty of
research faculty. Our job is to write books and articles, and produce
research. I know lots of teaching faculty who teach one class a semester.
I have colleagues at other institutions who teach 4 or even 5 classes a
semester.
> Finally, I'm tired of the closet racists who come out to attack any
> African-American who doesn't track a conservative intellectual course.
All that this incident shows is that Simmons, a new president at the second
most [:)] prestigious institution in the country didn't understand on what
side of the bread the butter was on.
--
Andrew McMichael, Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Princeton University
http://www.princeton.edu/~amcmicha/cv.html
"Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al gek genoeg"-- A Dutch Proverb.
Andrew McMichael
>
> Art Clemons <artcl...@aol.com> offered this sage advice:
>
> : First, let me note that other professors at Harvard and other Ivy level
> : schools publish books which don't get published by the academic press
> : without being criticized.
>
> It's exceedingly rare, much moreso than most think. Those that do receive
> similar criticism, perhaps not to the same degree. That's less a race
> thing thana jealousy thing.
Dunno about Harvard, but I would say that most of the "criticism" I've seen
comes in the form of peer pressure.
> : The real question incidentally should be the
> : academic content of : the book, not whether or not it sells well.
>
> True, but Cornell's "popular" books are not all that intellectually
> powerful. There is a difference between writing for academics and writing
> academically for the public. I prefer the latter, but I am in the
> minority.
I agree. People like Jim McPherson, who writes very popular Civil war books,
receive quite a bit of professional criticism for writing for "the masses."
Alot of it is jealousy: he's a great writer, he makes money at it.
> PUH-leese. THAT'S an exaggeration, I know that for a fact. I also know
> that many of the other duties other professors have to students Porfessor
> West is largely exempt from by virtue of his schedule. Try going to his
> office hours, for instance.
Also true for a broad spectrum of "high Ivy" professors.
> Until Harvard takes the power of the course review
> away from students, grade inflation won't change. Hell, my advisor
> flat-out told me that I had to grade more leniently, because she was
> concerned about enrollments!
Princeton has the same problem.
Pilar Quezzaire
: Pilar Quezzaire <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<a1tf9r$aa0$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
:> True, but Cornell's "popular" books are not all that intellectually
:> powerful. There is a difference between writing for academics and
:> writing academically for the public. I prefer the latter, but I am in the
:> minority.
: That's a relatively subjective opinion, isn't it?
Actually, no. I think you know as well as I that academic books vary based
on demographics. As for West's "popular" books, that I'll admit is more
opinion, but structurally, it really isn't.
:> Welcome to academia. I get it from you guys, why not expect Cornell to get
:> it from someone else?
: Pilar, who on scaam has done anything suggesting that they feel
: capable of judging your intellectual and academic standards?
I should be more clear in saying that they are less judged than considered
of little value.
--
--
Pilar
Andrew McMichael
>
> Pilar Quezzaire <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<a1tf9r$aa0$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
>
> > True, but Cornell's "popular" books are not all that intellectually
> > powerful. There is a difference between writing for academics and
> > writing academically for the public. I prefer the latter, but I am in the
> > minority.
>
> That's a relatively subjective opinion, isn't it?
Which part is subjective? That Wests's books are not intellectually
powerful? Even his defenders say this. That there is a difference between
writing for acadmia and writing for the public? Not so subjective, I think.
I also prefer the latter. But I need to keep a job and bring home bread. The
trick is to write an academic book or two, then start in on the stuff you
really like.
Whatever, in the real world, it doesn't matter. In general, in the world of
academia, the question is a serious one. Non-acadmeic books don't count
towards tenure. I could write a dozen best-selling textbooks that got used
in most universities around the country. It wouldn't count towards tenure.
Same for various other categories of history books.
DarkStar
<quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
....
>
>Welcome to academia. I get it from you guys, why not expect Cornell to get
>it from someone else?
????????????
>
>BTW, Cornell West IS noted for grading really easily. However, most of his
>courses are in fact graded by grad students.
Which, to me, is a bigger outrage than so-called grade inflation.
---
"Corporatized or idealized, hip-hop is the American Dream and the African
American Nightmare rolled into one fat-ass blunt."
Charles Aaron Spin (Nov.1998)
Ed Brown - dark...@toad.net
http://www.toad.net/~darkstar
PubKey http://www.toad.net/~darkstar/public_key.html
Rich Thompson
> Rich Thompson <mice_el...@yahoo.com> offered this sage advice:
> : Pilar, who on scaam has done anything suggesting that they feel
> : capable of judging your intellectual and academic standards?
>
> I should be more clear in saying that they are less judged than considered
> of little value.
My question stands, with the above modifications.
Pilar Quezzaire
: On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:16:14 CST, Pilar Quezzaire
: <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
:>Welcome to academia. I get it from you guys, why not expect Cornell to get
:>it from someone else?
: ????????????
Ironic that you of all people are confused. This form the same person who
said that academia didn't seem a "useful" occupation to the
African-American community.
How short memory is.
:>BTW, Cornell West IS noted for grading really easily. However, most of his
:>courses are in fact graded by grad students.
: Which, to me, is a bigger outrage than so-called grade inflation.
Where'd you go to school? Just about every big university has teaching
assistants to the professor in lecture courses. That's not unusual, and if
you went to a big school, I can't imagine why you'd call it appalling.
I went to a small school for a reason.
--
Pilar
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
This will not degenerate into a set of personal attacks!
Edwin Brown
Pilar Quezzaire <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> offered this sage advice:
>: On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:16:14 CST, Pilar Quezzaire
>: <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
>
>:>Welcome to academia. I get it from you guys, why not expect Cornell to get
>:>it from someone else?
>
>: ????????????
>
>Ironic that you of all people are confused. This form the same person who
>said that academia didn't seem a "useful" occupation to the
>African-American community.
>
>How short memory is.
I never wrote such a comment.
Andrew McMichael
>
>
> >
> >BTW, Cornell West IS noted for grading really easily. However, most of his
> >courses are in fact graded by grad students.
>
> Which, to me, is a bigger outrage than so-called grade inflation.
Why?
Where should graduate students get trained to teach? Should they be trained
as TA's and graders, where professors [should] supervise them? Or should
their first experience in teaching and grading be when they've finished
their degrees and have a faculty job?
Raymond Wood
"DarkStar" <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message
news:ut274uonrb7h08l4a...@4ax.com...
his
> >courses are in fact graded by grad students.
>
>
> Which, to me, is a bigger outrage than so-called grade inflation.
My son is in his third year at Florida State .. hardly a bastion of
academia,
I know ... but, while it is I who have sunk tens of thousands of dollars
into his college education, I have never once seen any of his
grades, nor has he offered to show them to me.
When he went off to college, my advice to him was not to get the best
grades, or even to get good grades, but rather to always give his best.
I could not possibly care less about how "hard or easy" his profs grade.
The way I see it, that is an nice thorny issue which is good for stirring
up academics for a good fight, but he and I have much better issues
to concern ourselves with ....
Ray W.
Edwin Brown
In article <a25ko6$b79$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
Pilar Quezzaire <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> offered this sage advice:
>: On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:16:14 CST, Pilar Quezzaire
>: <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
>
>:>Welcome to academia. I get it from you guys, why not expect Cornell to get
>:>it from someone else?
>
>: ????????????
>
>Ironic that you of all people are confused. This form the same person who
>said that academia didn't seem a "useful" occupation to the
>African-American community.
>
>How short memory is.
I hate posting from this account but I'm going to do this for a reason.
I beg the mods to let this one go trough.
I have *NEVER* written that academia wasn't a "useful" occupation. That would
be foolish of me when I have relatives who teach at the university level.
I wrote *CERTAIN* fields of academia didn't seem "useful" like art history.
If you are sure I am wrong and you are correct, *PLEASE* post what was
written. If not, just EMAIL it to me and I'll post the most grovelling
apology this newsgroup has *EVER* seen.
>
>:>BTW, Cornell West IS noted for grading really easily. However, most of his
>:>courses are in fact graded by grad students.
>
>
>: Which, to me, is a bigger outrage than so-called grade inflation.
>
>
>Where'd you go to school? Just about every big university has teaching
>assistants to the professor in lecture courses. That's not unusual, and if
>you went to a big school, I can't imagine why you'd call it appalling.
I went to UVa and I was in the engineering school. The engineering courses
were taught by profs. The labs were proctored by grad students.
...
>======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
>
>This will not degenerate into a set of personal attacks!
Please let this though.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
So far, so good.
Pilar Quezzaire
: I wrote *CERTAIN* fields of academia didn't seem "useful" like art history.
I think that's insulting enough. I can accept anyone not understanding
what art history can be about, but dismissing it outright isn't terribly
fair, and is part of a larger problem about being black in academia. I
elaborate on this later in this post.
: If you are sure I am wrong and you are correct, *PLEASE* post what was
: written. If not, just EMAIL it to me and I'll post the most grovelling
: apology this newsgroup has *EVER* seen.
No, I am certain you are correct enough. I will say that your perception
of art history (African in my case) is one that is incorrect, and you
should be careful about how you say things. If you start judging one
discipline as useless, it can affect others that are interrelated. In the
case of African art, this is definitely true, because African art, more
than any other form of art history, incorporates archaeology,
anthroopology, history, and ethnomusicology BY DEFAULT by virtue of its
nature. Like many other disciplines concerning the African diaspora,
African art is extremely interdisciplinary.
It's ironic -- Cornell West has been criticized for his interest in "Black
studies", and programs of that ilk are also being touted as "useless",
with little consideration as to what said fields do.
I speak in the general "you" sense when I say here:
I'm not just an art historian at Boston University -- I'm also African
Studies faculty, and I do hard work, "useless" as it may seem. It is the
humanities where questions about how we learn and what is relevant in our
daily lives are answered, whether it be through the focus of art,
relgiion, literature...so every time you diss an art historian, an English
major, or whatever else you think is useless, you erode a much larger
approach to study which in fact is quite useful. That is part of the
problem that happens with "star" black faculty at major universities --
they are criticized by their own communities for being useless, or by
their colleagues for choosing subjects relevant to them, and thus are
often out of canon.
However, it is their work which is changing the face of how we learn, and
how culture plays a role in fields where culture, before now, was hardly
considered. It's about having a new perspective, a different lens to view
the scene, as it were. This is threatening and/or incomprehensible to some
scholars and laypeople. I would ask anyone on thi slist NOT to be one of
them.
:>Where'd you go to school? Just about every big university has teaching
:>assistants to the professor in lecture courses. That's not unusual, and if
:>you went to a big school, I can't imagine why you'd call it appalling.
: I went to UVa and I was in the engineering school. The engineering courses
: were taught by profs. The labs were proctored by grad students.
That's about what happens in the humanities with teaching asisstants
(called fellows at Harvard) and grading. Why is it appalling to apprentice
in the humanities, but not in the sciences?
--
Pilar
DarkStar
<quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
>Edwin Brown <edb...@radix.net> offered this sage advice:
>
>: I wrote *CERTAIN* fields of academia didn't seem "useful" like art history.
>
>I think that's insulting enough. I can accept anyone not understanding
>what art history can be about, but dismissing it outright isn't terribly
>fair, and is part of a larger problem about being black in academia. I
>elaborate on this later in this post.
For it to be "insulting enough" is one thing. For you to write:
>This form the same person who
>said that academia didn't seem a "useful" occupation to the
>African-American community.
Is totally different.
....
>No, I am certain you are correct enough. I will say that your perception
>of art history (African in my case) is one that is incorrect, and you
>should be careful about how you say things.
It was my opinion and I stated it. If people disagree, fine they
disagree, but I wrote it, I meant it, and there was and is no need for
me to "be careful" about how I wrote it.
Just "be careful" about presenting what I did write.
....
>:>Where'd you go to school? Just about every big university has teaching
>:>assistants to the professor in lecture courses. That's not unusual, and if
>:>you went to a big school, I can't imagine why you'd call it appalling.
>
>: I went to UVa and I was in the engineering school. The engineering courses
>: were taught by profs. The labs were proctored by grad students.
>
>That's about what happens in the humanities with teaching asisstants
>(called fellows at Harvard) and grading. Why is it appalling to apprentice
>in the humanities, but not in the sciences?
I never made a distinction.
I don't believe grad students should be teaching classes. That's *NOT*
what people are paying for when they attend universities and colleges.
Al
> Edwin Brown <edb...@radix.net> offered this sage advice:
>
> : I wrote *CERTAIN* fields of academia didn't seem "useful" like art history.
>
> I think that's insulting enough. I can accept anyone not understanding
> what art history can be about, but dismissing it outright isn't terribly
> fair, and is part of a larger problem about being black in academia. I
> elaborate on this later in this post.
>
> : If you are sure I am wrong and you are correct, *PLEASE* post what was
> : written. If not, just EMAIL it to me and I'll post the most grovelling
> : apology this newsgroup has *EVER* seen.
>
> No, I am certain you are correct enough. I will say that your perception
> of art history (African in my case) is one that is incorrect, and you
> should be careful about how you say things.
Whoa. Stop there. African Trade and life has always included migrations
to Europe and Asia, at least for the last 10,000 years and undoubtedly
longer. So what art may be found in African may have come from elsewhere.
And vice versa. This is a point routinely left out of academia of all
types.
> If you start judging one
> discipline as useless, it can affect others that are interrelated. In the
> case of African art, this is definitely true, because African art, more
> than any other form of art history, incorporates archaeology,
> anthroopology, history, and ethnomusicology BY DEFAULT by virtue of its
> nature. Like many other disciplines concerning the African diaspora,
> African art is extremely interdisciplinary.
>
> It's ironic -- Cornell West has been criticized for his interest in "Black
> studies", and programs of that ilk are also being touted as "useless",
> with little consideration as to what said fields do.
That is because in the mostly racists environments in today's "civilized-
world" such study is very difficult historically.
> I speak in the general "you" sense when I say here:
>
> I'm not just an art historian at Boston University -- I'm also African
> Studies faculty, and I do hard work, "useless" as it may seem. It is the
> humanities where questions about how we learn and what is relevant in our
> daily lives are answered, whether it be through the focus of art,
> relgiion, literature...so every time you diss an art historian, an English
> major, or whatever else you think is useless, you erode a much larger
> approach to study which in fact is quite useful. That is part of the
> problem that happens with "star" black faculty at major universities --
> they are criticized by their own communities for being useless, or by
> their colleagues for choosing subjects relevant to them, and thus are
> often out of canon.
Well, everyone does have their own disciplines. Maybe even a racist
agenda, behind them. Many critics of Star Black Faculty undoubtedly
do.
> However, it is their work which is changing the face of how we learn, and
> how culture plays a role in fields where culture, before now, was hardly
> considered. It's about having a new perspective, a different lens to view
> the scene, as it were. This is threatening and/or incomprehensible to some
> scholars and laypeople.
Undoubtedly, scholars threatened by truth are not to be found near the
IVY league. They can go with Newt Gingrich, George W. and the others.
I would ask anyone on thi slist NOT to be one of
> them.
>
> :>Where'd you go to school? Just about every big university has teaching
> :>assistants to the professor in lecture courses. That's not unusual, and if
> :>you went to a big school, I can't imagine why you'd call it appalling.
>
> : I went to UVa and I was in the engineering school. The engineering courses
> : were taught by profs. The labs were proctored by grad students.
>
> That's about what happens in the humanities with teaching asisstants
> (called fellows at Harvard) and grading. Why is it appalling to apprentice
> in the humanities, but not in the sciences?
If you even have to ask that question, then you are probably talking to
someone unfamiliar with academics after the high school level. Wouldn't
you say ??
DarkStar
put forth:
>Pilar Quezzaire <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<a2auko$pm3$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
.....
>> That's about what happens in the humanities with teaching asisstants
>> (called fellows at Harvard) and grading. Why is it appalling to apprentice
>> in the humanities, but not in the sciences?
>
>If you even have to ask that question, then you are probably talking to
>someone unfamiliar with academics after the high school level. Wouldn't
>you say ??
Heh.
Heheheheh.
Hahahahahahaha.....
*BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*
DarkStar
<amcm...@princeton.edu> put forth:
>DarkStar wrote:
....
>> Which, to me, is a bigger outrage than so-called grade inflation.
>
>
>Why?
>
>Where should graduate students get trained to teach? Should they be trained
>as TA's and graders, where professors [should] supervise them?
Yes.
Then they should be supervised for a bit before teaching the classes
alone.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>I don't believe grad students should be teaching classes. That's *NOT*
>what people are paying for when they attend universities and colleges.
Actually outside of a few limited fields, that's precisely what people are
spending money for at elite schools, you know, the Ivies, Hopkins, University
of Chicago and Stanford, and it's been that way for at least 35 years. In fact
some of the better courses for undergrads are taught by grad students and
occasionally fellows rather than those with the title professor. At some other
schools, adjunct faculty are being used to fill in, faculty often with no
offices, no access to university email systems and low pay, as well as the need
to teach at several different places just to make less than a rookie big city
cop does. Universities also judge how long departments last by the number of
students taking courses. You won't find a language department surviving with 8
students per class for long, so survey courses with grad assistants are likely
to be used to jack up the numbers. Academia is not as pure as you think and
it's getting worse. It won't be long before somebody will get the brilliant
idea of recording a course once and repeating it on video a few times before
it's horribly dated and needs a new tape. Of course grad students will end up
dealing with those too.
You also are ignoring the new move to unionize grad students, which is working
in some places because grad students have become the work engines of academia,
like it or not.
-art clemons-
Kaiju
DarkStar wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:36:16 CST, Pilar Quezzaire
> <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
> >:>Where'd you go to school? Just about every big university has teaching
> >:>assistants to the professor in lecture courses. That's not unusual, and if
> >:>you went to a big school, I can't imagine why you'd call it appalling.
> >
> >: I went to UVa and I was in the engineering school. The engineering courses
> >: were taught by profs. The labs were proctored by grad students.
> >
> >That's about what happens in the humanities with teaching asisstants
> >(called fellows at Harvard) and grading. Why is it appalling to apprentice
> >in the humanities, but not in the sciences?
>
> I never made a distinction.
>
> I don't believe grad students should be teaching classes. That's *NOT*
> what people are paying for when they attend universities and colleges.
I admit that I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I did read these
last few exchanges.
My perception, based upon attendance at about a half-dozen schools (both
undergrad and grad), is that teaching assistants, fellows, lab proctors, or
whatever, do not substitute for the professors. The professors are the
lecturers if they are advertised as such. Teaching assistants, et. al., have
almost always covered labs, seminars, and much of the one-on-one work,
particularly if the central lecture contains 50+ students. Believe me, I did,
and still would, ignore most of the TA's...with no retribution. They were
there as assistants if I needed them. I never did. I viewed them as someone
to collect assignments, and nothing more.
When I was an undergrad at Cal, none of my courses were taught by TA's. At
the university where I am currently enrolled, some doctoral students do teach
(as lecturers or instructors) certain undergrad courses, such as statistics or
other introductory courses. In those cases, they are not advertised as
anything other than what they are: lecturers and instructors. And in this
instance, "lecturer" is an academic designation.
At the other schools that I have attended, I was a grad student in
professional programs, so the issue was moot. I had no idea what happened
with the undergrads, really, nor really cared.
So, what am I missing here? Is there something going on at other schools that
I am not aware of? Or maybe the correct question is: What are you guys
arguing about, anyway?
Kaiju
--
No more fiendish punishment could be devised,
were such a thing physically possible,
than that one should be turned loose in society
and remain absolutely unnoticed.
-- William James
Pilar Quezzaire
: Pilar Quezzaire <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<a2auko$pm3$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
:> No, I am certain you are correct enough. I will say that your perception
:> of art history (African in my case) is one that is incorrect, and you
:> should be careful about how you say things.
: Whoa. Stop there. African Trade and life has always included migrations
: to Europe and Asia, at least for the last 10,000 years and undoubtedly
: longer. So what art may be found in African may have come from elsewhere.
: And vice versa. This is a point routinely left out of academia of all
: types.
I am misunderstanding why my statement about comments on Africa is related
to your assertion here.
:> It's ironic -- Cornell West has been criticized for his interest in "Black
:> studies", and programs of that ilk are also being touted as "useless",
:> with little consideration as to what said fields do.
: That is because in the mostly racists environments in today's "civilized-
: world" such study is very difficult historically.
Well yes, that's true. I experience that often in my own academic work.
:> problem that happens with "star" black faculty at major universities --
:> they are criticized by their own communities for being useless, or by
:> their colleagues for choosing subjects relevant to them, and thus are
:> often out of canon.
: Well, everyone does have their own disciplines. Maybe even a racist
: agenda, behind them. Many critics of Star Black Faculty undoubtedly
: do.
The discussion is less about a discipline than an approach or subject
matter that challenges canon.
:> That's about what happens in the humanities with teaching asisstants
:> (called fellows at Harvard) and grading. Why is it appalling to apprentice
:> in the humanities, but not in the sciences?
: If you even have to ask that question, then you are probably talking to
: someone unfamiliar with academics after the high school level. Wouldn't
: you say ??
Talk to Ed, he's the one who asked the question.
--
Pilar
DarkStar
forth:
....
>When I was an undergrad at Cal, none of my courses were taught by TA's. At
>the university where I am currently enrolled, some doctoral students do teach
>(as lecturers or instructors) certain undergrad courses, such as statistics or
>other introductory courses. In those cases, they are not advertised as
>anything other than what they are: lecturers and instructors. And in this
>instance, "lecturer" is an academic designation.
To me it's a designation that doesn't mean anything.
When I attend a fully accredited university or college, I expect to be
taught by professors or at least people with PhD's. When a university
or college program, or the school itself, can lose it's accreditation
because they don't have enough PhD's in the program, I expect to get
taught by a PhD.
Call me a snob, but that's what I'm paying the money for. I find it
sad that people now expect nothing less. But I admit that since I've
graduated from under grad, I now treat paying for college/university
courses as a service. I demand what I'm paying for. (In fact, I tried
to get an instructor kicked out of an "after hours" college program
because he stunk.)
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <n6sj4ucoshg6krmm6...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
>
>>I don't believe grad students should be teaching classes. That's *NOT*
>>what people are paying for when they attend universities and colleges.
>
>Actually outside of a few limited fields, that's precisely what people are
>spending money for at elite schools, you know, the Ivies, Hopkins, University
>of Chicago and Stanford, and it's been that way for at least 35 years.
That's what they are spending money on, but I don't believe that many
expect this to be the case, and that's my point.
Pilar Quezzaire
:>Where should graduate students get trained to teach? Should they be trained
:>as TA's and graders, where professors [should] supervise them?
: Yes.
: Then they should be supervised for a bit before teaching the classes
: alone.
Ed, it's becoming more and more clear in this thread that your
understanding of the apprenticeship process in academia is a bit limited.
They are "supervised" -- they take courses and are picked by their
departments before becoming teaching assistants -- it's part of their
training.
Why this relates to the original discussion of grade inflation, I'm not
sure.
--
Pilar
DarkStar
<quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> offered this sage advice:
>
>:>Where should graduate students get trained to teach? Should they be trained
>:>as TA's and graders, where professors [should] supervise them?
>
>: Yes.
>
>: Then they should be supervised for a bit before teaching the classes
>: alone.
>
>Ed, it's becoming more and more clear in this thread that your
>understanding of the apprenticeship process in academia is a bit limited.
Or maybe it should be coming clear that yours is limited.
Again, let's go to UVa.
I took 2 classes in the Physics department as part of my "general
electives."
The 2nd physics class was taught by a man who got his PhD the previous
semester. The class went from close to 100 people the first day, to
around 20 by the 3rd day. After that semester, he was monitored while
he taught because people complained that he was such a poor teacher.
Let's go to the chemistry department.
A professor who was the top of his field in research using
radio-isotopes to discover properties of chemicals and materials was a
terrible teacher. He taught a mandatory chemistry class and the
failure rate of the class was very high.
After enough complaints, he was monitored while teaching classes. His
inability to teach classes was so great that he was no longer allowed
to teach undergraduate classes. For undergraduates, he became a lab
proctor.
Someone who is a poor teacher should not be allowed to teach. If those
2 examples had been "properly apprenticed" neither one of those men
would have been allowed in front of a class.
Pilar Quezzaire
Not exactly a bastion noted for its teachers, but its researchers, which
is where I THINK your point is going. I will begin by saying there is a
difference between being an academic and a teacher. While I believe it is
more important to be a teacher, that is not the focus of academia, which
is unfortunately how you get to the complaints you seem to be having.
: The 2nd physics class was taught by a man who got his PhD the previous
: semester. The class went from close to 100 people the first day, to
: around 20 by the 3rd day. After that semester, he was monitored while
: he taught because people complained that he was such a poor teacher.
What were the exact nature of the complaints? I was told I was a bad
teacher because I graded too hard. That's hardly the sign of a bad
teacher, but the complint of a student that wasn't accustomed to being
graded fairly.
: A professor who was the top of his field in research using
: radio-isotopes to discover properties of chemicals and materials was a
: terrible teacher. He taught a mandatory chemistry class and the
: failure rate of the class was very high.
Failure rates are high in any chemistry course -- that has nothing to do
with the teacher most often. Both physics and chemistry departments at
many schools use their introductory courses as "cutoff" courses that are
meant to deter students who are not dedicated to the major or interested
in the subject from continuing. No matter how a good a teacher is, if the
department sets the intro curriculum as something extremely difficult,
students will fail. Professors rarely create intro curricula
single-handedly -- it's done by committee.
UVa, BTW, is well-noted for courses of this kind, because of the sheer
number of students who desire to take these courses. It sounds as though
your example was particularly extreme, but the truth is the department
didn't hire this guy 'cause he could teach.
Now to address your complaint about "bad" teachers: I will say that one
of the greatest misconceptions about higher-level education I can think of
is the assumption that academics are meant to be teachers. Teaching is not
favored in many upper-eschelon schools, because it is assumed that the
quality of students at them will not need the same guidance as schools
where the student body is more diversified academically. teaching is not
the primary focus of academia either -- writing books and contributing to
educational canon is.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it is, and your complaining about it
is pretty much moot, because the discipline has made its mind up already.
: After enough complaints, he was monitored while teaching classes. His
: inability to teach classes was so great that he was no longer allowed
: to teach undergraduate classes. For undergraduates, he became a lab
: proctor.
Glad to see that happen in that case. Had UVa been truly focused on
teaching rather than research which hauls in lots of grant money, said
professor would have been asked to leave, never offered tenure, etc.
: Someone who is a poor teacher should not be allowed to teach. If those
: 2 examples had been "properly apprenticed" neither one of those men
: would have been allowed in front of a class.
I'm afraid, Ed, that you're wrong on that score. As I said before, being a
good academic has nothing to do with teaching a good deal of the time.
Those two examples no doubt received the same apprenticeship their
colleagues did, and they simply did not have the talent to teach. However,
if one is a good researcher or grantwinner, s/he will still have a job in
academia.
It sucks, but professors are not meant to serve undergraduates.
Undergraduates are what high-level universities use to make money to pay
the professors who bring in the bigger grants. If you really wanted to
complain about the quality of teachers, talk to university presidents and
deans, who decide on who becomes faculty or not.
If you want to be taught, and not lectured to by researchers...you have to
be careful about where you choose to go to school. UVa would not be the
best choice, nor Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. Smaller schools with
limited graduate programs and research foci are always better.
--
Pilar
coquinegra
> It sucks, but professors are not meant to serve undergraduates.
> Undergraduates are what high-level universities use to make money to pay
> the professors who bring in the bigger grants. If you really wanted to
> complain about the quality of teachers, talk to university presidents and
> deans, who decide on who becomes faculty or not.
And Pilar is right again! Those of us who DO teach undergrads are
still encouraged to spend all our time chasing down grants (in the
sciences,
anyway), and the real determining factor as to whether or not you get
tenure or are placed on the tenure track is not that you make some
undergrads happy, but that you bring in money. And it's my
experience,
in agreement with Pilar, that bad evaluations come from students who
are used to making "A" grades without working. If you make them work
for the "A", you're a "bad" teacher. I taught Immunology last
semester...
it's a HARD subject....get over it! But I'm not sure what's going on
in schools these days, but they teach students to negotiate for the
grade
they want, not actually master the material. Strange....
Pilar Quezzaire
: in agreement with Pilar, that bad evaluations come from students who
: are used to making "A" grades without working. If you make them work
: for the "A", you're a "bad" teacher. I taught Immunology last
: semester...
: it's a HARD subject....get over it! But I'm not sure what's going on
: in schools these days, but they teach students to negotiate for the
: grade
: they want, not actually master the material. Strange....
What is going on in schools nowadays is what Ed's misconception is: that
undergradute education is a service to the students by the faculty. They
expect this, because schools nowadays as part of the recruitment process
emphasize what you can get for your money.
The truth is that undergraduates are at the bottom of the totem pole when
it becomes to higher education. Higher education is and has always been a
hierarchy, with undergraduates as beginning "apprentices" in academic
disciplines. College tuition is your entrance fee. College used to be a
place where a student was fashioned for society (where liberal arts
education mattered) or for academia (where the apprenticeship aspect of
education originated). Now, schools are being asked to create programs
where undergraduates prepare for professional careers rather than prepare
for life or academics, and education is doled out on a trade-school sort
of system. However, faculties trained in academia are not trained to
teeach in this manner, nor has the higher education system adjusted enough
to accomodate the quick-and-dirty expectations that most undergraduates
now have.
Personally, I don't think it should adjust much more. I tell my students
all the time that they are in my classes to share, to learn, to
apprentice, and NOT to be catered to, spoonfed, and otherwise sit there
and absorb while I do all the work. College is a time for testing the
waters, and sometimes they suck. If a graduate student is grading your
papers instead of your professor, there's a reason they are there. Respect
them. Stop whining about not getting your money's worth -- dammit, it's
your job to learn -- so do it. I will help you as much as I can, but you
get kicked out of the office the minute you start whining about grades,
grad students, expensive books, whatever. If you need more information on
a subject, go to your professor, but only do so if you know it's a
question s/he has to answer. I LIKE questions like that -- it means
you're thinking.
That is how you get your money's worth. You are in a place where many
things are going on around you when you are in university. College is not
about YOU when you are an undergrad. It's about the COLLEGE, and you come
last. Go do something about it. Complain when others are not doing what
they are supposed to be doing -- Ed's example of the teacher whose classes
were supervised is a fairly good one, but it's nebulous because so many
students on the undergraduate level feel they have to be catered to.
Overblown sense of privelege, if you ask me.
Oy, I'm done kvetching now. Maybe we should look at trade schools as the
norm, rather than the exception. It sems to be what undergraduates REALLY
want.
Okay, I really AM done kvetching now.
--
Pilar
Andrew McMichael
> The truth is that undergraduates are at the bottom of the totem pole when
> it becomes to higher education. Higher education is and has always been a
> hierarchy, with undergraduates as beginning "apprentices" in academic
> disciplines.
And there's been another change in the last few years that suggests that
this is trend is increasing, not decreasing.
While on the job market I interviewed with a number of small liberal-arts
schools. These are teh kinds of places where there are no grad students, the
undergrads are the focus &c &c &c. received wisdom has always been that you
have to be a good teacher to get a job, that that's what they are interested
in &c.
I interviewed at several schools that asked me nothing about my teaching
experience and spent nearly the entire interview asking me about my
research, future projects, past success at bringing in grant money.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>To me it's a designation that doesn't mean anything.
>
>When I attend a fully accredited university or college, I expect to be
>taught by professors or at least people with PhD's. When a university
>or college program, or the school itself, can lose it's accreditation
>because they don't have enough PhD's in the program, I expect to get
>taught by a PhD.
>
>Call me a snob, but that's what I'm paying the money for. I find it
>sad that people now expect nothing less. But I admit that since I've
>graduated from under grad, I now treat paying for college/university
>courses as a service. I demand what I'm paying for. (In fact, I tried
>to get an instructor kicked out of an "after hours" college program
>because he stunk.)
>
Ed, all too many accredited schools are now using adjunct professors if they
aren't using grad students. Sure that's a "professor" but one with no
university resources, and being paid if lucky $4,000 per course. Your
expectations are way too high for the real world or what's being offered.
Unless you carefully select your courses for content rather than grade
(incidentally a foolish thing to do statistically), you haven't picked the
right schools. Try the small schools with no grad programs for such care and
attention but note that all too many of those have switched to adjunct
professors to lower costs too. We don't have enough assistant, associate and
full professors in the US to deal with all of the students waiting to take
courses, and that's been true for quite some time. You also ignore that US
colleges seem to be the only time that many students actually learn enough to
go on learning later on, whether we're discussing chemistry or english lit
courses. US colleges are competitive with worldwide colleges, while the
secondary and elementary schools produce students who don't test well. You can
draw your own conclusions.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
<quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> offered this sage advice:
....
>: The 2nd physics class was taught by a man who got his PhD the previous
>: semester. The class went from close to 100 people the first day, to
>: around 20 by the 3rd day. After that semester, he was monitored while
>: he taught because people complained that he was such a poor teacher.
>
>What were the exact nature of the complaints? I was told I was a bad
>teacher because I graded too hard. That's hardly the sign of a bad
>teacher, but the complint of a student that wasn't accustomed to being
>graded fairly.
The man couldn't relate the material, he wasn't familiar with the
syllabus, and he taught straight out of the book. And when he taught
out of the book, the book confused him.
>
>: A professor who was the top of his field in research using
>: radio-isotopes to discover properties of chemicals and materials was a
>: terrible teacher. He taught a mandatory chemistry class and the
>: failure rate of the class was very high.
>
>Failure rates are high in any chemistry course -- that has nothing to do
>with the teacher most often.
Funny thing, the other session had a much lower failure rate.
....
>UVa, BTW, is well-noted for courses of this kind, because of the sheer
>number of students who desire to take these courses. It sounds as though
>your example was particularly extreme, but the truth is the department
>didn't hire this guy 'cause he could teach.
But they required, up until that point, that all PhD's teach undergrad
and grad students.
The students are customers, plain and simple. The students should be
given the opportunity to get their money's worth. If the students
don't take advantage of the education, that's one thing. For the PhD's
teaching the courses to screw up, is something else.
>Now to address your complaint about "bad" teachers: I will say that one
>of the greatest misconceptions about higher-level education I can think of
>is the assumption that academics are meant to be teachers. Teaching is not
>favored in many upper-eschelon schools, because it is assumed that the
>quality of students at them will not need the same guidance as schools
>where the student body is more diversified academically. teaching is not
>the primary focus of academia either -- writing books and contributing to
>educational canon is.
To me, that's nothing but an excuse. If that's their focus, then they
should have a school that just takes graduate students.
....
>It sucks, but professors are not meant to serve undergraduates.
Then the schools should not be taking undergraduate students. Parents
and students shell out thousands of dollars and the students are
treated as sh*t. Then, I was stupid and had no clue. NOW I make a pain
in the ass of myself. I demand that the instructor know the material
and be able to explain the material in class. If not, I go straight to
the department head.
Welcome to my virtual reality!
Dark...@flash.net -- Ed Brown
http://www.tnp.com/~darkstar
DarkStar
<quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
.....
>What is going on in schools nowadays is what Ed's misconception is: that
>undergradute education is a service to the students by the faculty. They
>expect this, because schools nowadays as part of the recruitment process
>emphasize what you can get for your money.
If I shell out thousands of dollars, I expect to be catered and
pampered.
I expect good service and I won't accept otherwise. And nor should
parents and students.
That doesn't mean pass students who don't work, but if a prof. doesn't
have accessable office hours, the prof needs to be reported.
Pilar Quezzaire
: <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
: If I shell out thousands of dollars, I expect to be catered and
: pampered.
You shell out an extrememly small fraction for your education. On average,
undergrad tuition pays about 20-35 percent of the actual cost of going to
college.
: I expect good service and I won't accept otherwise. And nor should
: parents and students.
Define "good service".
1) If it means you think I'm a Mc Donald's team player, no. Go to McDonalds.
2) If it means that for some reason, the academic structure should be
altered for you, no. To some extent it has to change, but the type of
student in unvversity has made an attitude adjustment that in truth is bad
for his/her education as well as some of the good aspects of university
education.
: That doesn't mean pass students who don't work, but if a prof. doesn't
: have accessable office hours, the prof needs to be reported.
Accessible office hours for whom? Any undergrad who wishes to speak with
him/her? Any person off the street?
Most professors that I know of have a limited number of "open" office
hours -- mine are on Fridays. Students can make appointments with a
professor if those office hours are incompatible with their schedules, or
if professors cannot hold consist office hours for whatever reason. Grad
students are a little different -- they tend to be in the professor's
company more often, and receive priority.
If an undergrad is coming to see me to ask me to spoonfeed him, I send him
home. If it's a matter his syllabus can answer, I refer him to that.
Professors are people -- just as you wouldn't just drop in on your doctor
for a little chat (well, most people wouldn't) the same applies for your
professor.
If you want more time, go to grad school.
--
Pilar
Andrew McMichael
> The students are customers, plain and simple.
Not by any definition of "customer" used in the business world they aren't.
> The students should be
> given the opportunity to get their money's worth. If the students
> don't take advantage of the education, that's one thing. For the PhD's
> teaching the courses to screw up, is something else.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this.
alice
Geez, Pilar, I wish you could have been around to do this sermon when I was
in undergrad recruiting. It would have done some of those dreadful parents
some good - not to mention the whining undergrads who delighted in
downgraded professors for stupid stuff (like THEY failed the course but it
was BECAUSE he/she wasn't a good teacher). My office had decided that we
were running an expensive trade school anyway. It was amazing how the
administration played into that: "This is what the business world wants."
And here I was dumb enough to think the university was about a well-rounded
education. Stupid me.
DarkStar
forth:
....
>Ed, all too many accredited schools are now using adjunct professors if they
>aren't using grad students. Sure that's a "professor" but one with no
>university resources, and being paid if lucky $4,000 per course. Your
>expectations are way too high for the real world or what's being offered.
No, my expectations are not "way too high." My expectations are right
where they should be.
I refuse to settle for less. Unfortunately, too many parents and
students do settle for less.
Andrew McMichael
>
>
> Accessible office hours for whom? Any undergrad who wishes to speak with
> him/her? Any person off the street?
And does it matter? As a graduate TA, as a graduate instructor, and as a
professor, students have rarely showed up for my office hours. My office
hours have always been 2-3 days a week, staggered so that I have hours that
don't conflict with M-W-F *and* T-Th classes. On top of that I am in my
office all day, every day. Students can make appointments if necessary.
Most frequent complaint on my evaluations? "The professor wasn't available
when I needed to talk to him."
> If an undergrad is coming to see me to ask me to spoonfeed him, I send him
> home. If it's a matter his syllabus can answer, I refer him to that.
> Professors are people -- just as you wouldn't just drop in on your doctor
> for a little chat (well, most people wouldn't) the same applies for your
> professor.
I agree with all but the last. I don't mind students dropping in for a chat.
That's what I'm there for. We can talk about class, we can talk about
football, we can talk about the weather. If they feel the need to come to my
office, it is for a reason. The number of problems [eating disorders,
failing other classes, &c] I've discovered in those kinds of chats is
astounding.
coquinegra
Although Pilar did a marvelous job of making the point (that's why
liberal
arts majors are important) I will try to make a stab at this, with my
poor
scientist's syntax.
> If I shell out thousands of dollars, I expect to be catered and
> pampered.
No, if you shell out money, one would expect you to put in the effort
required to understand, learn, and retain the material. Education is
not a product, it's a process. Catering and pampering is for spas,
not
classes. For a new faculty member, I think I do a pretty good job
of teaching; I'm willing to hold review sessions, write
straightforward
exams, and meet with students during my lunch hour as well as be
accessible during the 4 week blocks when I teach. None of this
involves listening to undergrads whine because they want me to "give"
them a higher grade, pick a cheaper book or not require them to
actually
"demonstrate" that they have learned anything. It does not include
accepting homework assignments in lieu of exams and it does not
include
giving credit "for showing the work, even if we get the wrong answer".
> I expect good service and I won't accept otherwise. And nor should
> parents and students.
This depends entirely on the meaning of the phrase "good service". Is
making special exceptions for the loud students "good service"? It
often comes down to that. I refuse to play that game.
> That doesn't mean pass students who don't work, but if a prof. doesn't
> have accessable office hours, the prof needs to be reported.
accessible to whom? I mean really. I had the worse experience with a
failing student who would NOT come to review sessions because she
wanted
to 'go home early'. 80% of the class could make the sessions, so I
held them. she wouldn't come see me when I asked...wouldn't use the
peer tutor, and then complained that I wasn't "accessible" and this is
why she was failing! Education takes as much work for the student as
the teacher, you know.
WHEW.....I feel so much better now
DarkStar
<quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> offered this sage advice:
>: On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:42:42 CST, Pilar Quezzaire
>: <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>: If I shell out thousands of dollars, I expect to be catered and
>: pampered.
>
>
>You shell out an extrememly small fraction for your education. On average,
>undergrad tuition pays about 20-35 percent of the actual cost of going to
>college.
I don't care what the percentage is, when I'm shelling out thousands
of dollars, and going into future debt thousands of dollars, I expect
more than what schools are giving. And I will make sure they are being
held accountable.
>: I expect good service and I won't accept otherwise. And nor should
>: parents and students.
>
>Define "good service".
>
>1) If it means you think I'm a Mc Donald's team player, no. Go to McDonalds.
No, it means your office hours will be reasonable.
It means you will be prepared for class and understand the material
you are teaching.
It also means that students will be treated with respect and as
adults, even if past students were brats and their parents were worse.
>2) If it means that for some reason, the academic structure should be
>altered for you, no. To some extent it has to change, but the type of
>student in unvversity has made an attitude adjustment that in truth is bad
>for his/her education as well as some of the good aspects of university
>education.
It doesn't have to be "altered" for me.
>: That doesn't mean pass students who don't work, but if a prof. doesn't
>: have accessable office hours, the prof needs to be reported.
>
>Accessible office hours for whom? Any undergrad who wishes to speak with
>him/her? Any person off the street?
Any person off of the street isn't taking the class.
>Most professors that I know of have a limited number of "open" office
>hours -- mine are on Fridays. Students can make appointments with a
>professor if those office hours are incompatible with their schedules, or
>if professors cannot hold consist office hours for whatever reason. Grad
>students are a little different -- they tend to be in the professor's
>company more often, and receive priority.
Frankly, your attitude is the problem that I don't like. Graduate
students and undergraduate students must be treated the same. One day
a week for "open" office hours is a shame.
Pilar Quezzaire
: forth:
: ....
:>Ed, all too many accredited schools are now using adjunct professors if they
:>aren't using grad students. Sure that's a "professor" but one with no
:>university resources, and being paid if lucky $4,000 per course. Your
:>expectations are way too high for the real world or what's being offered.
: No, my expectations are not "way too high." My expectations are right
: where they should be.
In your fantasy world, that's true. Unfortunately, it'ds not terribly
well-backed in reality, as Art suggested. You're also completely ignoring
the fact that for some subjects, full professors are not needed to attend
undergrads, and under your sstem, graduate students would NEVERlearn to
teach.
So let's see what your "full PhDs" do for you at your college in your
world.
: I refuse to settle for less. Unfortunately, too many parents and
: students do settle for less.
This is not only a misunderstanding of the higher education systemj, it's
a plain insult to some very good schools that offer a more than adequate
education for those who want it, and don't want to be spoonfed.
College is not a business and you are not a consumer. I'm sorry, that's
the plain truth.
--
Pilar
coquinegra
>
> Frankly, your attitude is the problem that I don't like. Graduate
> students and undergraduate students must be treated the same. One day
> a week for "open" office hours is a shame.
>
Are you SERIOUS? Undergrads and grad students are in NO way the same.
The difference in dedication and commitment is in NO way comparable.
Therefore, the time committment should never be the same...
As for office hours...OK, when should this theoretical professor who
teaches every section of 2 or 3 courses a semester have time for office
hours? Since, in DarkStar's world, TAs and grad student's shouldn't
learn to teach and the PhD should do all of the work, when do I schedule
RESEARCH, committee work, meeting with my chair, my Dean, recruitment,
write my lectures (which have to go ON THE WEB) AND have time for any
undergrad to drop in for a chat since he's the consumer and I should
cater to and pamper?
Please be reasonable....The student's schedule is much more flexible than
the professor, believe me.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>Frankly, your attitude is the problem that I don't like. Graduate
>students and undergraduate students must be treated the same. One day
>a week for "open" office hours is a shame.
Professors aren't selected on the basis of teaching skills usually, but instead
on publications, grants, and the likelihood of contributing to the academic
levels of a department. It's been that way for quite some time. The phrase
"publish or perish" isn't just a trite cliche sadly. It's instead necessary.
In the sciences and most other fields, the necessity to do research, and obtain
grants absorbs most available time, leaving teaching a sad afterthought,
something to be avoided if one can, especially undergrad teaching.
Many smaller schools now hire adjunct professors i.e folks with the facial
qualifications to conduct classes. In the beginning and in some law schools
adjunct facult were folks who had other jobs and were teaching classes as sort
of a sideline, both the school and students got something they otherwise would
not have had. Presently however, adjunct faculty are in effect just hired folk
with no tenure, no chance of getting it and getting low pay per course. Said
folks often can't have real office hours except for very limited periods of
time if just because they often are teaching at three or more different
institutions just to make a starvation wage.
No matter how much you protest, those folks with the most success in the
education field tend to survive these practices and also especially if grad
education is sought, also have learned to garner reccomendations from the same
harassed faculty, meaning that the same folk also learn that such things can be
dealt with.
Incidentally, grad students often have sufficient knowledge to communicate
things at the introductory level, and grad students writing their PhD often
have sufficient skills to even instruct or teach at quite a high level, so the
situation is not quite as bad as you make it out to be. The other point to
consider is that at elite schools, a good part of the education you get isn't
from professors but rather from other students. It's thus not all that
surprising that the system won't change. If one could subtract the need for
research, support staff, record keeping and the like, one could try to hire
folks just to teach, but that would quickly get stale for the students. Good
teaching has to communicate ideas and even at elite schools, most of the
professors aren't great teachers or in some cases even adequate teachers, and
getting rid of a tenured faculty member for poor teaching is just impossible.
-art clemons-
justinoix
>From: Pilar Quezzaire quez...@fas.harvard.edu
>Date: 1/17/2002 1:38 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <a25ko6$b79$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
>
>Where'd you go to school? Just about every big university has teaching
>assistants to the professor in lecture courses. That's not unusual, and if
>you went to a big school, I can't imagine why you'd call it appalling.
>
I actually think it is a good idea. Higher level courses are more likely
thought by professors, but entry level classes allow graduate students to teach
. A number of graduate students might not be able to afford to study where not
TAs. Nothing is wrong with that.
justinoix
>Date: 1/21/2002 11:48 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b2bo4ugfvgffqbgh7...@4ax.com>
>
>That's what they are spending money on, but I don't believe that many
>expect this to be the case, and that's my point.
But what's wrong with it? I have classes win which the graduate student TA was
a better instructor than the title Professor.
Why shouldn't the graduate students get a chance to get scholarly experience as
well as earn money. They've alread ysepnt enough money on undergraduate
education. Grad student teaching assistants generally don't pay tuition and
get a stipend to live on.
justinoix
>Message-id: <m5bo4ukcaasmp4r01...@4ax.com>
>
>When I attend a fully accredited university or college, I expect to be
>taught by professors or at least people with PhD's.
In order to have every course taught by phds ,with every person getting one to
one attention from a phd, would push the cost of education out of the
stratosphere.
alice
"coquinegra" <rada...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:39d9fe02.02012...@posting.google.com...
> As for office hours...OK, when should this theoretical professor who
> teaches every section of 2 or 3 courses a semester have time for office
> hours? Since, in DarkStar's world, TAs and grad student's shouldn't
> learn to teach and the PhD should do all of the work, when do I schedule
> RESEARCH, committee work, meeting with my chair, my Dean, recruitment,
You did recruitment? :-) We couldn't bribe a professor (usually) to get
involved. And then they would say things like "every other university is in
the high schools recruiting. Why aren't we?" Never knowing that we spent
half our lives in one high school or another - weekends and evenings
included. It's nice to know it's not the same all over!
justinoix
>Date: 1/24/2002 2:06 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3c4f875e...@news.toad.ne
>If that's their focus, then they
>should have a school that just takes graduate students.
>
No. Undergraduates pay the fees for the graduates.
>
>The students are customers, plain and simple. The students should be
>given the opportunity to get their money's worth.
The undergraduate education is supposed ot ideally prepare students for
graduate education. Why should future researchers expect to be spoonfed?
Pilar Quezzaire
: The undergraduate education is supposed ot ideally prepare students for
: graduate education. Why should future researchers expect to be spoonfed?
Because undergraduates don't seem to understand what they are in college
for. Why do you think so many students go back when they're older?
Honestly, what I think most American college students want is vocational
training. We've placed a stigma on vocational schools, claiming that they
do not provide a well-rounded education. Most college students don't get a
well-rounded education either, and want to prepare for careers,
sacrificiing liberal arts and writing courses whenever they get the
opportunity.
This is vocational training.
Perhaps we should increase the budgets of vocational schools, and give
them the status they deserve. Supply and demand and all. It is true that
universities would suffer financially, but perhaps with less students to
attend to, they can focus on their original purpose -- training students
for careers in academia, conducting research, and providing education that
prepares for a number of applications, not just the career track of
choice. We'd have less undergrads with English majors working at computer
companies, that's for sure.
--
Pilar
coquinegra
> No. Undergraduates pay the fees for the graduates.
No, faculty grants pay for graduate students.
Rich Thompson
I agree. Obviously, there are difference in what style of teaching is
needed depending on the subject matter and there are definitely truly
atrocious teachers who attempt to teach undergraduates. But if someone
who is in their late teens/ early twenties can't learn independently
or needs to be constantly entertained, the problem lies with the
student.
alice
"justinoix" <just...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020127021910...@mb-fk.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Logic and Cornel West
> >From: dark...@toad.net (DarkStar)
> >Date: 1/24/2002 2:06 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3c4f875e...@news.toad.ne
>
> >If that's their focus, then they
> >should have a school that just takes graduate students.
> >
>
> No. Undergraduates pay the fees for the graduates.
Tell me about it. We used to have to foam at the mouth to get some of the
legislators to understand that. Since our university was more than half
graduate students, the wise men decided it should be ALL graduate. We
practically had to shed tears to get them to understand (and I frankly don't
think they ever did) that a strong undergrad program is the only way high
maintance grad students can survive.
DarkStar
forth:
>dark...@toad.net (DarkStar) wrote in message news:<3c4f897b...@news.toad.net>...
>
>Although Pilar did a marvelous job of making the point (that's why
>liberal
>arts majors are important) I will try to make a stab at this, with my
>poor
>scientist's syntax.
>
>> If I shell out thousands of dollars, I expect to be catered and
>> pampered.
>
>No, if you shell out money, one would expect you to put in the effort
>required to understand, learn, and retain the material.
I already posted that it would be the responsibility of the student to
do just that.
But if the student is holding up his end of the bargain, they should
be pampered.
Spending thousands of dollars to get treated like sh*t is
unacceptable.
DarkStar
<quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> offered this sage advice:
>: On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:32:35 CST, artcl...@aol.com (Art Clemons) put
>: forth:
>
>: ....
>
>
>:>Ed, all too many accredited schools are now using adjunct professors if they
>:>aren't using grad students. Sure that's a "professor" but one with no
>:>university resources, and being paid if lucky $4,000 per course. Your
>:>expectations are way too high for the real world or what's being offered.
>
>: No, my expectations are not "way too high." My expectations are right
>: where they should be.
>
>In your fantasy world, that's true. Unfortunately, it'ds not terribly
>well-backed in reality, as Art suggested. You're also completely ignoring
>the fact that for some subjects, full professors are not needed to attend
>undergrads, and under your sstem, graduate students would NEVERlearn to
>teach.
Discrimination is reality but reasonable people don't accept it as the
way of life.
No one should spend thousands of dollars and then expect to be treated
as second class citizens.
DarkStar
forth:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message news:<mcd15u8de7gmh77u2...@4ax.com>...
>
>>
>> Frankly, your attitude is the problem that I don't like. Graduate
>> students and undergraduate students must be treated the same. One day
>> a week for "open" office hours is a shame.
>>
>
>Are you SERIOUS? Undergrads and grad students are in NO way the same.
>The difference in dedication and commitment is in NO way comparable.
>Therefore, the time committment should never be the same...
I repeat, undergraduate and graduate students must be treated the
same.
There is no way anyone can justify spending thousands of dollars to
only be treated like a second class citizen.
When I was younger, I accepted it because I thought that was the way
it had be. Not now.
>As for office hours...OK, when should this theoretical professor who
>teaches every section of 2 or 3 courses a semester have time for office
>hours? Since, in DarkStar's world, TAs and grad student's shouldn't
>learn to teach and the PhD should do all of the work, when do I schedule
>RESEARCH, committee work, meeting with my chair, my Dean, recruitment,
>write my lectures (which have to go ON THE WEB) AND have time for any
>undergrad to drop in for a chat since he's the consumer and I should
>cater to and pamper?
It a prof is teaching every section of 2 or 3 courses in a semester,
then it's the problem of the school's department. It appears that the
school is understaffed.
But that is no reason to short change the undergraduate students.
This whole thing reeks of elitist attitudes.
Rich Thompson
>
> I repeat, undergraduate and graduate students must be treated the
> same.
This is not really a reasonable expectation. There are really great
differences in undergraduates and graduate students. For starters,
most graduate students in most departments that I have dealt with are
technically employees of the university and this certainly has a
difference. When you factor in not only teaching assistanceships, but
contributing to research that generates money for the university and
(in the case of psychology and some other programs) doing clinical
work that also generates funds.
> There is no way anyone can justify spending thousands of dollars to
> only be treated like a second class citizen.
But even in your ideal world, they'd be second class citizens compared
to professors. In many senses, graduate students are essentially
junior junior junior faculty.
People pay all the time for the opportunity to be interns or other
types of second class citizens.
Hell, I paid a lot of tuition in graduate school during the year I was
doing my internship- I was a second-class citizen there, not to
mention unpaid labor.
That's the way it works.
Andrew McMichael
>
> I repeat, undergraduate and graduate students must be treated the
> same.
They aren't the same, so why should they be treated the same?
> There is no way anyone can justify spending thousands of dollars to
> only be treated like a second class citizen.
How are students treated like second-class citizens? Seems to me that not
catering to students is treating them like they'll get treated in real life.
> It a prof is teaching every section of 2 or 3 courses in a semester,
> then it's the problem of the school's department. It appears that the
> school is understaffed.
Huh? What do you think the teaching load should be? If a prof is teaching
only 2-3 courses in a semester, it is because s/he is at a school where the
teaching load is *light*. At non-Research I universities, most profs teach
4-5 courses per semester. That's just the way it is. There's no getting
around that, and it isn't a problem with the school. It is a problem with
funding in general. You wouldn't want to pay the tuition that it would take
to get enough faculty to allow profs to teach 1-2 [or whatever] courses in a
semester.
> This whole thing reeks of elitist attitudes.
It reeks of reality. You want a nuts-and-bolts education for a kid? Send
them to trade school.
Andrew McMichael
Not at any university with which I am familiar. What do you mean by "faculty
grants?"
justinoix
>Date: 1/30/2002 12:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <a3947d$1tn$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
>
>Because undergraduates don't seem to understand what they are in college
>for. Why do you think so many students go back when they're older?
>
There are many different reasons for that. SOme people may ahve personal or
financial circumstances preventing them from going straight out of high school.
I wouldn't make such a claim.
>Honestly, what I think most American college students want is vocational
>training. We've placed a stigma on vocational schools, claiming that they
>do not provide a well-rounded education.
Indeed.
>We'd have less undergrads with English majors working at computer
>companies, that's for sure.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. Cimrcumstances and desires change.
Pilar Quezzaire
:>From: Pilar Quezzaire quez...@fas.harvard.edu
:>Because undergraduates don't seem to understand what they are in college
:>for. Why do you think so many students go back when they're older?
:>
: There are many different reasons for that. SOme people may ahve personal or
: financial circumstances preventing them from going straight out of high school.
: I wouldn't make such a claim.
No, I said when they go BACK -- as in, when a student returns to college
after having gone already. I don't include people who leave college for
financial reasons, or people who wait until they are able to go to
college.
:>We'd have less undergrads with English majors working at computer
:>companies, that's for sure.
: Not that there is anything wrong with that. Cimrcumstances and desires
: change.
I think there is something wrong with going to college, taking whatever
you want, then having to in essence start over by choosing a more
lucrative career, especially if you know that's what you are going to do.
I would double-major (I majored and minored) if I knew I wanted one major
related to a career, and one for other reasons.
The first comment that I hear when I say this is: "Who has time for that?"
Well, a lot of people do, and those that don't usually go to college for
other reasons -- like to drink, get away from parents, etc. A double major
isn't that much more work at most schools, especially if you choose your
subjects wisely.
--
Pilar
willie mae richardson
dishes that i can prepare for one of our african programs
coquinegra
>
> But if the student is holding up his end of the bargain, they should
> be pampered.
Do you know what happens when we "pamper" students? They don't pass
their registry exams. That means they can't be hired. Or, if they are
hired, they don't know what they are doing. I'm sorry, I have way too
many family members with health problems to send health care professionals
to them who clearly do not know what they are doing! I've got students
now who have access to me ALL DAY LONG, have my lectures online, and have
detailed study aids who still bitch about how much they AREN'T getting
from me. I think pampering is in the eye of the beholder. I would say
my students are unbelievable pampered...it takes 4 full-time people to
put this class together...and there will still be people who say that
they don't have sufficient "pampering". No student deserves to be
pampered; they deserve respect and help if they truly need it, but it's
my job to teach them immunology and microbiology and not pamper spoiled
students no matter what they 'pay' for. All that matters in the end is
if they have a handle on the material that was covered in class...not
if they like me or hate me, or if they whine to administration or if they
post on SCAA.mod.
The best pampering is to send the student out with what we promise....a
good education, not feel-good theology.
> Spending thousands of dollars to get treated like sh*t is
> unacceptable.
>
Now Dark, are you going to tell me you were treated like sh*t at UVa?
Or did you just not have all your professors at your beck and call?
coquinegra
> coquinegra wrote:
> >
> > just...@aol.com (justinoix) wrote in message news:<20020127021910...@mb-fk.aol.com>...
> >
> > > No. Undergraduates pay the fees for the graduates.
> >
> > No, faculty grants pay for graduate students.
>
>
>
> Not at any university with which I am familiar. What do you mean by "faculty
> grants?"
I mean that I can only support a graduate student (tuition&fees and
stipend) when I bring in a grant...in my case, paid by NIH, NSF or
some private foundation. I have a scientific idea that I shop around
to agencies...if
they pay, then and only then can my department enroll (a) graduate
student
to earn his/her degree by working on my funded project.
DarkStar
forth:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message news:<6e8h5uo9cjcnm0a3b...@4ax.com>...
>
>>
>> But if the student is holding up his end of the bargain, they should
>> be pampered.
>
>Do you know what happens when we "pamper" students? They don't pass
>their registry exams.
That's the fault of the student.
....
> I've got students
>now who have access to me ALL DAY LONG, have my lectures online, and have
>detailed study aids who still bitch about how much they AREN'T getting
>from me.
Then those students need a clue. But treating undergraduate students
has second class citizens is wrong. Especially when those under grad
students, or their parents, are paying thousands of dollars.
If I buy a Ford Focus and I take it back for servicing. I expect the
same level of service as that given to someone who brought a Ford
Expedition.
....
>> Spending thousands of dollars to get treated like sh*t is
>> unacceptable.
>>
>
>Now Dark, are you going to tell me you were treated like sh*t at UVa?
>Or did you just not have all your professors at your beck and call?
For some profs, teaching under grads was a headache and it was
difficult getting hold of them during posted office hours.
I've had worse encounters taking classes after I graduated. I even
went toe to toe with a computer science dean when I mentioned that the
prof should be fired.
I don't expect to be spoon fed. I do expect good service. To me,
having a grad student teach under grad classes is good service.
justinoix
>Date: 2/3/2002 5:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <uj4r5u49adngt7rms...@4ax.com>
>
>To me,
>having a grad student teach under grad classes is good service.
>
I thought you were against this?
DarkStar
forth:
*DAMN*!!!!
That should read, "To me, having a grad student teach under grad
classes is *NOT* good service."
*Sigh*
Andrew McMichael
>
>
> I mean that I can only support a graduate student (tuition&fees and
> stipend) when I bring in a grant...in my case, paid by NIH, NSF or
> some private foundation. I have a scientific idea that I shop around
> to agencies...if
> they pay, then and only then can my department enroll (a) graduate
> student
> to earn his/her degree by working on my funded project.
Ah. It works differently in the soft sciences/humanities. In history,
anyway, grad students are supported through the university. At the same
time, many school shave special one-year grants and fellowships for grad
students, usually donated by someone directly to the department. Grad
student funding is never contingent on faculty grants. Mostly it is
contingent on undergrad tuition.
justinoix
>Message-id: <a3e4c2$isr$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
>No, I said when they go BACK -- as in, when a student returns to college
>after having gone already. I don't include people who leave college for
>financial reasons, or people who wait until they are able to go to
>college.
Yes, i think you're saying the older ones who back are have truly decided what
they want to study?
That's probably also a maturity factor invovled.
>I think there is something wrong with going to college, taking whatever
>you want, then having to in essence start over by choosing a more
>lucrative career, especially if you know that's what you are going to do.
Not iti sn't. Also, students often graduate with expensive loans to pay, may
have children, etc.
Also, any particular major may not be able to find work in his field upon
graduation. One has to support one's self, so many people will just take
whatever job they can get. Nothing wrong with that.
>I would double-major (I majored and minored) if I knew I wanted one major
>related to a career, and one for other reasons.
>
But that's your choice . Others might not . To each his own.
>A double major
>isn't that much more work at most schools, especially if you choose your
>subjects wisely.
Evne if you don't chose your subjects wisely, if you've had particular
interests, you oftne have built up enough classes in outher fields that it
wouldn't take much more work to double major . if that student is interested.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>I've had worse encounters taking classes after I graduated. I even
>went toe to toe with a computer science dean when I mentioned that the
>prof should be fired.
Once a professor is tenured absent some misfeasance or malfeasance, that
professor can't be fired. You also ignore that universities don't make money
teaching students, meaning that to be quite honest, undergraduates actually
cost a school money, especially for elite schools. While good teaching was
always a plus, it also doesn't mean that five years later, one will find the
course material anymore of use than courses which were forgotten the instant
the final was over.
>I don't expect to be spoon fed. I do expect good service. To me,
>having a grad student teach under grad classes is good service.
You're ignoring from what and whom schools garner most of their money. Namely
governments, private foundations, granting agencies both public and private,
income from intellectual property rights and finally tuition and fees. Let's
see now, the customer only pays part of the cost of dealing with the customer,
causes yearly problems and expenses. If schools were run on a customer service
base, students would get even less attention despite the nominal mission to
educate. Let's also be honest, an MBA program can generally garner money for a
school, while a computer science department or an English department usually
won't. If schools ran on a customer model, the student would be even less of a
byproduct.
-art clemons-
coquinegra
> Then those students need a clue. But treating undergraduate students
> has second class citizens is wrong. Especially when those under grad
> students, or their parents, are paying thousands of dollars.
I've got news for you, Dark...life is not fair. If I, as a faculty
member, have a student with me from 3-6 years (MS or PhD) or a student
with me for one semester, guess who gets first class treatment?
Graduate students and undergraduate students ARE NOT THE SAME...I
don't
care how you justify your "feelings", undergrads and grads should
not be treated the same way. If you want to look at it financially,
graduate tuition costs more...under your rules, since it costs more,
and education is a business product...the service should be better for
the grad student. In reality, My job as one who instructs
undergraduates
is to make sure that the undergrad has access to the information, and
to
help them learn it, and sometimes to answer difficult questions when
they
get stuck on concepts. When I mentor a graduate student, it is to
help
that student mature into a fully educated and trained scientist. This
is
why you can "instruct" a class of 50, but may only "mentor" 2 students
a
year.
As soon as you can add more hours to my day, I would be HAPPY to treat
undergrads and grad students the same...including teaching all my
undergrads
how to take preparatory exams that advance them to PhD candidacy, how
to
teach courses to other undergrads, and how to plan and execute
research
experiments.....yarite....Be serious! Freshmen aren't seniors,
postdocs
aren't faculty and undergrads aren't graduate students.
Andrew McMichael
>
> "To me, having a grad student teach under grad classes is *NOT*
> good service."
Unfortunately, you are wrong. There aren't enough professors around to teach
all the classes that need teaching. Further, grad students are perfectly
suited to teaching introductory courses in virtually any humanities subject,
and most, if not all, of the hard sciences.
Having professors teach every class would drive up the cost of education far
beyond what anybody but the very rich could afford to pay, and it would
drive many universities out of business.
Rich Thompson
> coquinegra wrote:
> >
> >
> > I mean that I can only support a graduate student (tuition&fees and
> > stipend) when I bring in a grant...
>
> anyway, grad students are supported through the university.
My experience in a number of psychology departments is more in line
with Dr. Kim's experience, as well. MOst graduate students are NOT
supported by undergraduate tuition, and I suspect that this is
especially true in the types of courses that Darkstar has a problem
with...
Pilar Quezzaire
:> coquinegra wrote:
:> Ah. It works differently in the soft sciences/humanities. In history,
:> anyway, grad students are supported through the university.
: My experience in a number of psychology departments is more in line
: with Dr. Kim's experience, as well. MOst graduate students are NOT
: supported by undergraduate tuition, and I suspect that this is
: especially true in the types of courses that Darkstar has a problem
: with...
I don't think it makes a difference whether a grad student is supported by
undergrad tuition, as the humanities generally are, or by research grants
as is more common than the sciences. Grad students are the lifeblood of
the university's purpose, and undergrads are along for the ride, deciding
whether or not they wish to contribute or use their degrees for other
careers.
I'm personally tired of the argument -- comparing undergrads to grad
students is pretty impossible in terms of what they contribute,
irrespective of how dedicated an undergrad is. If university were run as a
business, as Darkstar hopes, there'd BE no undergrads.
--
Pilar
DarkStar
forth:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message news:<uj4r5u49adngt7rms...@4ax.com>...
>
>> Then those students need a clue. But treating undergraduate students
>> has second class citizens is wrong. Especially when those under grad
>> students, or their parents, are paying thousands of dollars.
>
>I've got news for you, Dark...life is not fair. If I, as a faculty
>member, have a student with me from 3-6 years (MS or PhD) or a student
>with me for one semester, guess who gets first class treatment?
>Graduate students and undergraduate students ARE NOT THE SAME...I
>don't
>care how you justify your "feelings", undergrads and grads should
>not be treated the same way.
Students or their parents are putting out thousands of dollars, and/or
going into debt for thousands of dollars.
Thousands of dollars is my justification.
> If you want to look at it financially,
>graduate tuition costs more...under your rules, since it costs more,
>and education is a business product...the service should be better for
>the grad student.
Two vs four years of education, I believe the four wins out.
> In reality, My job as one who instructs
>undergraduates
>is to make sure that the undergrad has access to the information, and
>to
>help them learn it, and sometimes to answer difficult questions when
>they
>get stuck on concepts. When I mentor a graduate student, it is to
>help
>that student mature into a fully educated and trained scientist. This
>is
>why you can "instruct" a class of 50, but may only "mentor" 2 students
>a
>year.
That's fine. But those 50 still should be treated equally.
DarkStar
<amcm...@princeton.edu> put forth:
....
> Further, grad students are perfectly
>suited to teaching introductory courses in virtually any humanities subject,
>and most, if not all, of the hard sciences.
I disagree.
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <uj4r5u49adngt7rms...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
>
>>I've had worse encounters taking classes after I graduated. I even
>>went toe to toe with a computer science dean when I mentioned that the
>>prof should be fired.
>
>Once a professor is tenured absent some misfeasance or malfeasance, that
>professor can't be fired.
The prof wasn't tenured.
....
>>I don't expect to be spoon fed. I do expect good service. To me,
>>having a grad student teach under grad classes is good service.
>
>You're ignoring from what and whom schools garner most of their money. Namely
>governments, private foundations, granting agencies both public and private,
>income from intellectual property rights and finally tuition and fees.
Then the schools need to adjust their business model.
I still don't see why an undergraduate student should expect less when
they or their parents are putting out thousands of dollars.
DarkStar
<quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
....
> If university were run as a
>business, as Darkstar hopes, there'd BE no undergrads.
Universities are run as a business.
Kaiju
DarkStar wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:53:58 CST, Pilar Quezzaire
> <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
>
> ....
>
> > If university were run as a
> >business, as Darkstar hopes, there'd BE no undergrads.
>
> Universities are run as a business.
Sure. Like a dysfunctional business.
Kaiju
--
No more fiendish punishment could be devised,
were such a thing physically possible,
than that one should be turned loose in society
and remain absolutely unnoticed.
-- William James
coquinegra
> >Graduate students and undergraduate students ARE NOT THE SAME...I
> >don't
> >care how you justify your "feelings", undergrads and grads should
> >not be treated the same way.
>
> Students or their parents are putting out thousands of dollars, and/or
> going into debt for thousands of dollars.
>
> Thousands of dollars is my justification.
>
> > If you want to look at it financially,
> >graduate tuition costs more...under your rules, since it costs more,
> >and education is a business product...the service should be better for
> >the grad student.
>
> Two vs four years of education, I believe the four wins out.
So, the kids who take longer to finish should get BETTER treatment than
those who finish in 4 years, according to your logic?
> > In reality, My job as one who instructs
> >undergraduates
> >is to make sure that the undergrad has access to the information, and
> >to
> >help them learn it, and sometimes to answer difficult questions when
> >they
> >get stuck on concepts. When I mentor a graduate student, it is to
> >help
> >that student mature into a fully educated and trained scientist. This
> >is
> >why you can "instruct" a class of 50, but may only "mentor" 2 students
> >a
> >year.
>
> That's fine. But those 50 still should be treated equally.
They are treated equally...to each other! I don't know how you get
your idea of equality, but it's all a matter of status. If you use
a university library, you'll notice that undergrads can't take books out
for the same period of time as the grad students, post-docs or faculty.
Since they pay tuition and I don't, I guess I shouldn't even get to
use the library, huh?
Dark, you've gone too far on this. Naturally, undergrads should have
every opportunity to learn...and we should support them. But the price
of admission doesn't mean they get to twist me into knots because of an
overblown sense of privilege. There's a reason why classes have pre-
requisites...I don't expect the same thing from a 100 level course as I
do from a 400 level course....but according to you, any freshman should be
able to demand special treatment to help them pass a 400 level course,
because they paid for it....after all, they deserved to be pampered!
Freshman aren't seniors, post-docs aren't faculty, and undergraduates aren't
graduate students.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
ac:
>>You're ignoring from what and whom schools garner most of their money.
>>Namely governments, private foundations, granting agencies both public and
>>private, income from intellectual property rights and finally tuition and
fees.
>
>Then the schools need to adjust their business model.
>
>I still don't see why an undergraduate student should expect less when
>they or their parents are putting out thousands of dollars.
Let's look at what you're suggesting. The university is spending more than it
costs to educate the student, and won't have much competent faculty if it cuts
costs. The only solution that would fit your model is really raising rates
charged, an approach which means that even fewer students can afford to attend.
The fact that a student is spending money doesn't justify that student
expecting individual tutoring by some professor when said student has a
problem. You also reject the concept of a grad student, usually a grad student
who has sufficient knowledge to deal with all of the questions a bright,
driving undergrad has in an introductory course.
Just how do you propose paying for universities and attracting faculty at a
living wage under your model? Those schools without grad students have
resorted to the adjunct professor model all too often, and that model works
even less well than being taught by a grad student, since grad students are
usually easier to find than professors or an adjunct who is usually underpaid,
has no office on campus, and is likely working at several different places for
less than stellar wages.
You seem to be expecting things to work because students spend money, but quite
frankly students for the most part can't spend enough to pay for research,
libraries, museums and all of the trappings of most modern educational
institutions. It's quite frankly not a business setup for the student, in fact
the student (undergrad) is really a sort of accidental byproduct presently.
Even assuming a dedicated prof, who outlines his courses, grades his own exams,
designs his own exams, and has regular office hours, how many students can a
prof really deal with in a large survey course? I was stuck in large survey
introductory courses, a good grad student was usually of more use to a student
than a professor was, except when it came time to seek recommendations. The
question thus becomes whether a student is attending to learn, to develop a
skill or build up an impressive resume? The student all too often is likely to
learn more from the graduate student, if it's a skill, then you're really
making a university a trade school, and if seeking a resume or recommendations,
then impressing a big name professor is the goal. OK, the system isn't to your
liking, but it's been that way for some time, and it's unlikely to change in
the near future, especially not at elite schools, where no matter how high the
tuition goes, classes will be filled even if all the students get taped
lectures from 20 years ago.
-art clemons-
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
Pilar:
>> If university were run as a
>>business, as Darkstar hopes, there'd BE no undergrads.
>
>Universities are run as a business.
Nope, if they were, they'ld strive to rid themselves of so many undergrads, and
charge tuition more in line with what undergrad students really cost a
university. They do generate a lot of money, but the business model used is a
really funny one, one that invariably could be done differently. Oh yes, did I
mention also that a prime source of income is donations from folks who attend
as alumni, and alumni are the other force driving universities, and their
expectations aren't quite the same as yours either.
-art clemons-
Rich Thompson
> >graduate tuition costs more...under your rules, since it costs more,
> >and education is a business product...the service should be better for
> >the grad student.
>
> Two vs four years of education, I believe the four wins out.
I was a graduate student for 6 years, so I see your four and raise you
two. During those 6 years, I was bringing money into my program
through unpaid clinical work, and research that got funded. Undergrads
don't do that.
coquinegra
> >
> > Two vs four years of education, I believe the four wins out.
>
> I was a graduate student for 6 years, so I see your four and raise you
> two. During those 6 years, I was bringing money into my program
> through unpaid clinical work, and research that got funded. Undergrads
> don't do that.
I see your six and raise you 6 years of post-docs :-)
I see what you're saying Rich, and so do almost all of us
who are in academia.
DarkStar
forth:
>mice_el...@yahoo.com (Rich Thompson) wrote in message news:<cb05db92.02020...@posting.google.com>...
....
>> I was a graduate student for 6 years, so I see your four and raise you
>> two. During those 6 years, I was bringing money into my program
>> through unpaid clinical work, and research that got funded. Undergrads
>> don't do that.
>
>I see your six and raise you 6 years of post-docs :-)
>I see what you're saying Rich, and so do almost all of us
>who are in academia.
With all do respect (really), you are all tainted and corrupted.
If you paid $10,000 for a car, and someone else paid $20,000 for
another car, both from the same car company, would you accept lessor
treatment in service based on price?
DarkStar
Thompson) put forth:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message news:<aui36ukc26df98s8c...@4ax.com>...
....
>> Two vs four years of education, I believe the four wins out.
>
>I was a graduate student for 6 years, so I see your four and raise you
>two. During those 6 years, I was bringing money into my program
>through unpaid clinical work, and research that got funded. Undergrads
>don't do that.
Exactly how many graduate students bring money into their schools?
The grad program I qualified for, gave me money, not the school.
During the summer, I would have worked, and the money would have gone
directly towards me.
In fact, more and more colleges and universities are focusing on fund
raising that doesn't involve the type of work you did.
Plain and simple: you're defending a system that is warped. No one
should accept 2nd class status when they are paying thousands of
dollars.
---
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <cdj36uska76ktrj71...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
>
>Pilar:
>>> If university were run as a
>>>business, as Darkstar hopes, there'd BE no undergrads.
>>
>>Universities are run as a business.
>
>Nope, if they were, they'ld strive to rid themselves of so many undergrads, and
>charge tuition more in line with what undergrad students really cost a
>university.
Actually, they are run like a business. The fact is undergraduate
students are marketable for the school, overall.
>They do generate a lot of money, but the business model used is a
>really funny one, one that invariably could be done differently. Oh yes, did I
>mention also that a prime source of income is donations from folks who attend
>as alumni, and alumni are the other force driving universities, and their
>expectations aren't quite the same as yours either.
Their expectations are a winning athletic program and a "name" as a
"good school." As such, they *SHOULD* go all out for undergraduate
students for the long term purpose of raising more money.
>
>-art clemons-
DarkStar
forth:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message news:<aui36ukc26df98s8c...@4ax.com>...
>
....
>>
>> Two vs four years of education, I believe the four wins out.
>
>So, the kids who take longer to finish should get BETTER treatment than
>those who finish in 4 years, according to your logic?
The kids should *ALL* get the *SAME* treatment, regardless.
I cannot accept, and will not accept, paying thousands of dollars in
tuition, and be told that because of an undergrad status, less service
is available.
....
>>
>> That's fine. But those 50 still should be treated equally.
>
>They are treated equally...to each other! I don't know how you get
>your idea of equality, but it's all a matter of status.
And the status is wrong.
Thousands of dollars are being spent, regardless, status doesn't mean
jack.
> If you use
>a university library, you'll notice that undergrads can't take books out
>for the same period of time as the grad students, post-docs or faculty.
That depends on the book, from what I've seen.
.....
>Dark, you've gone too far on this. Naturally, undergrads should have
>every opportunity to learn...and we should support them. But the price
>of admission doesn't mean they get to twist me into knots because of an
>overblown sense of privilege. There's a reason why classes have pre-
>requisites...I don't expect the same thing from a 100 level course as I
>do from a 400 level course....but according to you, any freshman should be
>able to demand special treatment to help them pass a 400 level course,
>because they paid for it....after all, they deserved to be pampered!
For thousands of dollars, yes. If the students put in good faith
effort, yes.
DarkStar
forth:
>
>
>DarkStar wrote:
>>
....
>>
>> Universities are run as a business.
>
>Sure. Like a dysfunctional business.
>
True.
coquinegra
>
> Exactly how many graduate students bring money into their schools?
In science, most of them....at the MCV, I was awarded a Deans
fellowship,
the money the state paid my department for bringing me in. The
graduate
work is published and can be built on by the professor, bringing money
into the department.
> Plain and simple: you're defending a system that is warped. No one
> should accept 2nd class status when they are paying thousands of
> dollars.
You never answered my question Dark....should freshmen demand special
help to pass Senior classes? I'll say it again....freshmen are not
seniors, post-docs are not faculty and undergrads are not grad
students. warped? No, the natural order of things.
I'm done with this topic. You try being the faculty for a while and
tell me what you think.
Rich Thompson
> >two. During those 6 years, I was bringing money into my program
> >through unpaid clinical work, and research that got funded. Undergrads
> >don't do that.
>
> Exactly how many graduate students bring money into their schools?
I don't know, but every single one in my program did. If they didn't,
or didn't have the potential to, they wouldn't have gotten in. And
this teaching by graduate students that you decry so much is another
way in which graduate students bring in (or at least save) money.
> Plain and simple: you're defending a system that is warped. No one
> should accept 2nd class status when they are paying thousands of
> dollars.
Quite frankly if you are teaching karate to people, and you treat the
novice in exactly the same way that you treat the black belt, you are
quite frankly doing both people a disservice.
As an undergraduate you pay for being educated. And this is what you
get, unless you are goofing off. As a graduate student, you pay for
being apprenticed. And this is what you get. The idea that the
treatment graduate students get is unfairly superior is wrong.
Furthermore, anyone can *be* a graduate student if they are willing to
work hard enough to get the grades and experience as an undergrad.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>Actually, they are run like a business. The fact is undergraduate
>students are marketable for the school, overall.
No, actually the undergrad schools don't generate money for places like
Harvard, except possibly as a source of alumni to beg for money, and alumni
dunning is a long term process, which requires success on the part of the
alumni to work. I have to wonder just how well a trade school model would work
for places like Harvard too.
ac:
>>They do generate a lot of money, but the business model used is a
>>really funny one, one that invariably could be done differently. Oh yes,
>>did I mention also that a prime source of income is donations from folks who
>>attend as alumni, and alumni are the other force driving universities, and
their
>>expectations aren't quite the same as yours either.
>Their expectations are a winning athletic program and a "name" as a
>"good school." As such, they *SHOULD* go all out for undergraduate
>students for the long term purpose of raising more money.
Let's note that the most successful fund raising institutions, namely the Ivies
and their academic competitors aren't known for athletic prowess. When's the
last time for example you heard of Princeton being a nationally ranked football
power? The name is there, but and it's a key but all of these schools are
ranked as they are because the graduates (both undergrad and graduate) succeed
after leaving the school, or because they have attracted stellar academics, who
attract funding from all the other non-alumni sources. The system as it is
works for the elite schools and the students who manage to graduate, and
changing it to what you suggest won't raise funds for the schools and indeed
will drastically increase costs with no perceivable benefit.
-art clemons-
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>The grad program I qualified for, gave me money, not the school.
>During the summer, I would have worked, and the money would have gone
>directly towards me.
And just how did this grad program raise money without being part of the
University?
>In fact, more and more colleges and universities are focusing on fund
>raising that doesn't involve the type of work you did.
Most schools are trying to raise money, but where does a school get the extra
money required to educate undergrads as you suggest? Does the money come out
of thin air, or do the undergrads pay more to be educated as you suggest?
>Plain and simple: you're defending a system that is warped. No one
>should accept 2nd class status when they are paying thousands of
>dollars.
If the student is paying thousands of dollars and those thousands of dollars
are less than the cost of educating the student, then under your scheme of
treating higher education as just a business with consumers, the schools should
all go out of business. In fact the schools dependent on just tuition now find
themselves in an incredible bind. They can't attract or pay the fulltime
faculty necessary to operate as you suggest except by becoming diploma mills.
Without fulltime faculty, there is no continuity sadly and that's what you
refuse to see. The students don't pay for what they get or for what's
necessary to give them what they get already, and you want them to get more. I
ask again, how the <blank> do the students pay for what you want?
-art clemons-
Andrew McMichael
> Let's note that the most successful fund raising institutions, namely the Ivies
> and their academic competitors aren't known for athletic prowess.
In football, correct.
> When's the
> last time for example you heard of Princeton being a nationally ranked football
> power?
The 1940s. But, ask me about men's lacrosse, women's squash [last year,
anyway], women's hockey [one of our women, Andrea Kilbourne, is at the
Olympics right now], men's track and field, men's and women's water polo,
plus a few others.
Anyway, your point stands, I just wanted to stick up for our athletes.
Actually, this reinforces your point, since in the Ivies, these people don't
get scholarships to play. They are students first.
Pilar Quezzaire
: Art Clemons wrote:
:> When's the
:> last time for example you heard of Princeton being a nationally ranked football
:> power?
How about Princeton showing up at the NCAA tourney and actually winning a
game? Didn't that happen last year?
: The 1940s. But, ask me about men's lacrosse, women's squash [last year,
: anyway], women's hockey [one of our women, Andrea Kilbourne, is at the
: Olympics right now], men's track and field, men's and women's water polo,
: plus a few others.
Harvard's prowess is in hockey -- we usually get an Olympian or two.
Boston University also has great hockey.
We're also quite good in crew and swimming.
: Anyway, your point stands, I just wanted to stick up for our athletes.
: Actually, this reinforces your point, since in the Ivies, these people don't
: get scholarships to play. They are students first.
Let's talk about scholarships and athletics for a moment.
The coach at the University of Florida makes 2 million dollars a year,
approximately. I was incensed to find this out. At schools like Harvard
and Princeton, athletics are meant as a compliment to education, not
something to replace it or become amoney-maker, as many schools use their
athletic programs (can we say UVA, anyone?)
I say that if Ed is so concerned about students getting their money's
worth that he should start looking at the undergrads who are getting a
free ride and ridden through school because they are athletes. They in
fact use up far more of the school's money on scholarships, special
athletic residential housing, and perks than any grad student ever has,
plus they make no contributions to research or academic pursuit. Coaches
included.
The reason these big-time athletic programs are around is because they
supposedly generate money. The truth is that they generate money FOR
THEMSELVES, rather than for the good of the entire university. If you
really want to see more PhDs teaching, more student attention, and all
this other unrealistic stuff, why not spare a few bucks from the athletic
bugdets of these Big 10/Pac 10-type programs?
--
Pilar