Contract Education, Courtesy Of Helicopter Parents
BMJ
How long before this malarkey happens in post-secondary institutions? It's
nonsense like this that make me glad I'm no longer in that business.
Old Pif
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/how-one-...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ygtbgw3
>
> How long before this malarkey happens in post-secondary institutions? It's
> nonsense like this that make me glad I'm no longer in that business.
>
Is not it the fundamental right of parenthood to keep your own
children ignorant? I thought is it.
BMJ
> On Nov 18, 9:51 am, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/how-one-...
>>
>>
>> How long before this malarkey happens in post-secondary institutions? It's
>> nonsense like this that make me glad I'm no longer in that business.
>
>
> Sue to eliminate all homework.
And grades less than what one expects, earned at the level of work one
demands. ("You mean I have to *work* for my 75%? Ooooooh--I better call
my lawyer about that!")
BMJ
No, it's a fundamental right for the kids to be *successful*. The
acquisition of wisdom and knowledge doesn't necessarily follow.
BMJ
> like "winging it" on the final exam.
We had someone like that in our undergrad class. He slept during lectures
and would wing it on his exams as well. He must have become over-confident
as he faltered during his fourth year and finished a year after the rest of
us. There was speculation that this chap got involved with drugs and it
caught up with him.
If one did really well on the
> final exam, the professor would just use the exam grade as the final
> grade. This would be the case where they scored greater than
> something like over 80% (or 90%) on the final exam.
I don't think any of my profs did anything like that. I'm sure that if
word of something like that got out, the chairman's office would have been
inundated with either applications for the same thing or unending complaints.
>
> This was also the case of classmates who did numerous "challenge" for
> credit type petitions, which is essentially similar to "winging it" on
> the final exam, but without taking the actual course.
I had a few students who tried the same thing in attempts to avoid having
to take certain prerequisite courses. One kid, I remember, thought he
could. He was bright enough but he was shiftless and overestimated his
abilities. I sent him to the assistant head as I recommended against it.
That was the last I heard of it.
>
> I remember some child prodigy kid I knew of back in graduate school,
> who did exactly this back when he was in junior high. By the time he
> was 10 or 11 years old, he passed several "challenge" for credit
> petitions for all kinds of university level courses, like freshman
> calculus, physics, linear algebra, etc ... He was essentially allowed
> to skip over high school entirely, and went straight to university.
One occasionally hears about such people. I don't think I was ever smart
enough to try something like that. Even if I was, I would still have taken
the courses like everyone else as there was always the chance that I might
learn something new.
BMJ
> On Nov 18, 11:56 am, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> One occasionally hears about such people. I don't think I was ever smart
>> enough to try something like that. Even if I was, I would still have taken
>> the courses like everyone else as there was always the chance that I might
>> learn something new.
>
> fast, whether through "challenge" for credit type petitions or
> outright convincing the professor to let them take more advanced
> courses, many were more interested in doing research of some sort
> (typically in a highly theoretical esoteric field). They figured out
> relatively early on that research and the "publish or perish" mantra
> is what counts in the academic world, while courses were largely a
> side show or "necessary evil" for people who were not as intelligent
> and fast as them.
>
> Over the years I've noticed kids who were homeschooled by parents with
> a technical bent, tend to think this way. They really resent the
> structure of having to take formal courses, and would rather do
> something they're really interested in academically.
Many of us would like to in do something that interests us, but there's a
number of objectives that must be accomplished before we have that privilege.
Before I went back for grad studies, I voluntarily went into industry for
two years. I'd been in school since Grade 1 and I wanted a break, plus I
wanted to qualify for professional status before I started on my master's
degree. But along the way, I gained confidence in my engineering abilities
and began learning how to quickly arrive at feasible solutions to problems,
something which I might not have acquired had I gone straight through to my
Ph. D.
Unfortunately, a lot of hiring committees won't take that into account.
BMJ
> On Nov 18, 12:46 pm, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, a lot of hiring committees won't take that into account.
>
Only if they bring in lots of moola and make the department look good.
BMJ
>> number of objectives that must be accomplished before we have that privilege.
>
> single loophole in the system to gain such a privilege as fast as they
> can.
Especially if mommy and daddy either have a lot of money or a have a
high-profile or very influential job.
>
> In a case I'm aware of, some whiz kid child prodigy was able to skip
> most of high school, undergraduate university, and even the first few
> years of graduate school. What this person did was write the
> preliminary/comprehensive exam on the first day of graduate school,
> and got the highest grade. It was one of the few exams this person
> ever wrote in their life.
Old Pif
"Success" is subject to interpretation. But to teach your own kids any
idiotic crap is the fundamental right of parents recognized by the
state. All kind of religious sects are doing that. As a recent
example, take an attempt of religions fanatics to include creationism
in school curriculum under science lectures.
Me, again!
And, the very dangerous possible eventual outcome is that this fanatical
minority, with great dedication and ingenuity but otherwise misanthropic
and misdirected goals, could duplicate what the Nazis did to German
enlightened democracy thus converting to Nazi Germany, and then WW2.
You can't reason with fanatics.
BMJ
During my final year of teaching, some of my colleagues and I attended a
session given by the institution's president. He emphasized that it was
our job to ensure that our students were "successful". What was meant by
that was never defined and quietly sidestepped the question.
So if one of my students wanted to be richer than Bill Gates or Warren
Buffett within 5 years and doesn't make it, does that mean that I'll be
liable because he or she wasn't "successful"?
That entire thinking sounds like a lot of wishy-washy bafflegab.
Me, again!
Even better than that is what you find in graduate school catalogs: "This
program prepares people for careers in X" (where X is something like
academia, laboratories, etc. [effusive, lofty platitudes]).
What that sentence actually means, and what it does NOT mean, and how it
sweeps a lot of dirty reality under the rug, is never discussed,
disclosed, or disclaimed.
Then, some 4-5 or even 10 years after graduate school, and some postdoc
experience, they still can't find a decent real job simply because the job
seekers far outnumber the jobs available.
Then, even if they do, the other reality--down the road--is that those
careers go on the rocks not long afterwards due to additional real
processes that are also not discussed (eg. involuntary such as: political
backstabs, tenure denial, grant non-renewal, RIFs, layoffs, and voluntary
such as disenchantment, loneliness, disappointments, dissatisfaction,
job pressure, competition, etc.).
Smart kids? Dumb choices!
BMJ
Or what jobs that are available go to candidates qualified by virtue of
meeting some politically correct criterion ("preference will be given to
applicants who are left-handed kazoo players") or to some foreign hot-shot
who'll give the institution in question "brand" recognition.
>
> Then, even if they do, the other reality--down the road--is that those
> careers go on the rocks not long afterwards due to additional real
> processes that are also not discussed (eg. involuntary such as: political
> backstabs, tenure denial, grant non-renewal, RIFs, layoffs, and voluntary
> such as disenchantment, loneliness, disappointments, dissatisfaction,
> job pressure, competition, etc.).
>
> Smart kids? Dumb choices!
Not necessarily dumb choices, but false advertising.
When I started grad studies 30 years ago, I encountered much of what you
described. I was taken by surprise as I hadn't expected that sort of
thing, never believing that such educated people would behave in such an
uncivilized manner.
But, then again, it would have been difficult to find out about it as
people outside the system rarely heard about such things and information
didn't propagate as quickly as it does now. One rarely talked about it
and, in those days, it wasn't considered polite to do so.
By the say, a lot of what you mentioned goes back many decades. I recall
reading of a case of academic mobbing that took place in the late 1940s and
there are a number of stories about how certain researchers were fiddled
out of getting the Nobel Prize due to political shenanigans.
>
>
Me, again!
I use the "dumb choices" answer because most of the kids coming across src
only wanted to hear the pollyanna story, not the reality. I think it is
dumb to reject information simply because it does not fit in with dreams
(or "positive attitude").
There is so much hype, hoopla, and hucksterism in our society that it is
pathetic.
> When I started grad studies 30 years ago, I encountered much of what you
> described. I was taken by surprise as I hadn't expected that sort of thing,
> never believing that such educated people would behave in such an uncivilized
> manner.
I had these lofty notions, too. Put a pile of dollar bills on a table in a
room full of people and then turn out the lights...see what happens.
> But, then again, it would have been difficult to find out about it as people
> outside the system rarely heard about such things and information didn't
> propagate as quickly as it does now. One rarely talked about it and, in
> those days, it wasn't considered polite to do so.
I think decades ago a PhD was a project in perpetuating knowledge and
understanding, and some wisdom and justice, but today its a project in
having educated warm bodies contributing to a PI's grant-supported
project, which is contributing, primarily, to institutional "empire
building."
> By the say, a lot of what you mentioned goes back many decades. I recall
> reading of a case of academic mobbing that took place in the late 1940s and
> there are a number of stories about how certain researchers were fiddled out
> of getting the Nobel Prize due to political shenanigans.
Well, what did Al Gore do to get his prize? And, Obama did even less to
get his (although I don't dislike the guy, at least not any more than the
guys who went before him).
BMJ
<snip>
>>> Then, even if they do, the other reality--down the road--is that
>>> those careers go on the rocks not long afterwards due to additional
>>> real processes that are also not discussed (eg. involuntary such as:
>>> political
>>> backstabs, tenure denial, grant non-renewal, RIFs, layoffs, and
>>> voluntary
>>> such as disenchantment, loneliness, disappointments, dissatisfaction,
>>> job pressure, competition, etc.).
>>>
>>> Smart kids? Dumb choices!
>>
>> Not necessarily dumb choices, but false advertising.
>
> I use the "dumb choices" answer because most of the kids coming across
> src only wanted to hear the pollyanna story, not the reality.
I remember some of them.
I think it
> is dumb to reject information simply because it does not fit in with
> dreams (or "positive attitude").
That's because that's all they're taught in school. It's as if a TV chat
show host has dictated educational policy. Learning to play nice and
thinking warm and fuzzy thoughts takes precedence over being able to
compose a simple sentence or doing one's sums correctly. ("You can do
anything you want if you just dream....' Barf!)
>
> There is so much hype, hoopla, and hucksterism in our society that it is
> pathetic.
I don't think it's any worse than it was in the past but since there are so
many other sources of information and entertainment available nowadays,
there are correspondingly more situations where one will find them.
>
>> When I started grad studies 30 years ago, I encountered much of what
>> you described. I was taken by surprise as I hadn't expected that sort
>> of thing, never believing that such educated people would behave in
>> such an uncivilized manner.
>
> I had these lofty notions, too. Put a pile of dollar bills on a table in
> a room full of people and then turn out the lights...see what happens.
Why use money? Try something simpler like a box of doughnuts and watch the
aftermath. It can be scary sometimes.
>
>> But, then again, it would have been difficult to find out about it as
>> people outside the system rarely heard about such things and
>> information didn't propagate as quickly as it does now. One rarely
>> talked about it and, in those days, it wasn't considered polite to do so.
>
> I think decades ago a PhD was a project in perpetuating knowledge and
> understanding,
I was actually asked that question in my defence.
and some wisdom and justice, but today its a project in
> having educated warm bodies contributing to a PI's grant-supported
> project, which is contributing, primarily, to institutional "empire
> building."
It's actually warm bodies who are underpaid, overworked, and, preferrably,
under-qualified. The completion of a degree by any of them would be purely
accidental and is often prevented.
>
>> By the say, a lot of what you mentioned goes back many decades. I
>> recall reading of a case of academic mobbing that took place in the
>> late 1940s and there are a number of stories about how certain
>> researchers were fiddled out of getting the Nobel Prize due to
>> political shenanigans.
>
> Well, what did Al Gore do to get his prize? And, Obama did even less to
> get his (although I don't dislike the guy, at least not any more than
> the guys who went before him).
I was thinking more of someone like Frederick Banting who, along with his
partner and collaborator Charles Best, isolated and identified insulin.
But the Nobel Prize didn't go to Banting and Best but to Banting and his
lab supervisor J. J. R. Macleod. It was claimed that Macleod's
contribution was minimal but because he apparently made a suggestion which
ultimately led to the final breakthrough, his name was on the prize.
>
>
>
BMJ
<snip>
>> What that sentence actually means, and what it does NOT mean, and how it
>> sweeps a lot of dirty reality under the rug, is never discussed,
>> disclosed, or disclaimed.
>>
>> Then, some 4-5 or even 10 years after graduate school, and some postdoc
>> experience, they still can't find a decent real job simply because the job
>> seekers far outnumber the jobs available.
>>
>> Then, even if they do, the other reality--down the road--is that those
>> careers go on the rocks not long afterwards due to additional real
>> processes that are also not discussed (eg. involuntary such as: political
>> backstabs, tenure denial, grant non-renewal, RIFs, layoffs, and voluntary
>> such as disenchantment, loneliness, disappointments, dissatisfaction,
>> job pressure, competition, etc.).
>>
>> Smart kids? Dumb choices!
>
> They should teach kids how to produce their own propaganda, largely as
> an exercise to train them to spot it.
I doubt that it would make any difference. At the place I used to teach
at, the English course for our department tended to be more concerned with
how to write a CV and to buffalo one's way through an interview rather than
how to compose a simple sentence.