Here’s a new way to get your degree.
So, how many quarters do I need for a doctorate?
I’m no marketing wizard. But I do think that, just perhaps, this might be the wrong message to send to students!
Here’s a new way to get your degree.
So, how many quarters do I need for a doctorate?
I’m no marketing wizard. But I do think that, just perhaps, this might be the wrong message to send to students!
It’s always interesting to know what your students are actually thinking. I have to admit, though, that sometimes I would really rather not know. Take this example, buried in the comments from a set of student surveys from a past semester:
[Rick] needs to come down to our level.
You might expect to hear comments like this from students in, say, sophomore level chemical engineering thermodynamics. Heck, I still have nightmares about that course. The comment above, though, was left for me by one of my introductory chemistry students. Introductory chemistry is the lowest-level chemistry course we offer – roughly on par with a high school course. It’s the lowest-level science course with a lab that we teach.
How low a level are we talking here? Here’s one of the questions from this course’s first test.
Determine the length of the line based on the ruler drawn below.
(Why ask about a ruler in an intro chemistry class? We discuss reading of measuring devices like rulers, graduated cylinders, and balances early on in the course – otherwise the students couldn’t really do much in the course’s lab. The ruler itself is mostly meant to connect a familiar measurement – what adult has never used a ruler? – to more unfamiliar devices like graduated cylinders and balances.)
I’m at a loss. Education isn’t like the limbo. It’s not about how low you can go. And, with this particular course, it’s not as if I can “come down” any more. At some point, the student has got to climb.
Dan Holden teaches middle-school socal studies class, and burned a small American flag to get his students to think and write about the flag-burning issue. The story’s here.
As this story takes place in Kentucy, you can imagine what happened. Kentucky has a law against flag desecration, but it’s likely unenforcable due to the Supreme Court ruling that flag desecration is protected speech. So how are the reactionaries going to try to punish Mr. Holden’s brazen attempt to … get students to think about an issue?
The district also alerted city fire officials, who are conducting their own investigation.
“Certainly we’re concerned about the safety aspect,”
Another article says, thankfully, that
… the evidence doesn’t warrant filing a charge of criminal wanton endangerment — causing significant risk of serious injury or death.
So, they were going to try to bust Mr. Holden for “safety” reasons. That’s pretty pathetic, in my book. But there’s a lesson to be learned from this:
If you’re going to burn a small American flag in an effort to get students to think about the flag-burning issue, then make sure to burn said American flag under a properly-functioning fume hood.
Occasionally, I give “pop” quizzes in my introductory classes to reinforce the idea that my students should be prepared for class and keep up with their studies. (Just to prove that I’m not completely evil, my students are told to expect a quiz each week on the material that we’ve been discussing.)
We’re now a week into the semester here, and I just gave one class it’s first quiz – a simple five-question multiple choice set on the material from the previous two classes. After class let out, a student came up to me and asked “Can I do the quiz over? I wasn’t really prepared to take it.”
This, of course, was the entire point of the quiz – to remind the students that they should keep up with the material as we’re going through it and not cram the night before each major test.
But where does the idea to ask an instructor for “do-over”s on even the simplest of assignments come from? I’ve been on the other side of the classroom for a few years, but it would have simply never occurred to me as a student to ask my instructors for “do-overs”. Preparing for class was my responsibility, and if I wasn’t prepared, then it was my own fault.
Oh well, maybe my student thought that the house limit was three do-overs.
Not Very Bright has a post up on the micro-scandal at Clemson over Ann Patchett’s book Truth & Beauty. Go forth and read it. 🙂
But I’m going to make a few hurried comments. Here’s a statement from Ken Wingate – in a letter to Clemson’s president.
As a Clemson alumnus, a Clemson parent, and a member of the Commission on Higher Education, I suggest that you pull the plug on the author’s lecture and offer an alternative book for the freshmen.
As a Clemson alumnus myself, I’m embarassed to read that letter. Clemson is a place of many viewpoints. Is Ann Patchett such a dangerous person that the freshmen (nearly all of whom are legal adults) will be damaged merely by her speech?
Or her book?
I think the perfect response to that is from Ann Patchett (emphasis mine).
The chance to receive higher education is a privilege, and Clemson students should be proud they attend a school where they are treated as adults, she said.
Amen. And … Go Tigers!
My alma mater is in the news!
I’ve run across what promises to be the decade’s preferred way to get out of homework! All you have to do is hold a news conference to declare it immoral.
You heard me right. A news conference was held this Monday by several freshmen students (enabled by a political type who is probably trying to increase his “family values” appeal) to protest their summer reading assignment – Truth & Beauty, by Ann Patchett.
I’ve got to hand it to Clemson’s English department (or whoever suggested the book). If the goal was to stimulate discussion, they have done so in spades. Those of us in benign fields like chemistry can only dream of students getting press coverage to protest having to learn about Arrhenius’ depraved ionic theory of solutions..
I’ve also got to hand it to the students – who may have a bright future in South Carolina politics. Holding a news conference to complain about the immorality of a homework assignment would play well to quite a few voters down here.
I can’t wait until these same students take biology, where evolution will be discussed. Better yet, let’s see what happens if/when they take the psychology department’s human sexual behavior course – where “the film” is shown. I’ll be able to see the fireworks all the way across the state!
The College of Charleston is doing something interesting with their cheating students – giving them an X-tra special grade!
Students caught cheating at the College of Charleston will now be graded for their efforts – they will received a mark of “XF” – which means they failed the course because of academic dishonesty.
I’m curious about the “X”. What does it stand for – “eXtra fail”? “eXtreme failure”?
All kidding aside, this is an interesting idea that should be picked up at more schools. (It’s already implemented at some colleges and universities. For some schools, this kind of grade has been around quite a long time.) Potential employers, when getting a transcript from a school, should be able to see whether their new hires acquired their grades honestly. Plus, I think it’d act as a pretty strong deterrent to a potential cheater to know that his cheating will show up on the transcript he will have to provide to a future employer.
I do think that there’s one weak point to CofC’s method:
The XF grade will remain on a student’s transcript at least two years. After two years, if there are no additional violations, the student can petition to have the grade removed.
I think that time period of two years is too short, since it removes the “stick” of having the cheating being exposed to potential employers for too many would-be cheaters.
I am a couple of days late on this, but Kevin Drum’s site has a post up with the Washington Monthly’s take on the latest federal report on higher education.
When you look at the system as a whole, the numbers are disturbing — only 37% of students who begin at four-year colleges nationwide actually graduate in four years.
Now while I teach at a two-year college, I do not really find that number disturbing at all. To get a four year degree in four years requires that you be a full-time student the entire four years. College students are adults, and they are not compelled to be ful-time students. Some work part-time to help pay for college, and as a result may take a reduced course load. Some co-op, so that they have a better chance of landing a job after graduation. That means … longer than four years to get a degree.
While you may blame the colleges to some extent for this, there’s not a whole lot they can do about it, except to perhaps require less credit hours for graduation. (Some schools are doing exactly this – I got a newsletter from Clemson‘s chemistry department the other day detailing how the curriculum was to be “streamlined” to reduce the number of credit hours required for a degree.
Extending the timeframe to six years only brings the rate up to 63%. For black and Latino students, it’s less than 50%.
While I agree that the percentage of minority students that don’t graduate is disturbing simply because it’s lower than the rest, you can clearly see that a lot of folks are extending their stay at college.
We have a similar issue at the two-year schools. Many of our students do not graduate with a two-year degree in two years. Of course, the vast majority of these students have jobs (many have full-time jobs), and cannot take full-time loads. Those that try to juggle full-time work and full-time student status are sometimes forced to let their studies slide. Is it useful to criticize the school in this situation? What can the school do about it?
Criticizing the way financial aid is given might be a useful place to look, though. Many students tell me they “have to be full time” for financial aid reasons.
Timothy Sandefur, the resident no-comment Libertarian at Panda’s Thumb, asks us Is School Choice the answer?, and links us to a mini-debate between Neal McCluskey of CATO and Matthew Yglesias on the issue of resolving the creation/evolution debate.
The simple answer to Sandefur’s question and McCluskey’s assertion is, obviously, no – vouchers would not solve the problem of kids getting a poor science education. Vouchers would merely force me and other taxpayers to foot the bill for deluding children with demonstrably incorrect pseudoscience.
Sure, vouchers could eventually end the complaining about what kids were being taught in public schools (by eliminating the public schools), but it would do little else other than shift the complaints onto other targets.
Colleges would (rightly) penalize students with with the kind of substandard education you get from the small, fundamentalist schools that stand to benefit the most from vouchers. And then these disadvantaged students would sue the colleges, et cetera. Problem most definitely … unsolved.
I mentioned in a previous post that, in my unvarnished opinion, the ACE curriculum was “bad pedagogy and bad science”. I have my reasons for saying this – not the least of which is the fact that I went, for several of my childhood years, to an ACE school.
Let me briefly describe life in the ACE school. The school I attended was a small school, and what passed for learning in that school was to sit in a desk facing a white wall. On the sides of the desk were red and blue dividers to prevent you from looking to the sides. The day consisted mainly of sitting in that little isolated desk and working through workbooks, called PACEs.
If you had questions or needed to take the test at the end of each workbook, you were to raise a flag (either an American or a Christian flag – depending on what you needed), and one of the “supervisors” would come by and attempt to help you. Help was often rather limited, as the supervisors weren’t necessarily experts in any particular area of the curriculum. The supervisors meant well, I suppose, but they were far more concerned with keeping an appearance of order than they were about scholarship.
If sitting at a desk most of the day working through bland workbooks and staring at a blue, a white, and a red wall sounds to you like a lot like an inquisitive child’s vision of hell …. that’s exactly how it felt to me. I would not wish this type of education on my worst enemy or his children. Thankfully, I was eventually sent to a more sane school after four years of this – but I’ve always felt that my four years at an ACE school stunted my intellectual growth. It takes a long time to deprogram yourself of all that nonsense …
At the risk of bringing on some nasty flashbacks to my ACE days, I’ve dug up some samples of the ACE curriculum – so you can judge for yourselves how awful this stuff is.
The lessons start off looking mostly harmless.
Here’s an early sample of Math, for first graders. Counting money is, of course, something you’d want kids to pick up. But the curriculum rapidly goes downhill from there.
Since I’m a teacher of science, I’m going to focus on the science part of the curriculum for now.
Here’s a page from first grade science that describes the taste buds. You’ll notice that the page is as much about thanking God for taste buds as it is about the taste buds themselves. Also notice that the kids are asked to fill in the blanks, with answers that are trivially easy to find in the preceding few paragraphs. While this might not be much of an issue in first grade, the entire curriculum is based on “read and regurgitate” – little if any critical thought is involved.
Here’s another page from first grade science. This page highlights one of the severe failings of the ACE curriculum – it’s more about making kids into fundamentalists than it is about educating kids. Can anyone tell me what this has to do with science, and why it is in the science workbook?
God made all things.
So, all things belong to Him.
All things tell us that God is good.
All things tell us that He is wise and kind.
All things we see tell us that God loves us.
He helps us all day and all night.
He will help us all the time.
God is wise, good, and kind.
The Bible tells us so.
This might be a fine Bible lesson (provided you don’t let the kids hear about Katrina or that tsunami in Asia that killed 200000+ just after Christmas), but it’s in the wrong place.
Let’s move on to third grade science. Here’s what passes for the history of the Earth in the ACE curriculum. The most obvious criticism of this material is that it isn’t science at all – it’s simply part of Genesis in simpler words.
Another criticism of this material is that, again, no thought is involved. For instance, the text says that
There is a band of air which God placed around the earth on the second day.
It then asks the kids to select the best completion to this sentence.
There is a (creation, sand, band) of air around the earth.
Whether you know the real answer or not, only one answer can fit! Lots of ACE questions are this way – even on their end-of-workbook tests. It’s like this at the higher levels, too.
If you have the stomach for it, continue reading the sample third grade science book: here, here, here, here, and here. You’ll find no science, of course. You’ll find only fundamentalism – in big print.
Moving on into the fourth grade, you’ll find that the science ACE is peddling doesn’t get any better.
We use measurement to compare one object with another.
If we want to check or measure our own lives, we compare ourselves only to God. We do not measure up to God because we are sinners.
The curriculum is short on science, and long on fundamentalism. And, like the other pages we’ve looked at, the ACE curriculum relies almost entirely on rote memorization. Science is not viewed as a process of discovery – it’s viewed as a laundry list of facts to memorize. Facts are important, but they’re only part of science.
One thing that I noticed while I was in the ACE school was that the later science PACEs seemed afraid of presenting science. The curriculum was careful to dismiss well-established scientific ideas as “what scientists believe” and cast doubt on established science that might not agree with the ACE authors’ take on the Bible. Take a look at this sample.
Have you ever wondered how many kinds of plants there are? Even scientists do not know for sure. They think there are about 350,000 varieties; however, no one but God knows exactly how many kinds of plants exist in the world.
Sounds innocent (for a religious school) so far, right? Read on, in the ninth grade ACE materials.
Most scientists classify man as a mammal in the phylum Chordata since he has characteristics similar to those of mammals. Man, however, is a unique being with characteristics that he alone possesses. For this reason, we will not classify man as a mammal. Man is not an animal – he is a unique being who was created in God’s image.
Obviously, the ACE curriculum doesn’t teach evolution – the theory that binds biology together. So biology is simply presented as a big dump of largely unrelated information. Much of ACE biology revolves around the classification of organisms. But ACE can’t even give the kids that without screwing it up with fundamentalism!
Finally, we come to tenth grade science. The site I’ve been pulling this material from doesn’t have much in the way of actual content from the science part of the curriculum at this grade level, but what they do provide supports the points I’ve made above. Just take a look at this tenth grade science quiz. For reference, in the tenth grade at the normal high school I went to after escaping from the ACE school, I was taking laboratory-based chemistry and biology courses. The poor ACE kids at that level sit in their cubicles and regurgitate stuff like this:
Special revelation ______________________.
A) reveals God in natural laws
B) is the Word of God
C) teaches man how to know God
D) reveals Who God is
E) B, C, and D
F) A, B, and C
G) all the above
It goes without saying that special revelation is not a scientific concept at all, and has no place in a decent science curriculum. If you click the link above, you can see that the other questions on the page are worded in such a way as to overstate the uncertainties in science. While it’s true that in science all knowledge is provisional, this point isn’t what the ACE curriculum tries to drive home. The ACE point is, plainly put, don’t trust science.
In summary, here’s why i think the ACE curriculum should be put “in the hole”.