The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Academia

[r2473]

No that is not the point. The point is that I don't think the case is as simple as blaming the institution in this case for being morally and intellectually bankrupt. Those are strong terms to use and someone who uses that has to be scrutinized in detail. Blaming the institution is a standard practice of those who don't get tenure, just like blaming a firm and taking the moral high ground is done by many people who get fired. Wasn't there a thread here about a nurse who was disbarred by the board for endangering the patients who complained that everyone was out to get him?

So what is the point? You are strongly raising the specter that the fault lies with the instructor, but you don't seem to want to make a strong statement as such.

Are you just being provocative? If so, that's fine. Otherwise, tell us clearly what the point is (as I seem to have missed it).

 

[FedererExpress]

There are checks and balances for that. Schools are not as stupid as seems to be implied. If the course was such that 65% of the students would fail, it would probably have been discovered before, and a prerequisite class and a prerequisite GPA would have been required. Many community colleges have transfer programs to 4 year schools, and there is further accountability from that side. My son studies with many students who transitioned from a community college, and there was no big deficit. Some adjustment issues maybe, but inconsistent with the notion that they had been recklessly allowed to pass all the courses.

The article seems to play to what the readers want to hear. The follow-up article by someone else (which I just glanced at to be honest) advised parents not to send their kids to college unless they were absolutely sure because higher education was not consistent with having the child-like innocence of mind to realize spiritual matters. A very convenient way of keeping kids tethered to the religious whip and God-forbid they learned evolution and started asking questions. The blaming of institutes of higher-education which offer courses to open up minds and train students to think for themselves is a standard tactic by this crowd, and the article plays right into it.

I agree. Hence my original comments were: its a cynical viewpoint, its not that bad, and the author oversimplified the problem tremendously as there are a ton more variables that he does not divulge in. With that in mind, I would like to give the author some benefit of the doubt in regards to his teaching ability. At my current school I believe the failure rates for a core science bio course for upper freshman is approximately 35-39% and that is deemed ok. I'm not sure when a red flag would be raised honestly.

 

[sureshs]

by WAY oversimplified and the ultimate answer is: There's good schools and bad schools. Go find a good school to work for if you are unhappy.

Yeah there are a bunch of local private colleges here which cater to those who finished high school, worked, and now want a college degree. They come from different backgrounds like police officers, office managers, technicians, and a lot of military. They are often married with kids, working full-time, and in the case of military, already served in wars. If you want to teach there, you have to adapt. There is a great deal of remedial material that has to be covered, a lot of personal issues that have to be addressed, and you can't make the same sort of demands that you can make in a class of 19 year olds who competed to get into a competitive school. Those from the big schools around here look down on these colleges and question the academic rigor, but they certainly fulfill a mission.

 

[sureshs]

I agree. Hence my original comments were: its a cynical viewpoint, its not that bad, and the author oversimplified the problem tremendously as there are a ton more variables that he does not divulge in. With that in mind, I would like to give the author some benefit of the doubt in regards to his teaching ability. At my current school I believe the failure rates for a core science bio course for upper freshman is approximately 35-39% and that is deemed ok. I'm not sure when a red flag would be raised honestly.

Yes there are some things that were not divulged and the tone was cynical and the accusations being made against the school were serious. Teaching ability is not the point here. You could teach great and still fail 65% of the students. It is easy to fail people, and as I said, it is standard practice in some cases. I have heard that the University of Chicago has questions created by Fermi which they still use to fail students in PhD qualifying exams in the Physics department.

The bio sciences are often graded tough due to pre-med students. Even then, 35% fail is the inverse of 35% pass.

 

[r2473]

Yes there are some things that were not divulged and the tone was cynical and the accusations being made against the school were serious.

So what you are saying is that there are multiple perspectives on this (students, administration, this teacher, perhaps more), and we only heard one. That's, ah.....insightful, thank you for that. But if that's all you wanted to say, why the long digressions? Why not just clearly make you point in a few sentences?

 

[MathGeek]

Perhaps, if the parents are good teachers. From what I see, the conclusions are pretty murky (unless you look on websites promoting homeschooling, but those are clearly biased). Of course, in public schools, kids have to learn to deal with all types of people, which is important in life.

It is something of a myth that the parents need to be good teachers in all subjects to be successful home schoolers.

With all the learning options available today, the parents only need to choose and arrange for better teachers than the local public schools. Can't teach Latin? No problem, find a Latin class through the local home school co-op. Can't teach music? No problem if the local home school co-op has a music program or you can find a talented music teacher. Can't teach math? The online ALEKS program provides excellent instruction in K-12 math subjects and High School Chemistry also. The local community colleges may not really be teaching college level material, but dual enrollment programs can provide a better high school education than the local high schools.

 

[sureshs]

Partial home schooling is very popular. For science labs, it is difficult to arrange though kits are available for it now. Number of charter schools providing 2 days in class and 3 days home schooling options. Seems that elite juniors in tennis and golf almost have to do something like this because their schedules require a lot of traveling. My son took one summer class in a unique kind of school which is located 2 mins from our home. It is 1-1 instruction. Most of the students enrolled there use this as their only school. Tuition is reasonable. Student cannot move to next chapter unless he/she scores a certain level in the previous chapter testing. If he fails, material will be taught again couple of times, and beyond that either the student has to leave or pay per extra class. It was used by sports juniors a lot because the lessons can be scheduled based on student availability unlike the public school straightjacket. They provide a lounge where homework can be done, so students can be completely done with academics for the day when they leave, which is good for many parents who need to take them to sporting activities. It is good for those who feel uncomfortable in a mass social setting, or who have some kind of handicap which falls below the public school threshold for accommodation. For example, some chronic pain or discomfort which is difficult to manage when moving from class to class in the high school crowd setting.

Having said that, some students only used it for summer or for the 9th grade before moving on to the public school which provides PE classes, much better labs, better testing, and more course choices.

 

[max]

FWIW, a local family homeschools and I think it would be damn great fun to open a chemistry lab in my garage, for his kids and mine. I am always being amazed at (a) the high quality of resources available to HS (homeschooled) children, and (b) the value and positive impacts of home schooling.

This ain't the 1970s, with the whole whack fundamentalist HS scene. Today's far different, and in fact, represents the growth of academically solid parents getting involved in the HS movement. They're giving their kids what the budget-blasted local schools can't. And of course, some of the old "HS is bad" arguments have been shown to hold no H20.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Problem is that this is no longer true. That is why there is so much agitation about minimum wage. Automation has made many menial jobs obsolete.

People have to move up the knowledge chain, and for that college education is needed. Whether it is easy or tough is really not that important. What is more important is that it exposes them to the learning that they have to do if they need to survive. It also makes them more informed and less politically gullible people. Non-college vs college is becoming the most important political divide among men. More women than men attend college in the US every year, and these women are seeking out college-educated men. This is pushing the non-college men lower and lower down in the social hierarchy and they are getting angry. Well, you got to move with the times or suffer.

There was a non-college guy who worked at my tennis club till recently as a part-time office staff. He also did some landscaping on the side. He told me that when he finished high school, his parents had money for college for only one kid, and they told him that the money was going to his younger brother. He got very upset and never explored other ways of financing college. He says to this day he regrets making minimal money and having no prospects. BTW, one of his "menial" jobs was to take reservations for courts over the phone. That work was gone a few years back when the club moved to a web-based reservation system.

Yeah, I get that menial jobs nowadays have either disappeared or are comparatively (with respect to the cost of living) very bad paid. But there's no reason why it should be that way. It looks like that guy denied himself the opportunity of a college education, if that's what he actually wanted. He should definitely have explored other ways to finance his education. Sometimes the odds are stacked against you, though. But at least go down fighting.

 

[Midaso240]

FWIW, a local family homeschools and I think it would be damn great fun to open a chemistry lab in my garage, for his kids and mine. I am always being amazed at (a) the high quality of resources available to HS (homeschooled) children, and (b) the value and positive impacts of home schooling.

This ain't the 1970s, with the whole whack fundamentalist HS scene. Today's far different, and in fact, represents the growth of academically solid parents getting involved in the HS movement. They're giving their kids what the budget-blasted local schools can't. And of course, some of the old "HS is bad" arguments have been shown to hold no H20.

 

[jcgatennismom]

Partial home schooling is very popular. ..Seems that elite juniors in tennis and golf almost have to do something like this because their schedules require a lot of traveling.

In this thread, the term "home schooling" is used loosely. In some posts, home schooling is used to refer to parents teaching kids at home, and parents choose the curriculum. In other posts, the term " home school" is used for students who receive assignments from real live teachers at classes attended a few hours a week at a private school with most of the work done at home. However, most tennis players we know do "virtual school." There are virtual schools like Laurel Springs that I think cost $3k-$4k a year and probably offer AP courses. Some parents also hire tutors to guide students through their virtual schooling and to make sure they learn the important concepts. There are also free state virtual schools. There is a huge difference in quality between all these different options. I taught my son myself one spring semester using the online versions of the exact textbooks his classmates were using at his high ranked public middle school. I wanted him to be ready for high school, but I wanted his classwork and homework to be done in 5 hours so he could attend drills at 1pm vs him coming home from school at 3:45pm, rushing to tennis drills, and then doing homework afterwards. Even though I was an honors college grad with As in BS science and math courses, it was time consuming for me to reteach myself the material before teaching it to my son. My son had asked to attend virtual school for high school, and before deciding, I wanted to know where he was academically. After the semester of middle school at home, I decided the best high school choice for him was a hybrid-4 classes on campus, 2 classes virtually so he continue to attend drills at 1pm. I did not believe virtual school was a good choice for science, foreign language or literature. I wanted him to do real labs, have interactive discussions in a foreign language, and to discuss literature and learn to write better essays. For students who can afford to attend a private school several mornings a week for labs, art, etc , that is a great option, but with the cost of drills and tennis travel, many parents will choose a free state option for school. Many students who do hybrid public/virtual school take social studies courses online which is low risk plus an elective. Because I have a strong background in Math, I allowed my son to take Honors math online knowing I could explain concepts to him if he could not grasp them by watching videos. I have known of at least one 5 star student who did 100% of his classes via a public state virtual school. While he was recruited by top D1 programs, he ended up not playing D1. I think he planned to transfer back to D1, but stayed where he was. It is a definite risk for students to be 100% virtually schooled unless they are intelligent and very disciplined.

If home school students are compared to public school students, the home school students,taught 1-1 by college-educated parents who carefully selected curriculum appropriate for child's learning style, should score higher than their public school counterparts. However, there would be mixed results if public school students were compared to virtually schooled students. From what I have heard from my son, there are a lot of busy work projects in virtual school and the tests are multiple choice. I think each teacher in a virtual school must be assigned a lot of students in order for it to be cheaper to the state than regular public school. Therefore the teachers will have more projects to grade, and grades will be based more on completion than quality. Students can easily prepare for multiple choice tests; comparing for essay tests requires much more critical thought. Students will get out of virtual school what they put into it. I would not recommend students taking virtual courses in the field of their college major at a public virtual school. There are tennis players I know who were admitted to Ivys taking some relatively weak virtual courses but I am sure they offset those courses with APs or honors on campus. I know some 100% virtually schooled players who plan to apply to Ivys. They may be OK if they were taught by Laurel Springs or similar for pay virtual schools. If students can attend virtual school and still make excellent scores on SAT and AP tests, then they were probably highly intelligent and motivated students to begin with. Flexible deadlines are a dangerous option for students who lack motivation. Parents proceed with care if you are considering this option. If you can, just start with 2 virtual courses. Don't assume these studies that proclaim the success home school student have in college applies to all virtually schooled students. Virtual and home school are not the same. Individually customized curriculum supervised by a parent is obviously superior to virtual courses designed by the state to meet minimal core requirements and monitored by teachers with a heavy class load. The teachers seem qualified and enthusiastic and some even call parents to introduce themselves, but there is minimal required interaction between student and teacher besides students turning in assignments and taking online tests by a set deadline.

 

[edmondsm]

Once upon a time the US had a massive manufacturing sector. Millions of good jobs were available, and you often didn't even need a high school diploma to attain them. This created a scenario where there was a huge base of taxpayers and a low demand for college education. This meant college was practically (and actually in some cases) free by today's standards. Starting in the 1970s the US manufacturing base began to erode, as US companies began exploiting the vastly cheaper overseas labor. This meant that there were fewer and fewer good jobs available to US citizens with only a high school diploma. The effect of this was more and more people now required a college degree to enter the middle-class, and there were fewer low-skilled workers paying into the tax base. The laws of supply and demand dictate that this meant the cost of college for the individual would have to increase.

Fast forward to today and we have a situation where millions and millions of kids, who decades ago would have never thought of going to college, are now compelled to go because it is THE only way into the middle class. This means that:

A) Both federal and state governments have been compelled to take funding from higher ed in order to pay for other things because tuition can always be raised to make up the difference.

B) Colleges now rely heavily on tuition $$$$ for funding and therefore have to treat students as cash cows, keeping them in school at all costs even if that means essentially becoming diploma mills.

It should be noted that this whole situation was exacerbated by Reaganomics. The large tax cuts given to the wealthy by the Reagan administration meant that many things the federal gov used to pay for would now be turned over to the states. So in exchange for a healthy and vibrant higher education system we got a billionaire class that controls most of the nations wealth.

 

[MathGeek]

B) Colleges now rely heavily on tuition $$$$ for funding and therefore have to treat students as cash cows, keeping them in school at all costs even if that means essentially becoming diploma mills.

Student retention is a key to cash flow, but most for most state university systems the state pays $2 for every $1 paid in tuition by the student. The student has much more buying power as a "customer", because he controls where $3 will go for every $1 he spends. Schools don't want to lose students to other schools where passing is easier, so they lower the bar.

 

[edmondsm]

Student retention is a key to cash flow, but most for most state university systems the state pays $2 for every $1 paid in tuition by the student. The student has much more buying power as a "customer", because he controls where $3 will go for every $1 he spends. Schools don't want to lose students to other schools where passing is easier, so they lower the bar.

Precisely, and this is the downward spiral that is academia in this country. College is more and more becoming an arbitrary step in the career process rather than a place to grow intellectually. Another incredibly worrying trend is the reliance of universities on cheap adjunct staff rather than tenured faculty. I worked for a short time as an adjunct faculty. I quit a year in because advancement was years away and I was making less then a fast-food worker.