Teaching millenials?

[Angus]

Originally Posted by bass12

I don't agree with your last statement at all. I think teacher training is probably worse than it has ever been (at least in North America).

Based on what?

(And I agree with Bill's statement about students not being able to overcome bad teaching as well as they used to.)

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by bass12

I don't agree with your last statement at all. I think teacher training is probably worse than it has ever been (at least in North America).

Yeah, I can't really comment on how it is over there. I was talking very much from a UK perspective.

[Ripper]

21 year old "millennial" college senior here.

First off, I hate the term "millennial." Actually turned it into an election night drinking game. Every time a pundit says "millennial" do a shot. Didn't end well...

ANYWAYS...

A few things I've seen:

1.) If a teacher is interesting, and can keep his/her class engaged in the lesson, then I feel I have learned more. It isn't one that challenges students or grades difficult to try to get students to really study their material. In fact, I think its the opposite. I'd rather take a teacher that has a good sense of humor, ends class early, and grades based on process rather than a strict teacher that will teach until the alotted time is filled in order to fit in everything they "have to teach by the end of the semester" and grades with no curve on every little detail of every assignment and test. I haven't seen much in between.

2.) Don't try to force technology on students. It doesn't work most of the time (See: Mastering Physics or Mastering Chemistry). If you want to use technology, put your lecture notes and powerpoints online for them to find. Handing them out is also nice, but if you miss one class, most of the time you're screwed. Computers in class is a double edged sword. It is nice to be able to take notes on a computer (I can type a lot faster and more legibly than I can write) but everyone will inevitably wander off into the internet and lose focus on the lesson.

3.) Example problems in class are amazingly helpful. Yes, we can do your work and come to your office hours with problems, but we won't. And if you do it that way, when we come to your office, please work the problem out with us if we're stuck on the first step, not just a quick hint and send you on your way.

4.) If your class seems to be falling asleep, start asking questions or starting a discussion. If that doesn't work, tell a bad joke. Yes, it is a hack thing to do, but it works damn well.

5.) Relate your material to relevant topics. Yes, I understand that H=U+pV, but what does it MEAN. Since I jumped into thermo there, I'll continue on that as an example. Endless equations mean nothing. I took thermodynamics with our Formula SAE team's advisor. He actually used our car's engine to demonstrate the Otto cycle and all of the steps associated with it. It is relevant to my interests. That is really why it may seem like 'millennial' students have a short attention span; you have to teach how something applies to real life (go watch Bill Nye a bit. We were raised on that ****).

6.) My last point, and this isn't meant to offend anyone, but please speak the language you're teaching in well. One of the worst things about a college professor is when you can't understand him and he's trying to teach a complex subject. If when you say "zeta" it comes out as "ta" accompanied by a squiggle on the board, you can't expect students to pick up that equation quickly. Yes, we can get used to your accent and understand most everything you say eventually, but it is incredibly difficult to learn a topic when you have to learn the language it is being taught in first. If you do have a strong accent, then you have to at least have a good sense of humor about it and be able to teach very clearly to make up for it. Unfortunately, all but one or maybe 2 of the professors I've had that were not from the US were of the "Why don't you understand? Is simple!" variety. It may be simple, but we really didn't understand you that well.

And going to ramble on for a bit more here. Yes, it may be simple for you, but it is the first time we've seen it. You've been doing it your entire career, don't expect us to get everything down 100% error free in the first semester. Also, make sure that what you're teaching is correct. Simple math errors are excusable as long as you own up to them if they get caught. Fundamental errors in what you are teaching (especially printed notes) aren't good unless you point them out and correct everyone on them (and/or change your notes for the future. Its a computer, not a typewriter). Also, make sure your course is relevant to current industry standards (my Statics/materials professor only taught in 2D, not 3D. I've never done anything in 2D since, and had to basically teach myself 3D because of it).

Also, cheat sheets (at my school they're called "Cribs") are a must these days, especially in higher level classes. We aren't going to be able to memorize a full line long equation, and then get it exactly right on the test. I suppose this could be one point for the "millennials are different" crew. We know that we can simply search what we're looking for on the internet and find multiple textbooks worth of equations and description for what we need to do. At the very least allow us a sheet of paper that we can have notes on for the test.

Sorry for ranting on, but these are my biggest pet peeves I've seen from professors in my 4 years in college. I'm sure there are more, but these are hopefully some good suggestions for the discussion at the very least.

[bass12]

Originally Posted by Angus

Based on what?

(And I agree with Bill's statement about students not being able to overcome bad teaching as well as they used to.)

Based on witnessing drastic changes in the system, as well as the consequences of those changes in the classroom. Most teachers can't even write legibly on a chalkboard these days!

[Tractorr]

The only negative comments I got from the last class I taught were that I didn't use PowerPoint. I was teaching Public Speaking, so the couple of "book points" that I needed to make were so few that I didn't think I needed a PowerPoint. I am not sure this has anything to do with millennials so much as students just used to most of their teachers using from PowerPoint. My undergraduate and Masters were in English so I kind of detest PowerPoint. I can understand it in the hard sciences or something like that where the main objective is transferring knowledge, but I do mostly cultural studies kind of stuff so I am more interested in nuance.

One thing I do find that is useful, though again I am not sure it has anything to do with millennials or not, is using media in the classroom. I have now been a teaching assistant in a couple large lecture classes and it really helps to show videos and references current events. This seems to have most to do with students in these types of classes not being current on the readings. Rather than sitting there silent, they can join in and maybe become interested in the class (you know enough to do the readings, we can dream can't we).

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by bass12

I was a teaching assistant at a university for two years and have worked in elementary schools for six years. My experience in university was that, yes, there were students who wanted their hands held and whose attention spans were incredibly short. There were also kids who thought it was acceptable to cut and paste from Wikipedia on the online portion of their exam (without citing). However, I found that the majority of students (and certainly the "good" ones) adapted to the class. An engaging teacher who doesn't rely on "the latest technology" will, to me, always win out over a non-engaging teacher who constantly makes use of Powerpoint.

Some people are too indoctrined in the methods of teaching they have in high school and cannot or will not adapt in a college or university environment.

Some people are just lazy (and I've scorned a number of students for citing directly from wikipedia in the past, it's not that it's just lazy, it's also a risky source to use in terms of validity. The lazyness is even worse because you can usually follow references to original material through wiki). Though I will also say, I've found that views on plagiarism vary quite widely depending on culture.

How engaging a teacher is, has nothing to do with use of technology.

Though I will say, I still gave presentations on acetates during my undergrad, in the earlier days, it was hand written. Powerpoint allows you to make better use of the screen from which you work. Though much of my work is quite easily explained and displayed with video, so pretty thankful for powerpoint at times!

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Ripper

6.) My last point, and this isn't meant to offend anyone, but please speak the language you're teaching in well. One of the worst things about a college professor is when you can't understand him and he's trying to teach a complex subject. If when you say "zeta" it comes out as "ta" accompanied by a squiggle on the board, you can't expect students to pick up that equation quickly. Yes, we can get used to your accent and understand most everything you say eventually, but it is incredibly difficult to learn a topic when you have to learn the language it is being taught in first. If you do have a strong accent, then you have to at least have a good sense of humor about it and be able to teach very clearly to make up for it. Unfortunately, all but one or maybe 2 of the professors I've had that were not from the US were of the "Why don't you understand? Is simple!" variety. It may be simple, but we really didn't understand you that well.

This is often a case of the students needing to become better listeners IMO. We live in a global economy. Science and research in particular are very multinational. You're going to deal with people who aren't native English speakers, or who have a heavy accent.

Originally Posted by Ripper

Also, cheat sheets (at my school they're called "Cribs") are a must these days, especially in higher level classes. We aren't going to be able to memorize a full line long equation, and then get it exactly right on the test. I suppose this could be one point for the "millennials are different" crew. We know that we can simply search what we're looking for on the internet and find multiple textbooks worth of equations and description for what we need to do. At the very least allow us a sheet of paper that we can have notes on for the test.

A bit mixed on this point. In some cases, yes. Likewise for some constants. But at the same time, you should be at the level of being able to derive fairly complex equations if the question is asked in an appropriate way. It can become a bit of a crutch, as it becomes a case of filling in the numbers to an equation you already have infront of you, drastically simplifying the question.

I also wouldn't say it's a millennials thing, outside of an exam situation, prior to wide internet use, people would simply use a reference textbook in the workplace.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

Recently, a colleague made a comment about college students now, to the effect that "They're all millenials, raised on youtube and twitter, and you can't teach them the way you used to because they don't have the attention span, don't respond to it."

Attention span is overrated. It's a skill of the industrial age.

Now this bothered me, because even though I'm not all THAT old (41), my teaching is fairly traditional, lecture and discussion etc. So I was wondering if I need to totally reinvent my teaching style to keep up with the times.

You'd be surprised. Traditional lecture and discussion are probably more exciting than the typical PowerPoint. The challenge with using the new tools is to avoid making your presentations worse.

What I do think is that your students are learning from your teaching style, so you should make your teaching style worthy of imitating, and applicable to their future careers. If they are headed into a world where they will be communicating through PowerPoint and e-mail, then show them how to make effective use of those tools.

By the way, even in the age of PowerPoint, I still use the marker-board for my presentations. I'm quite effective at it because I learned how to do it by watching my professors.

But then I started wondering; is it the professor's job to give the students material that is easy for them to work with and familiar in format? Or isn't it, rather, the opposite - to give them difficult material, that's complex and challenging and unfamiliar, and force them to stretch themselves to deal with it?

In my view, it's neither. We don't need "material" any more. We have mountains of material -- too much of it -- at our fingertips. Much of it is bunk. I think that a person should be sufficiently conversant in their subject matter that they aren't getting bogged down with trivial knowledge and skills. But what we really need to learn more of is how to think, learn, analyze, criticize, debate, express, and so forth.

What would the football coach say if someone said to him, today's kids aren't like yesterday's kids that ran around outside their whole lives, they grew up playing video games on the couch, you can't make them run the tough drills that you did back in the day? Wouldn't he say that if they want to play varsity and win, they'd better learn to run the tough drills or get off his team?

The coach might notice that he was being asked a loaded question, and challenge his interlocutor's assumptions.

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by Angus

No. This is wildly inaccurate- there are bad students. Plenty of them. This statement comes from the generation of students with narcissistic parents who cannot tolerate seeing a child who is struggling, thus they blame the teacher. Same thing as the "everybody is a winner and deserves a trophy" crowd. This is bad for children, and for students.

When I use the term student, I am referring to someone who is actively wanting to learn. If somebody is paying to be taught and has a desire to learn, it is up to the teacher to teach. True, there are plenty of "Students" in classes with no desire to learn what is being taught, but in my opinion they are not really students, more so distractions. A good teacher, however, will engage these distractions and make them into students. You're right though, you can't help those who won't help themselves.

I have a younger brother who has pretty much all the odds stacked against him when it comes to academic learning. He has ADHD, fairly severe dyslexia, and a vision convergence problem which means he struggles to focus on written words for more than a few minutes, among other things. He is by all standards, a bad student, and after 7 years of schooling that label was branded on him so strongly that he can't do much but get in trouble. At the beginning of this year we took him out of traditional schooling (after trying several different schools, independent education plans, tutoring, etc.) and started home schooling him, man has it made a difference. At the beginning of the year he could write a paragraph, maybe, now he can research and write a full multi-page assignment, submit multiple drafts and take criticism and improve on his work, and will work independently without constant instruction and reassurance.

All it took was a bit of hands on teaching, you can't fit a square peg in a round hole no matte how hard you try, some might bend and squeeze through, or make you think they've fit, but some will just flat out refuse. You need to work to a students strengths, think outside the box and make things work for them, you need to find a way to engage the student and discover how they best absorb information, and the schooling system here not only were not able to do it, they flat out refused.

If my little brother can be taught, I believe pretty much anyone can, so long as they have the desire to learn. Infact, a good teacher should be able to instill the desire to learn in a student and keep them engaged, even if the student themselves doesn't have that desire to begin with.

I stick to the idea that there are no bad students, only bad teachers. Maybe bad is not such a good word, maybe "inept" would be better? Every student has the ability to be taught, so long as the teacher has the ability to teach.

Originally Posted by Angus

If you are teaching poorly or are not getting your message across clearly or in an interesting format, then sure. But more than likely, that is their choice, and you have to allow them to chose to flounder if that's what they want to do. It does not help them if you take their failure as your own and don't give them the opportunity to learn from it.

Unless, of course, you are actually an awful teacher. But truly awful is not nearly as common as people would suggest.

As I said, so long as the student is willing to learn, there is no reason they should fail other than ineptitude on the teachers part. In my teaching experience I've had students who are doing everything as I taught them and still not getting the result they're looking for, and in all cases it has always been something I have missed, or something in the teaching process I have had to change to work for them. It's never a case of the student not doing it right, it's case of me not teaching them what is right for them.

I've worked with delinquents of all sorts, when I was younger my folks had a furniture manufacturing business. Much of our staff came from kids who were constantly in trouble, on the cusp of being kicked out of school, and generally "bad kids". They'd learn stuff they could never learn in school, most of them had always struggled with maths, but when they needed to use it for their job and had some sort of practical application for it, as well as a good mentor and somebody to show them the way, they'd pick it up pretty quick. Generally they'd soon be doing the bookwork for whatever apprenticeship they were doing and passing with ease, they just needed a different learning environment, a different type of instruction, and a second chance where they weren't just the naughty kid anymore. Most of them struggled with school for a reason, they'd come from broken homes with all sorts of messed up backgrounds, they were just stuck in a rut where they were a "Bad student" and they'd never been given an opportunity for an out.

Yes, if a student fails to learn, it is rarely through no fault of their own, but a different or "better" teacher can and will make all the difference, hence when I teach, I always stick to the idea that the fault is mine and I need to find a way to help the student overcome the problem. The "tough love" approach rarely works, in my opinion it creates a sense of elitism among those who succeed, and an overwhelming sense of failure (and contempt) in all those who don't. Those who succeed are not superior in any way, and generally they're just lucky enough to fit in the right hole.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Simo98

I always stick to the idea that the fault is mine and I need to find a way to help the student overcome the problem.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was mentioning- it's a bit grandiose of an idea to take on the student's failure as your own, and speaks to the inability to tolerate their struggle.

This is the narcissistic parent thing.

The "tough love" approach rarely works, in my opinion it creates a sense of elitism among those who succeed, and an overwhelming sense of failure (and contempt) in all those who don't. Those who succeed are not superior in any way, and generally they're just lucky enough to fit in the right hole.

Then everyone is exactly the same, and the only reason some people succeed is luck. Fantastic. That is a sad and perverse notion about the world because it then leaves no place for hard work, learning from failure, and ways to change for the better. That's bleak.

Again, this is the same mentality as mentioned in my previous post- the trophy-for-every-kid-because-adults-can't-tolerate-discomfort thing.

I think at 20 it's difficult to assess the "tough love" approach by saying that it "rarely works".

[slobake]

Really? I guess I'm just a crusty old dinosaur. I always thought that good teachers found a way to reach their students. When I was in High School I hated math. My father and I got a B in Algebra. The next year I had Geometry, I had a young teacher who loved being their and seemed excited about Geometry. That excitement was contagious, I wanted to learn all I could about Geometry. Ironically his name was Mr. Wiseman.

[MakiSupaStar]

I don't think millenials are any different than students of the previous generations. A student is not necessarily defined by what resources they have available, but how they utilize those resources to aid in their learning. Twitter, youtube, facebook, smartphones are irrelevant if all you're doing is looking up cat pics. A good teacher encourages a student to explore the curriculum and can provide them with the tools (or sometimes does not provide them with the tools - if that's part of the lesson) useful for their inquiry. A good teacher will inspire students to create their own tools and systems that they'll carry with them for the rest of their lives.

All of my lessons have overarching questions, and the standards or curriculum are acquired through seeking the answers to these questions. I use twitter, a fakebook account, an email account, and an online website to supplement what goes on in my classroom. I don't depend on these things, but I do refer to them enough, so students seek them out, or will share with the class their own discoveries unearthed during their own inquiry.

For example my students are currently finishing up the novel "Lord of the Flies". We're exploring definitions of freedom, and the process to true 'freedom, man's natural state (good vs evil) and comparing definitions of savagery to definitions of civilization. We've used youtube to reference clips of movies, explore different people's theories, and we've used the internet as a resource to compare the freedom explored in Lord of the Flies to concepts of freedom discussed by Emerson, Thoreau, and even patriotic visions of freedom as they are being studied in their 8th grade history class and how it pertains to the constitution. We've brought in references to the Garden of Eden, the concept of satan (Lord of the Flies is another name for Beelzebub), and students have even contributed their own definitions of these terms. I even used a passage from Daniel Quinn's 'Ishmael' when we were discussing savagery vs civilization.

My students are all achieving great things, and I use their twitter posts as a thermometer to gauge whether or not I'm teaching the concepts well. I can tell I've done a good job when my students stopping by afterschool just to discuss ideas. I even have a student that is starting to read The Divine Comedy because I referenced it during an analysis of a passage.

These students are in 8th grade and are reading the novel on iPads.

I believe approach is more important than what generation the students come from.

[hrodbert696]

Wow! So much response so fast. This is great, and everyone's input is helpful.

If it helps, let me give a little more detail on my particular situation. I'm currently teaching in a local college that is, shall we say, not at all competitive in its admissions. In fact, you've probably seen its TV advertisements to recruit students all around the country, it has thousands more students online than on campus (I teach classroom, though, not online currently). It's not a for-profit but in some ways it runs like one.

I've taught in other institutions, with varying levels of competitiveness; a big top-25 research university, and a medium-ranked state university.

In a typical survey class of 25-35 students, I'll typically have two or three who are good enough that they could succeed anywhere (seems like less than that this term, for some reason). The rest struggle to pass. They don't read. At all, as far as I can see. I assigned a book to one class that a colleague in the state university had suggested for US history surveys; reactions came back that it was too hard, surely that would only be for upper-level students, they couldn't make head or tail of it.

In the faculty lounge, I had a conversation with a math instructor. She was teaching an algebra class and her students were having trouble with it because they had weak arithmetic skills. This wasn't linear algebra or anything, this was Algebra I. I didn't think you could even take Algebra I in college, but apparently here you can. She didn't know if she should slow down to give them remedial teaching, or keep up the pace so that those who could handle it would be ready to go on to Algebra II.

I realized that this was basically the same as my dilemma in my history classes; do I continue to teach a proper college-level syllabus, so that the students who are motivated and prepared will get the education they're paying for? Or do I water it down to the level that most of the students seem able to handle?

So far, I've taught the same syllabus to these students that I would anywhere (it gets tweaked every term, of course). I pretty much reserve A's to the students who really take it on and master it and let the others scrape by with C's as long as they actually turn in papers that look like they minimally tried to complete the work. I give out a lot more C's than A's and they probably consider me a one-man war against grade inflation. But I'm always questioning if I should take a different approach.

Oh, on technology; I'm not so persuaded that what's needed is more appliances in the classroom, more whether I should avoid sustained discussion of topics and "break it up" more. Part of me thinks that the skill of learning to follow a sustained discussion is more important than the content of what's discussed, especially in history. But while I do show images etc. in the class, I've had students in the past actually thank me for NOT using powerpoint because they've suffered through so many terrible ppt lectures.

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

Wow! So much response so fast. This is great, and everyone's input is helpful.

If it helps, let me give a little more detail on my particular situation. I'm currently teaching in a local college that is, shall we say, not at all competitive in its admissions. In fact, you've probably seen its TV advertisements to recruit students all around the country, it has thousands more students online than on campus (I teach classroom, though, not online currently). It's not a for-profit but in some ways it runs like one.

I've taught in other institutions, with varying levels of competitiveness; a big top-25 research university, and a medium-ranked state university.

In a typical survey class of 25-35 students, I'll typically have two or three who are good enough that they could succeed anywhere (seems like less than that this term, for some reason). The rest struggle to pass. They don't read. At all, as far as I can see. I assigned a book to one class that a colleague in the state university had suggested for US history surveys; reactions came back that it was too hard, surely that would only be for upper-level students, they couldn't make head or tail of it.

In the faculty lounge, I had a conversation with a math instructor. She was teaching an algebra class and her students were having trouble with it because they had weak arithmetic skills. This wasn't linear algebra or anything, this was Algebra I. I didn't think you could even take Algebra I in college, but apparently here you can. She didn't know if she should slow down to give them remedial teaching, or keep up the pace so that those who could handle it would be ready to go on to Algebra II.

I realized that this was basically the same as my dilemma in my history classes; do I continue to teach a proper college-level syllabus, so that the students who are motivated and prepared will get the education they're paying for? Or do I water it down to the level that most of the students seem able to handle?

So far, I've taught the same syllabus to these students that I would anywhere (it gets tweaked every term, of course). I pretty much reserve A's to the students who really take it on and master it and let the others scrape by with C's as long as they actually turn in papers that look like they minimally tried to complete the work. I give out a lot more C's than A's and they probably consider me a one-man war against grade inflation. But I'm always questioning if I should take a different approach.

Oh, on technology; I'm not so persuaded that what's needed is more appliances in the classroom, more whether I should avoid sustained discussion of topics and "break it up" more. Part of me thinks that the skill of learning to follow a sustained discussion is more important than the content of what's discussed, especially in history. But while I do show images etc. in the class, I've had students in the past actually thank me for NOT using powerpoint because they've suffered through so many terrible ppt lectures.

Before you water it down, or dumb it down, have you considered changing the way you approach it? I'm not sure what kind of history you're teaching, but perhaps tying your lectures, or topics to themes that are related to things people can relate to today. For example, what does the iPhone represent in society today? What was the equivalent for technology in 1848?

I'm just making stuff up here, I have no idea what your curriculum is, but if you format your material so it invites the students to explore it, rather than absorb what you throw out in a lecture, you might get a better buy-in. I'm not saying this is what you do, just I've personally abandoned the traditional stand up in front of the class, lecture and students take notes approach (except in small bite-size doses). I use lecture time to help guide their inquiry, and then we share what we've discovered. The key is developing questions that are probing, thought provoking, and can't be quickly answered with a simple response.

Just some thoughts. I rarely compromise my material to accommodate students, without first compromising my approach to the material, because more often than not, the material is what they 'have to' learn. If you water it down, you're doing them a disservice, IMO.

I'm just throwing out some ideas. I'm not judging what you do in the classroom. You might already do this stuff.

[kasanovakarl]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

This is often a case of the students needing to become better listeners IMO. We live in a global economy. Science and research in particular are very multinational. You're going to deal with people who aren't native English speakers, or who have a heavy accent.

This.

We are told in college about the "globalization" of industry, but really aren't taught about understanding the differences between cultures and listening. Part of this could come from the lack of experience that many professors actually have with this concept. I had no idea how much of this I would be dealing with now, versus when I was in school. Being in aerospace, well over 60% of our products are shipped outside the US.

I can't say it is just students, but most of us need to do a better job of listening. I have some students who listen and hear what is being taught to them. Some that just don't listen.

I think some of it depends on where the students are in their program. I've found that the underclassmen, more so first year students, tend to be less prepared for class. The group I have right now, I would say that 90% are on the ball with everything in class, and have developed good analytical and critical thinking skills. There will always be the ones who just don't care. I think everyone at this point can do the work, they just don't want to and choose not to.

[bolophonic]

I hired a recent Duke undergrad last summer as an intern in the prosthetic lab I managed. She talked up her qualifications and sold herself as an ideal candidate for an entry level position: hungry to learn and willing to work hard.

By the second day, it was clear that she was all talk -- the product of ass-kissing parents and professors who were probably eager to pass her along to the next sucker because it was simply impossible to demand anything close to mediocrity from her. This was simple stuff... I would demonstrate a task, then ask her to repeat it. Our other interns were able to rise to the occasion, but the 20-year-old would stand around talking about how the job was beneath her and how she already knew it all, etc.

I fired her on the third day and she responded by telling me that I still needed to fill out some paperwork for her transcripts so that she could get credit for the internship. She was incredulous when I told her that the real world doesn't work that way.

Short answer: America is doomed.

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

But then I started wondering; is it the professor's job to give the students material that is easy for them to work with and familiar in format? Or isn't it, rather, the opposite - to give them difficult material, that's complex and challenging and unfamiliar, and force them to stretch themselves to deal with it?

Funny anecdote from my graduate assistant experience. One semester, my supervisor was teaching a senior-level class that required students to write about ten reflection papers over the course of the semester that dealt with the class material. I graded and edited these papers. One day, when seeing my supervisor for a weekly meeting, he chuckled when I walked into his office and said that I'm a "mean..." well, a word that wouldn't be nice to say on TB.

It was because I was absolutely brutal with the students. But my supervisor liked that. He's Ivy League educated and wants the students coming out of my state school to be able to really articulate themselves and think deeply. My undergrad professors tore my papers apart as well. It made me a much better thinker and writer. While a few of the students didn't improve, qualitatively speaking, I saw vast improvements in many of the students' writing. I am tough. I believe that you're only entitled to the opinions that you can defend, and I've told students that their arguments are intellectually indefensible. I've also told them that such fallicious thinking would never work in grad school and wouldn't cut the mustard with a thesis or dissertation committee.

I also do career development work, mostly with undergraduates, and I'm tough with them too. I'm tough because I have high expectations and I want to see people succeed. I'm never a jerk, but I'll tell students why they need to improve.

In short, I advocate the second choice about challenging students. With that said, sometimes you do have to take the material down a notch. And unforutnately, that's also related to the institution you're at which you're teaching. Schools that have lower admissions standards are not going to lend themselves to more rigorous standards. Unfortunately, that can be frustrating to the overachievers.

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by bolophonic

Short answer: America is doomed.

Nah, it's just an example of something I often tell students I talk to in my career development gig: Interviewing is one of the least valid selection methods for hiring purposes.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by bolophonic

I hired a recent Duke undergrad last summer as an intern in the prosthetic lab I managed. She talked up her qualifications and sold herself as an ideal candidate for an entry level position: hungry to learn and willing to work hard.

By the second day, it was clear that she was all talk -- the product of ass-kissing parents and professors who were probably eager to pass her along to the next sucker because it was simply impossible to demand anything close to mediocrity from her. This was simple stuff... I would demonstrate a task, then ask her to repeat it. Our other interns were able to rise to the occasion, but the 20-year-old would stand around talking about how the job was beneath her and how she already knew it all, etc.

I fired her on the third day and she responded by telling me that I still needed to fill out some paperwork for her transcripts so that she could get credit for the internship. She was incredulous when I told her that the real world doesn't work that way.

Short answer: America is doomed.

I wouldn't comment on the last part there.

However, much of what she did is a product of the environment she has been raised and taught in, as you say.

At High School we were taught to get good grades, not to gain skills, not to gain knowledge, but to pass exams and get good grades so we could go to university.

At University we were taught that you needed a Degree, not the skills that come with (or should come with) aquiring one, but the degree.

When something extracurricular pops up, it isn't "Hey guys, this'll be fun and it'll let you get a bit more experience about teaching", it's "This'll look great on a CV".

I can't comment about older generations, but I know from a fairly young age we are taught about the importance of grades and arbitrary bits of paper. Not the skills which should be required or expressed by those qualifications. Thankfully I'm fairly confident I'm past that these days, the longer I've spent in University the more I've realised I don't know and the more humbled I've become!

[Ziltoid]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

I wouldn't comment on the last part there.

However, much of what she did is a product of the environment she has been raised and taught in, as you say.

At High School we were taught to get good grades, not to gain skills, not to gain knowledge, but to pass exams and get good grades so we could go to university.

At University we were taught that you needed a Degree, not the skills that come with (or should come with) aquiring one, but the degree.

When something extracurricular pops up, it isn't "Hey guys, this'll be fun and it'll let you get a bit more experience about teaching", it's "This'll look great on a CV".

I can't comment about older generations, but I know from a fairly young age we are taught about the importance of grades and arbitrary bits of paper. Not the skills which should be required or expressed by those qualifications. Thankfully I'm fairly confident I'm past that these days, the longer I've spent in University the more I've realised I don't know and the more humbled I've become!

You're in your publish or perish days, is it any better?