The Decaying Evolution of Education...

[sheeplady]

It's peculiar ground, commencements. It's supposed to be for the students, "their day," in recognition for a difficult goal achieved. I could have had the law diploma mailed to me, but for so long that image of donning the doctoral robe and walking up an aisle kept me going when it would have been so easy to call it quits. I'd have been pretty upset if they'd invited some self aggrandizing nitwit as a "keynote speaker" to ruin it.

Inviting him/ her to a seminar to present a controversial view is a whole 'nudder matter. But there are no questions from the crowd at a commencement exercise.

We had Ben Stein at my commencement address. He was great and absolutely did not brush on preaching politics (he did speak about his time as a speech writer). He was quite inspirational. That was also a very liberal campus, I would add. They once found a swastika spray painted on an elevator and the president shut down classes the next friday and invited community and campus organizations to do teach ins on tolerance and anti-racism. As the president said (paraphrased at the time), we expect better of our community, our community expects better of us, take this day to learn and be better. And then be better.

So this idea that liberal college campuses can't handle conservative speakers I don't believe.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Among all the kids I've worked with over the years, I've noticed a very real difference between those who were homeschooled and those who went to public school: the homeschooled kids, while "smart" in the sense that they know a great many facts, and in many cases they're quite well-read, are far more withdrawn in relating to co-workers and the public -- they rarely smile, they don't tend to participate in the good-natured kidding around among the staff, and they're offputtingly stiff and formal in dealing with the customers. And I find that I have to be precise and specific in telling them what they need to do -- they don't tend to think beyond the exact parameters of the assigned task. Sometimes they'll loosen up eventually, but it's always a real challenge for the rest of us to pull them out of their shells. I tend to avoid hiring homeschooled kids unless there's no other option for just these reasons -- I don't necessarily need raving extroverts, but I do need kids who come across as comfortable in their own skins and confident in dealing with others, and I have found that homeschooled kids are very often lacking in these departments.

There are several private schools in this area, including a Waldorf, a Montessori, and an "alternative" gifted-and-talented high school, and I've found these issues also to be common, to a somewhat lesser extent, among these kids, with the least issues among Waldorf and Montessori kids and the worst problems with the G&T school kids. Public school kids, while they may not be academic wizards like the private-school crowd, tend to be much more comfortable in social situations, and much more skilled at dealing with a broad cross section of the public. At least that's what a decade of dealing with kids in an employment setting has led me to believe.

Did the boys from inclusion already offer you an Aspie for co-working?

 

[LizzieMaine]

We did have an Aspergers kid once -- he was fine once he established a routine, but he didn't like to be told that there were easier ways of doing the job than the routine he established, and eventually we came to a parting of the ways when he decided he didn't want to show up according to the schedule I gave him.

Some of his habits were familiar to me from watching my nephew, so that aspect of things wasn't too difficult to adjust to -- it was that as he got older he developed a bad attitude *aside from* having Aspergers.

 

[Harp]

I'm fine and encourage opposition, but not shutting down your opponent from speaking, but defeating him on the battle field of ideas. Debate, show all sides, invite speakers of all points of view, etc., but that - at least in the major media outlets - is not how it is being presented and reported.

If students and teachers don't want to hear opposing ideas and don't want to let others on campus hear opposing ideas, then something is breaking at those colleges. .

The rights we enjoy under the Constitution and Bill of Rights are all too often easily taken for granted or belittled. I did not start college until I was twenty-one and had seen
enough of the world to realize liberty was more scarce than abundant. I was in Greece when the Colonels were in power and uniformed Hellenic Army officers read the televised news,
an indelible impression that I carried through college and law school.

 

[Fading Fast]

⇧ The distinction I was trying to call attention to is that - from what I've read in mainstream newspapers - some college students and teachers were trying to prevent speakers having opposing views to the main ideology on campus from speaking (not just at commencement, but, the impression I took, was as part of a series of speakers that colleges have). And in some cases, owing to the pressure, the administration has cancelled the invite. When that hasn't worked, sometimes, the students have tried to create a public disruption at the event to prevent the speaker from speaking.

If that is not what has happened, then shame on our media because that is what I've read. If it is what has happened, then shame on the university. Sure, there are extremes - the KKK or a Marxist calling for the violent overthrow of the country - that a university could deem far enough out of the mainstream that they don't want them at the campus (forcing an institution to provide you with a venue to speak is not the right in the constitution - the KKK or Marxist can still stand on a street corner and rant away), but the spirit and tradition of higher education is to expose students to a wide spectrum of ideas and help teach them how to independently evaluate them.

That's the distinction, the university should be teaching students to be open to opposing ideas and even if they feel they've heard it all before and it sets their teeth on edge, still want them to have that venue. I have strong political views, but would never want those holding opposing views to be prevented from speaking. Despite my passionate opposition, I'm good with the Marxist or KKK from speaking as well - I've heard some awful rants on the street corners of this city - and walk away thinking thank God for America, even if the ideas make me cringe in despair.

Last nuance. Sure, if some students passionately dislike the speaker / speaker's ideas - then a non-violent, not-disruptive demonstration to make that point seems fine to me - but disrupting the speech itself is crossing the line. Let the ideas flow, make your own arguments, invite your own speakers and win your way in an open and fair debate.

 

[sheeplady]

⇧ The distinction I was trying to call attention to is that - from what I've read in mainstream newspapers - some college students and teachers were trying to prevent speakers having opposing views to the main ideology on campus from speaking (not just at commencement, but, the impression I took, was as part of a series of speakers that colleges have). And in some cases, owing to the pressure, the administration has cancelled the invite. When that hasn't worked, sometimes, the students have tried to create a public disruption at the event to prevent the speaker from speaking.

If that is not what has happened, then shame on our media because that is what I've read. If it is what has happened, then shame on the university. Sure, there are extremes - the KKK or a Marxist calling for the violent overthrow of the country - that a university could deem far enough out of the mainstream that they don't want them at the campus (forcing an institution to provide you with a venue to speak is not the right in the constitution - the KKK or Marxist can still stand on a street corner and rant away), but the spirit and tradition of higher education is to expose students to a wide spectrum of ideas and help teach them how to independently evaluate them.

That's the distinction, the university should be teaching students to be open to opposing ideas and even if they feel they've heard it all before and it sets their teeth on edge, still want them to have that venue. I have strong political views, but would never want those holding opposing views to be prevented from speaking. Despite my passionate opposition, I'm good with the Marxist or KKK from speaking as well - I've heard some awful rants on the street corners of this city - and walk away thinking thank God for America, even if the ideas make me cringe in despair.

Last nuance. Sure, if some students passionately dislike the speaker / speaker's ideas - then a non-violent, not-disruptive demonstration to make that point seems fine to me - but disrupting the speech itself is crossing the line. Let the ideas flow, make your own arguments, invite your own speakers and win your way in an open and fair debate.

I've never seen students disrupt a speech. Ever. I've seen the likes of Ann Coulter, Ben Stein, Hillary Clinton, etc. speak. Have I seen students protest like crazy? Yes!

I think there's a fine line here in understanding that many speakers are paid significant money to speak on campus. We are talking $100,000, $200,000 or even $250,000 for a single speech. Lot's of colleges are droning on and on about how they don't have any spare money, so scholarships must be cut, financial aid must be cut, student services must be cut, etc. On my own campus our rape crisis center was closed, our local scholarship fund was abolished (we are in a poor inner-city area), and our middle class endowed scholarship (as in, a family gave money for middle-class students to attend here) has been threatened. Staff has had to take a two year freeze on salary increases, and there has been an "encouraged" retirement program to significantly reduce staffing. Several schools aren't allowed to hire full-time faculty.

We are being told constantly that "there is not enough money" for THIS OR THAT, while the tuition at my university is $45,000 a year.

Honestly, if I was an undergraduate student paying $45,000 who was told that the rape crisis center is "too expensive" to keep open and the school is paying $100,000 for someone to come speak, I'd be really incredibly mad. (I'll add that with a "speaking fee" of $100,000 doesn't cover rooming, boarding, or transporting the person... whom you imagine with a $100,000 fee isn't cheap.) That's enough money to hire a full-time crisis therapist and pay benefits in this area.

So don't be so hard on these kids. They are being told there is no money, so they expect the universities to act like there is no money.

 

[Fading Fast]

I've never seen students disrupt a speech. Ever.

I think there's a fine line here in understanding that many speakers are paid significant money to speak on campus. We are talking $100,000, $200,000 or even $250,000 for a single speech. Lot's of colleges are droning on and on about how they don't have any spare money, so scholarships must be cut, financial aid must be cut, student services must be cut, etc. On my own campus our rape crisis center was closed, our local scholarship fund was abolished (we are in a poor inner-city area), and our middle class endowed scholarship (as in, a family gave money for middle-class students to attend here) has been threatened. Staff has had to take a two year freeze on salary increases, and there has been an "encouraged" retirement program to significantly reduce staffing. Several schools aren't allowed to hire full-time faculty.

We are being told constantly that "there is not enough money" for THIS OR THAT, while the tuition at my university is $45,000 a year.

Honestly, if I was an undergraduate student paying $45,000 who was told that the rape crisis center is "too expensive" to keep open and the school is paying $100,000 for someone to come speak, I'd be really incredibly mad. That's enough money to hire a full-time crisis therapist and pay benefits in this area.

So don't be so hard on these kids. They are being told there is no money, so they expect the universities to act like there is no money.

I don't have a grudge at all against the students - I think the entire economics of college is rigged (and I pro-actively chose that word) against them and their parents and I feel badly for the debt they are taking on. Also, each time I post about this, I am careful to say that, other than a few anecdotes from kids I know, my information comes from the major media sources. I'd have no problem with a student or teacher protest against paying a speaker $100,000 (or whatever insane number), but that's not what's being reported.

 

[Bushman]

I've never seen students disrupt a speech. Ever. I've seen the likes of Ann Coulter, Ben Stein, Hillary Clinton, etc. speak. Have I seen students protest like crazy? Yes!

I think there's a fine line here in understanding that many speakers are paid significant money to speak on campus. We are talking $100,000, $200,000 or even $250,000 for a single speech. Lot's of colleges are droning on and on about how they don't have any spare money, so scholarships must be cut, financial aid must be cut, student services must be cut, etc. On my own campus our rape crisis center was closed, our local scholarship fund was abolished (we are in a poor inner-city area), and our middle class endowed scholarship (as in, a family gave money for middle-class students to attend here) has been threatened. Staff has had to take a two year freeze on salary increases, and there has been an "encouraged" retirement program to significantly reduce staffing. Several schools aren't allowed to hire full-time faculty.

We are being told constantly that "there is not enough money" for THIS OR THAT, while the tuition at my university is $45,000 a year.

Honestly, if I was an undergraduate student paying $45,000 who was told that the rape crisis center is "too expensive" to keep open and the school is paying $100,000 for someone to come speak, I'd be really incredibly mad. (I'll add that with a "speaking fee" of $100,000 doesn't cover rooming, boarding, or transporting the person... whom you imagine with a $100,000 fee isn't cheap.) That's enough money to hire a full-time crisis therapist and pay benefits in this area.

So don't be so hard on these kids. They are being told there is no money, so they expect the universities to act like there is no money.

The first college I attended was very much like that. It was in the heart of poor urban Rock Island, Illinois, and for all the money you paid to attend, you got very little out of it. Tech help was a joke, the Wifi was useless, the meals were below average quality, and the academic help you received (tutors and stuff) was abysmal. By the end of my first year, I had quickly begun to realize that most of that tuition cost is there to make up for the free ride sports scholarships, and for spiffing up facilities to impress the parents. I dropped out after 3 semesters and am now in my senior year at a college that costs half the price with twice as good amenities.

 

[sheeplady]

I don't have a grudge at all against the students - I think the entire economics of college is rigged (and I pro-actively chose that word) against them and their parents and I feel badly for the debt they are taking on. Also, each time I post about this, I am careful to say that, other than a few anecdotes from kids I know, my information comes from the major media sources. I'd have no problem with a student or teacher protest against paying a speaker $100,000 (or whatever insane number), but that's not what's being reported.

I hope you don't think I'm being disrespectful or think you are.

We have an ever increasing political divide in this country to the point that we can't even talk to each other. The media knows this, knows "look at those stupid kids who can't survive in the real world" sells as does "intolerance" (real or perceived). Students protesting someone they don't agree with and because they are paying high fees, doesn't sell.

If the media wanted to talk about real problems on campuses, they'd talk about (no particular order):
1. Substance abuse
2. Sexual assault
3. Increasing administrative salaries versus stagnant faculty and lower level staff salaries since the 1970s
4. Increasing tuition coupled with decreasing student services (see #3)
5. The servitude of athletes who often come from impoverished backgrounds, who are used to generate money for the university, tossed aside if injured, don't make the big leagues, end up with a useless degree, and often can't afford to eat when the dining hall is closed
6. The protection of star faculty and star athletes from academic and criminal charges
7. the fact that the money we pay in taxes and charity for research has approximately 50% taken off the top when awarded to a faculty member by the university for admin costs. (In other words, your 2 million dollar grant from the NSF now leaves you with 1 million to research with as the university took the other million.) (see #3)

We have a new President at our institution. When he came in he did all this cost cutting, mostly to scholarships and student services. Students got upset. They staged a sit in, they were there for almost 2 months with a list of demands. They slept there, took turns covering each other to go for classes, etc. Anyone who read the student paper or followed their facebook knew what was going on from the student side. The local newspaper covered it, it was basically "These Whiney Kids Don't Understand Economics." The administration threatened to dismiss the students and then locked out their lawyers (preventing them from receiving legal advice). This summer the President announced a series of heated sidewalk projects (announced in the summer so no protests could happen) at the cost of $8 million dollars for the first year. There was no test to see if those sidewalks would work in this climate, the university just forked out $8 million.

But those whiney kids are the ones don't understand economics.

 

[Fading Fast]

⇧ Absolutely did not think you were being disrespectful at all (and know you to well to think that), but just wanted to make sure I was being clear as this stuff is complex and nuanced despite the media's embarrassing attempt (as you note) to make it black and white.

I agree with many of your above points and think the economics of higher education are broken because it enriches those who broke it and keep it broken.

 

[Fading Fast]

The first college I attended was very much like that. It was in the heart of poor urban Rock Island, Illinois, and for all the money you paid to attend, you got very little out of it. Tech help was a joke, the Wifi was useless, the meals were below average quality, and the academic help you received (tutors and stuff) was abysmal. By the end of my first year, I had quickly begun to realize that most of that tuition cost is there to make up for the free ride sports scholarships, and for spiffing up facilities to impress the parents. I dropped out after 3 semesters and am now in my senior year at a college that costs half the price with twice as good amenities.

I was fortunate to have gone to a really good state school, Rutgers, in the early '80s when the tuition was reasonable, but even then, the tenured professors were well cared for, had very light teaching schedules (they always said it was because they had to "publish" - always said with a reverent tone as if the earth would stop spinning on its axis if they didn't*) and their time with the students was very much limited. Meanwhile, the poorly paid not-tenured professors and teaching assistants worked their butts off.

Even as a kid, you could feel that money went toward the things the administration and tenured professors cared about - while Rutgers sports teams were terrible then (and now), the sports facilities were well cared for, but the basic student facilities suffered.

*Maybe it was true that they had to "publish or perish" as the saying went (but they had tenure, so that always confused me) - but even if true, then that just emphasizes how the system was broken as all that publishing effort kept the best and smartest brains away from the students.

 

[Harp]

*Maybe it was true that they had to "publish or perish" as the saying went (but they had tenure, so the always confused me) - but even if true, then that just emphasizes how the system was broken as all that publishing effort kept the best and smartest brains away from the students.

A polysci prof had written the course text, which was extremely well done and informative, and I complimented the book after class one afternoon; however his lecture style was dull,
both midterm and final disappointed-and we had a row over something-probably my lack of attendance. Good teaching was always rare, the proverbial exception to the rule occasionally showing though.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Good german teachers, here: 10%, appreciated.

 

[Fading Fast]

A polysci prof had written the course text, which was extremely well done and informative, and I complimented the book after class one afternoon; however his lecture style was dull,
both midterm and final disappointed-and we had a row over something-probably my lack of attendance. Good teaching was always rare, the proverbial exception to the rule occasionally showing though.

Had both extremes and in-between. Once I started taking junior and senior level courses, I had more tenured professors and some were horrible - mumbled, couldn't explain the material clearly, showed almost disdain for having to teach an undergraduate course, practically ran out of the room when the lecture was over, etc. - and some were outstanding - engaging, drew you in, brought the material to life, were liberal with office hours and loved informally chatting before and after the lecture, etc.

But as you said, the latter - really good teaching - was always rare. Like most people, I had one professor who had an incredibly positive impact on my life as he helped me to think better / to frame up a challenge better / to create a structure to understand things clearer. I had a few other professors who were also crucial in developing my approach to learning and my interest in and understand of several disciplines that I still pursue to this day (thirty years later). That is the wonderful thing, it only takes a few great ones to lift you up throughout your life.

 

[Harp]

Good german teachers, here: 10%, appreciated.

Wo bist du in Deutschland Trenchfriend?
College freshman year, in a moment of absolute madness I registered for an eight-thirty morning German lecture. Marburg is a favorite town. Love Munich.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Wo bist du in Deutschland Trenchfriend?

Thuringia.

 

[Harp]

Thuringia.

Als ein Katholik sollte nicht ich wohl zugeben, dass ich wollte schon immer den genauen Ort zu besuchen, wo Luther war Angst durch Blitzschlag bei einem
Regen Sturm und versprach, Saint Anne, dass er Priester werden mochte.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Als ein Katholik sollte nicht ich wohl zugeben, dass ich wollte schon immer den genauen Ort zu besuchen, wo Luther war Angst durch Blitzschlag bei einem
Regen Sturm und versprach, Saint Anne, dass er Priester werden mochte.

2nd July 1505, the lightning-strike near Stotternheim (near Erfurt). ;

 

[sheeplady]

Unless you are at a small liberal arts institution, faculty are not hired, promoted, or rewarded for teaching. In many instances, being a good involved teacher counts against you when it comes to these things.

Given that faculty are increasingly forced to get larger and larger grants to support themselves (and the university) from a smaller pool of money (funding research isn't a financial priority as of late), it shouldn't be surprising faculty are punished for spending too much time on teaching.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Had both extremes and in-between. Once I started taking junior and senior level courses, I had more tenured professors and some were horrible - mumbled, couldn't explain the material clearly, showed almost disdain for having to teach an undergraduate course, practically ran out of the room when the lecture was over, etc. - and some were outstanding - engaging, drew you in, brought the material to life, were liberal with office hours and loved informally chatting before and after the lecture, etc.

This was one of the things I loved about being an undergraduate in geology. Small classes (never had an upper level class with more than four students) and weeks together with your professors in the field working during the day, drinking beer by the campfire at night, was the norm. Lots of personal interaction outside of the classroom. Basically, your professors doubled as your drinking buddies on the weekend. We had our share of mumblers and bad teachers, but a lack of interest in the students was never a problem.