Problems with University Evaluations

[Michael Dorosh]

University is (supposedly) a place where the experts can teach you the stuff. You learn how to read, write, analyze, discuss, debate and all those wonderful skills that you need in an academic world in order to succeed there.

Have you ever been to one?  You don't need any of those skills in order to succeed; the minimum standard is having enough money for tuition.  The rest can be sleepwalked through.  Write one paper a semester per class, depending on the discipline and retain enough knowledge from skimming the text book to be able to fake your way through a midterm and a final.  That's it.  With class sizes of 200+ there is no forum for debate, much less instruction in how to debate.  Some of the exams are even multiple choice on top of it; professors would rather do research than read individual answers, I guess.

 

[Pikache]

Have you ever been to one? You don't need any of those skills in order to succeed; the minimum standard is having enough money for tuition. The rest can be sleepwalked through. Write one paper a semester per class, depending on the discipline and retain enough knowledge from skimming the text book to be able to fake your way through a midterm and a final. That's it. With class sizes of 200+ there is no forum for debate, much less instruction in how to debate. Some of the exams are even multiple choice on top of it; professors would rather do research than read individual answers, I guess.

Actually, I'm in my third year (technically). Yes, there are big 200+ classes where you don't get much, but most of my classes have been about 40-50 pers so there are some good debates around.

Perhaps I'm one of the few fortunate.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, if Maclean's rankings are any indication, my alma mater is probably down the list from yours as far as the teaching of practical skills... ;D

 

[dutchie]

i don't mean to getthe thread more off topic than it already is, but.....

professors would rather do research than read individual answers, I guess.

this is because profs are hired primarily to do research and publish papers, and that's it. a buddy of mine has just completed his PhD, and will be a prof in 2 years (once he finishes his post-doc fellowship). Profs recieve zero training in teaching. Profs who are good teachers are good due to their own natural ability and/or their own initiative. When my buddy gets interviewed for a prof position, he will be required to show that he has produced frequent, relavant, and sound papers/studies from a neutral university (not his PhD school, but his post-doc school)......at no point will he be asked about his quality of instruction.

anyhow, tangent over, carry-on.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

When my buddy gets interviewed for a prof position, he will be required to show that he has produced frequent, relavant, and sound papers/studies from a neutral university (not his PhD school, but his post-doc school)......at no point will he be asked about his quality of instruction.

And neither will his students, though some institutions do have teaching excellence awards, which are just as useful as popularity contests as anything else.

 

[Torlyn]

Have you ever been to one?  You don't need any of those skills in order to succeed; the minimum standard is having enough money for tuition.  The rest can be sleepwalked through.  Write one paper a semester per class, depending on the discipline and retain enough knowledge from skimming the text book to be able to fake your way through a midterm and a final.  That's it.  With class sizes of 200+ there is no forum for debate, much less instruction in how to debate.  Some of the exams are even multiple choice on top of it; professors would rather do research than read individual answers, I guess.

I digress...  Unless you are taking an underwater basket weaving course, general studies, or the like, the 200+ class sizes only occur with the first year general studies, which are really just a way to weed out those without the intellectual fortitude to continue.  After first year, I have yet to see a multiple choice exam that held any real relevance...  And, I'm not just speaking from the 3 institutions I attended either..  I asked a few friends who have gone to various different universities across the country, and we all came to the same consensus.  I have yet to hear of any course that is one paper per class.

Granted, I have met a few professors that were more interested in their research than educating, but if you approach them properly, they sometimes become better tools for learning.  I suppose it's how you approach those ones.  Bad apples in every bunch, but it's not something that you can't get around, if you try.  I mean, the point of university isn't to teach you how to regurgitate someone else's thoughts from a textbook, but rather to take in what information you can, and extrapolate your own opinions.  If all you do is quote various sources for your papers, you're not going to get past 2nd year.  IMHE.

T

 

[Garbageman]

I have yet to hear of any course that is one paper per class.

Not to overly discredit my esteemed institution of higher learning, but midterm, final, and one paper per class was the standard for many of my upper year political science classes.

Then there was Teacher's College.  That was a farce.  The hardest part was getting in.

 

[Torlyn]

Not to overly discredit my esteemed institution of higher learning, but midterm, final, and one paper per class was the standard for many of my upper year political science classes.

Then there was Teacher's College.  That was a farce.  The hardest part was getting in.

Must be nice...  I was three papers, two midterms, and a final for the majority of mine.  Save, of course, for those wonderful intro courses. 

T

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Not to overly discredit my esteemed institution of higher learning, but midterm, final, and one paper per class was the standard for many of my upper year political science classes.

Then there was Teacher's College.   That was a farce.   The hardest part was getting in.

Same same with my alma mater, including 500 level courses IIRC.

 

[winchable]

I must disagree Mike.
While it may be possible to get through universty by

Write one paper a semester per class, depending on the discipline and retain enough knowledge from skimming the text book to be able to fake your way through a midterm and a final.

One won't have learned anything or have improved themselves beyond what they were when they entered.

While using university as an indicator of a person's  intelligence or ability is faulty, it's just as faulty to say that when one goes to university all one gets out of it is the ability to skim the texts and beat the system, get a degree and be a fat prick living in the suburbs.

I take the term "Higher Education" quite literally. I don't see my years (Which now look like they will continue for another 3) in university as a way of getting a degree and geting a job. I view them as  higher education, and I put in a great deal of effort, not even to get a degree or make the grade but purely in the pursuit of knowledge and to educate myself.

While I recognise that there are certainly people who go through the motions to get a degree, I think it cheapens the sanctity (I can't believe I just said that) of higher education to say that's all it takes to go to university and continue learning above and beyond the highschool level.

For what it's worth, Dalhousie is great. Most places are pretty equal at the undergraduate level though.

Actually what really cheapens the whole experience is 3 year commerce students who, when you tell them you're doing a history degree, look at you and go "What kind of job is that going to get you?" (OH BURN!)

 

[Infanteer]

I think the biggest problem with University is that their seems to be no cohesion between all the seperate material one studies.  I know the intent is to foster an analytical approach to things is the main goal, but having a decent framework of your major is nice.

People leave the intro classes and tend to specialize.  They attend a class on Canadian Foreign Policy and the next class on Western Canadian Development; at the end of the term its a whole new group of classes and so the students "flush out" what they learned and get the toilet ready for the next gob of information.

The smart ones can draw links and threads and dicern fundamental ideas between the various fields they study while the slackers don't (although they may suceed at each individual class, they've long since given up caring about what they flushed down the toilet).  The problem is they both get the same degree.

 

[winchable]

no cohesion between all the seperate material one studies

My first year program at King's in Halifax was called the "Foundation Year Programme" and it's intent was to combat this problem.
4 of 5 first year credits are covered by the course which goes through history, english, sociology, political science, science, philosophy etc.
Painfully difficult, but worth it.
Unforunately it is only the first of 4 years.

I chose history as a major largely because of this problem.

 

[Pieman]

Specific to undergraduate programs, my biggest complaint with the entire system is the semester courses. One of the most important things one has to do with new ideas, methods, and concepts is have a gestation period. Having a lot of courses over a short period of time is like seeding a field of wheat and expecting the crop to grow in a few days instead of over the entire season. It is too much information, too fast, and a lot of understanding of the topic is lost in the daily shuffle. I don't care how 'smart' one is, one cannot grasp insight into the inner workings of Tensor Calculus without taking a lot of time to play with it.

Being from a very difficult scientific background, it annoyed me to no end that many of the BA students living in my dorm were out almost three times a week, (some more than that) and were still there the following year. I noticed that most science and engineering students had to work a lot harder than most degrees.

A typical semester for me would be consist of five classes. Each class had an assignment of due once a week. Each class had two midterms and one final. Some classes had lab sessions once a week for 3 hours. Others had one large project due at the end of the semester. In my final two years, I was trying to find time to sleep let alone study and my social life was reduced to going out only a couple times a month.
Because of the kind of degree, I had very few 'opional' courses outside my area.

The reward of going through all this heck was clear to me at the end. There were plenty of people graduating with BA degrees, and plenty of BSc more common science majors. For my degree, only 3 of us finished out of 27 who started at the 2nd year level. The value of that speaks for itself, but I think I would have had a better understanding of all the topics I was plowing through had the system been more flexible.

Also, having a grading system that is on a bell curve only serves to pit the students against each other. I saw a class in Spanish where a score of 75% on an exam was only a 'C' grade...what is the point of that? if you know it you know it. University should not be a competitive environment, it prevents an open   environment for sharing of ideas. Thankfully, upon entering into my 3rd year my classes were too small for bell curves and our raw mark was our mark. I feel my grades, which are quite good, reflected my knowledge a little more closely than other people who were victums of the bell curve system.

I like the European undergraduate system better. I was a graduate student there and I had to work as a course assistant for a couple courses and take a number of courses myself.

The first course I took was an upper level physics class and consisted of about 10 people. It was actually an undergraduate course, but it was a high enough level to count for a intro graduate course.  

The professor was handing out an assignment and I asked 'When is this due?' and the Prof responded "Whenever."
I said "What do you mean, whenever?? You mean whenever next week?"
and he says "No, I mean whenever. Don't be dumb though and get it into me before the end of the semester, I hate marking papers from the last semester when I am trying to concentrate on the current one...but whenever you get it onto me, I will mark it when you finish it."
I was in a state of shell shock.

Later in the semester he said we should have a midterm. I said to him that I hated doing midterms, could we do a paper on   such and such a topic instead? He thought is was a good idea, so instead of staying up all night cramming for a miterm, I wrote a very nice paper on a topic which interested me, and learned a great deal.

This kind of flexibility cannot happen in really large classes, but higher level classes are usually small enough, or at least they should be.

I learned more from that course than I would have from three courses under our system. It brought together many concepts that I was having problems with, simply because I was allowed the time to gestate and play with the material.

The philosophy over there is that if you are interested, and you are responsible you will take the initiative and get the work done. If you are not, then you will simply fail yourself out of the school. It think it is a very effective way of doing things. Not setting deadlines, and being flexible about exams and the course material gives the prof and the students the freedom to take the course to levels I have never seen before. I would love to see that system over here.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I think the biggest problem with University is that their seems to be no cohesion between all the seperate material one studies.   I know the intent is to foster an analytical approach to things is the main goal, but having a decent framework of your major is nice.

The finishing and professional schools are supposed to fill this role, but many, especially law schools, have dropped the core curriculum approach and now permit students to take whatever they want, and they still get the same professional degree. I think that state of affairs is a sad commentary on the lack of forethought put into post sec education at the professional and post grad level. 

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I have enjoyed this thread quite a bit - and it has been particularly apropos for me, given that I am a Gr 11 Quebec dummy who is taking 8 BMASc courses between now and Jul 05.   Quite a bit of the discussion has not been relevant to my situation, as I am doing all of my courses by ccorrespondence but it has forced me to ask more penetrating question of my boy, who is in his first year at York.

I have noticed that the distinction between learning and education has become a little blurred in this thread, and that no one seems to have mentioned that one can be learned without being educated, and vice versa.   I could bang on about this one at length - as I have at Happy Hours in my past, but I won't.   I have been given the unique opportunity to learn on the Queen's shilling while receiving my education, and I intend to take full advantage of that opportunity.   Which brings me to my point:

I am actually learning quite a lot on this forum, and have added it into my study schedule.   I have followed a number of threads with great interest, and have iparticularly enjoyed the various links that are posted.   It strikes me that this forum may well fill many of the criteria for professional education that have been outlined by Infanteer.   Is there a place in our pedagogical methodology for (barely) moderated discussion groups such as this one?