I didn’t take no english classes in university, so I ain’t know how they is and weather this ain’t applying. I did take a program that was pretty formula and concept heavy, so it was probably possible to do well enough on exams if you memorized the meaning of the formula sheet and knew the key definitions and their archetypal application. If one did follow such a strategy, that person missed out on innumerable small ideas and ways of thinking. For example, criticisms a professor had of the analysis of this toll bridge-to-tourist area development project were never on any exam, but none of us had thought of them before. I’d use the same ideas in a project analysis the following semester. Thinking back at all of those learning moments – none of which were in the texts or on tests – it’s crazy that someone would challenge the legitimacy of mandatory attendance.
BigT, very often the students can do a better job teaching each other than the teacher can do by just lecturing them. With facilitation from the teacher students dealing with the material together can be very effective.
Hence one reason for the need for class participation.
But many students resist coming to class, and once there, resist participation.
Hence the need for stipulations in the contract the student accepted upon paying fees (i.e. the syllabus) requiring attendance and participation.
Teachers have to do things they don’t like in order to fulfill their end of the bargain: grading papers for most of us is the big one here, for example. 
Students have to do things they might not like in order to fulfill their end of the bargain.
There’s no elitism here. There’s a contract that’s offered, which you may either accept or not. I don’t see the problem.
I don’t know that this thread is the right place to get into a long discussion about this topic, especially as it’s complicated and there are some good points on both sides, but great googly moogly is that a classic example of a circular argument.
If Group A says in order to understand topic 1 you MUST go through the actions in a specific way Group A demands, why should they be overruled by someone who doesn’t understand the topic? Come on! So I can just say in order to understand anything meaningful about the real world you have to have had coffee with chocolate milk this morning, and since you didn’t and clearly don’t understand anything, who are you to try to overrule me on my expert conclusion on this matter?
There are outside criteria used to determine competence in any field, and in many cases some of the people who go through the hoops to get the required degrees really aren’t competent at all, and there are plenty of cases where people who didn’t go through the formal steps are just as capable of gaining that knowledge elsewhere and do so. What matters is knowing how to learn and putting in the effort to actually do so.
If you stop caring about actual knowledge and whether you are able to back up conclusions with solid reasoning and instead appeal only to authority then you are not advancing knowledge in any way at all.
And, I’m sorry because I know people get sick of hearing this, but this site is for fighting ignorance and being able to back up conclusions with logic and evidence, not just declaring things true.
Are you high, Dan? Because that is not at all what mhendo is saying. (I don’t think.) Or are you going to argue that classroom attendance and participation are as nonsensical methods of studying as drinking coffee with chocolate milk? I’ll give you a hint: one allows students to process, discuss, and analyze information and materials; the other is an idiot analogy made on a messageboard.
That’s true in some cases but completely false in others. Some people do not learn well in such situations, and often the students in class have nothing meaningful to contribute to the topic and discussion leads nowhere. Forcing participation as a requirement in either of those situations is strongly negatively affecting the learning process.
That’s not a demonstrated need, just a demand.
Yeah, and for many of them participation or even showing up is a colossal waste of time.
It is extreme elitism to assert that anyone who doesn’t do these things is incapable of learning the topic and undeserving of a degree… and then for businesses to base hiring decisions that effect people’s financial well being based upon those degrees.
Generally any class I had that demanded attendance and directly deducted points toward the final grade solely for failing to do so were exactly the ones where no one who already knew how to study and wanted to learn at a pace that was faster than mind-numbingly glacial had a reason to show up for. The way those classes were set up was to treat education as a prison where people need to do their time. The students who excelled in those situations were the ones who liked extremely rigid and predictable structures and not being challenged in any way, meaning they would only have the most superficial of knowledge when the course ends.
Universities these days seem to be focused solely on the dull people who like to parrot back the exact specific things their instructor demands at a pace that means the instructor in turn challenges him- or herself the least.
If you can’t see the problems inherent in that situation then you are part of the problem, and, frankly, perhaps you are the one who needs some more education.
As expanded in my later post, in many cases attendance and participation are very poor criteria to use in determining whether students are capable of processing and analyzing information.
And, sorry, but your opinion on the matter again shows why participation and discussion is often useless. You put your short little opinion and personal attack in a post counts as your attendance to this thread and participation to the topic, yet you’ve not demonstrated any actual knowledge of any topic and give no reason why anyone should bother to discuss anything with you.
You’re right, forcing participation in an ineffective lesson plan negatively affects the learning process. But I’m not talking about whether it’s permissible to enter into a contract with students which requires their attendance and participation in bad lesson plans. I’m talking about whether it’s permissible to enter into a contract with students which requires their attendance and participation.
If it’s a poorly designed class, then it’s a waste of time for everyone. If it’s a well designed class, then it may be a “waste of time” for a few students who, however it happens, already grasp everything and have nothing to learn from the course. But those students can help other students. And if these genius students enrolled in the course, and read the syllabus, then they know that they’re required to do so, not by the laws of nature or god, but by the rules they themselves agreed to.
What is elitism? Define it, please. I am not clear on what you guys are referring to when you use that term.
Geez, calm down man. What makes you think I “can’t see the problems inherent in that situation”? You’ve seen nothing from me that should indicate that.
The situation you describe is a terrible one, obviously! It’s a separate question whether what you describe is accurate. In my own experience, the profs who simply lectured and wanted information regurgitation didn’t require attendance, and certainly not participation. (What opportunity would there even be for participation in such a class?) In such a class, a student who can read can pass the class by just coming in for the exams and writing the papers. Why require attendance for that? I don’t I’ve ever seen that requirement for such a class, in fact. (I could well have simply forgotten having taken such classes, though.)
What you’re saying about what universities are like is so different from my experience I’m kind of at a loss. We profs typically hate dealing with “dull people who like to parrot back the exact specific things their instructor demands.”
We like dealing with creative, disciplined, engaged minds. We like helping people develop such minds. We think that’s part of what you’re paying for when you enroll in University courses. And we think it’s worth paying for. We don’t cater to “dull people who like to parrot back exact specific things.” Far from it, we typically abhor that approach and do what we can to nip that tendency in the bud, so to speak.
I say “we” meaning “university instructors in general” and base it on my own interactions with professors and instructors at several institutions.
(By the way, I should note I don’t require attendance in my classes, because the only way to enforce this is by having it reflected in the grade, and that makes the grade no longer an accurate representation of understanding of the course material. But I think there is considerable merit in the arguments of those who do require attendance. If I could simply have it be that a certain level of attendance is required to recieve a grade at all, I might consider requiring it for some classes at least.)
The question of permissibility depends also upon what the other options are.
Sure, they can, but it’s not exactly fair to make people who paid to take a class but already have the knowledge (or who can pick it up faster than everyone else) do what the instructor is paid to do. I don’t go pay an auto mechanic and then get told I need to change oil for other people’s cars before I can get my car.
Or, more practically, because they need to take that class or other classes with the same requirement for their major or as a general requirement. The problem with saying it is a choice is that if there are no other choices available it’s not a choice in any honest sense.
I’m surprised you didn’t ask me to pay for the privilege of explaining that to you. Look it up your damn self. It’s not like we’re using it in a way different from its common definition.
The participation was regurgitating back said factoids and opinions to prove you now agreed with the professor.
I find it hard to believe you went through higher education with such a vastly different experience than I did. I attended both a private and public university at various times. If I somehow had the bad luck of the draw and missed out on what college is really like, and the people I’ve spoken with over the years about their experiences did also, bully for you I guess.
My point exactly. And certainly there were classes like that. I had one professor I respected who seemed sad I had the high score on one test after not being there for a couple of weeks when he learned I did so based upon reading the textbook instead of looking over the notes of one of my friend’s in the class. He seemed to feel there was something wrong with that somewhere, like he failed me somehow despite that I knew the material.
I met plenty of professors who were starved for students who actually cared about learning, but they were not the ones hung up on attendance. They certainly appreciated attendance and liked participation because they hoped it would rub off on other students, but they didn’t demand it.
Well, certainly I do wish that were the case, but it’s not been my experience, nor was it the experience of many people I know.
You could be told that by an auto mechanic. You’d probably take your business elsewhere.
Instructors are paid to teach, sometimes teaching is not simply informing but rather arranging events such that the students come to learn. Sometimes coming to learn involves interaction with other students. That’s often the best way to do it.
By enrolling in the course, reading the syllabus, and not withdrawing from the class, you make it known that you consent to being evaluated, in part, based on the degree and quality of your participation in these kinds of “learning events” so to speak. If you are that incredibly rare student who really does know it all already, having complete facility with the course matter, then it may be a little unfortunate for you that to have this fact certified you have to jump through some hoops. But then–jumping through hoops is not a terribly abnormal thing to have to do in life.
Also, you’re not that incredibly rare student.
The choice is in enrolling in a university course in the first place.
I hate that having a degree has become a kind of certification of readiness for the workplace. That’s not what it’s suppoesed to be, and it’s not how most university instructors concieve of their task. I recognize that, in order to pursue your career goals, you have to enroll in a university. Please understand, though, that we don’t see ourselves as an instrument for your career goals. We didn’t do that–your bosses and future bosses did. We’re engaged in an entirely different project, one which you voluntarily enter into when you enroll in our courses.
I want to know what you mean by the term, because based on my own understanding of the term I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re saying.
What a bizarre way to run a class. “Participation” my ass. I’d be aggravated by this as well.
Believe what you like.
I can see how that make him feel “useless” in a sense. I probably would fool myself into thinking I myself bring something necessary to my students’ learning via my personal presence, if it weren’t the case that in fact I really do bring something necessary to my studentss learning through my personal presence. 
You guys may be misinterpreting things. I’ve had students say this about me before, when nothing could have been further from the truth. I think that students want to be given info to regurgitate because that is easiest, and also resent the idea of having to do so because it’s demeaning, and don’t want to take on the responsibilities involved in breaking themselves of this cycle, and this tension leads them to project the desire for regurgitation onto their professors. [/psychoanalysis]
This comment demonstrates such a lack of understanding that i don’t even know where to begin.
To the extent that there is any emphasis on the “dull people who like to parrot back the exact specific things their instructor demands,” that emphasis is actually, in my experience, coming from the students themselves. It’s depressing how often the students make clear that their only interest in the material is in knowing exactly “what is going to be on the test.” I wish i had a dollar for every time some student asked that question.
What i say, in response, is that everything we do could be on the test. But, even more importantly, it’s not about memorizing small details, but about understanding big concepts, and about learning the importance of things like causation and contingency and complexity in history. I don’t care very much if they forget exactly what year Dred Scott was decided, or the name of the Chief Justice who wrote the opinion. What i do care about is that they understand the principles expressed in Dred Scott, and the ruling’s significance in the context of sectional disputes, American expansion, the debates over slavery and free soil, and notions of American citizenship. I don’t care very much if they forget the name the American leader who set off the Bear Flag Revolt in California. I do care that they understand the tensions between the Californios and Americans in the region during this period, and the significance of this conflict in the context of the larger national tensions that led to the US-Mexican War.
Even more importantly—and this is where the issue of attendance and participation becomes crucial—there are very important debates within the historical profession over many historical events and ideas. History is not simply a progression of information that students need to absorb. It’s not just a case of building up a body of specific knowledge. It’s about being able to examine and analyze and evaluate argument, and to explain why you find some conclusions more convincing than others.
My classes do not simply involve me lecturing at the students. Nor is the only reading they do a large textbook overview of the subject. I require my students to read scholarly articles and monographs, written by people who are experts in the field. I also get them to read primary source materials, and i often choose sources that are in direct conflict or debate with one another in order to show the ways that historical actors disagreed over important issues.
After they read those texts, the next step is for us to discuss them in the classroom, together. And, despite your sneering, this sort of discussion is, in my experience, extremely productive for the students themselves, especially if they actually do the reading and offer informed contributions to the discussion. They get to demonstrate their understanding, and we also get to see the ways in which people can disagree over historical evidence and interpretation. Because, while some answers are better than others, and some are flat-out wrong, there is no single correct answer or response to most historical problems, and dealing with the differences and the disagreements is as much a part of learning the discipline as answering an exam question.
While our modern notion of history is largely founded on the written word, and much of the best historical knowledge is still found in books, i believe that discussions are no less useful or valid as a way of evaluating students’ understanding than a written exam. Part of this comes from the belief that one of the skills we are here to teach is the ability to formulate an argument and sustain it in the face of disagreement. That is a central part of what it means to do history, and is the reason that professional historians spend so much time at conferences and seminars and colloquia talking to one another and asking questions of one another and debating one another. The exchange of ideas in this way is central to our profession.
I guess it probably feels good for some critics to argue that all we’re looking for students to become little clones of ourselves, or to parrot back to us what we tell them, but it simply isn’t true. I work very hard to convince my students that i am happy for them to disagree with me, and with each other. It’s incredible how much persistence this requires, because the students themselves , most of the time, seem to just want me to tell them “the answer,” or “what they need to know for the test.” They seem dumbfounded by the idea that people with different interpretations can be equally well-supported by the evidence, and that there are many cases where no-one is necessarily right or wrong.
One way i’ve found to convince students about the desirability of discussion and debate is to have them read papers from historical journals where three or four historians discuss a single issue. In such cases, there is often clear and strong disagreement between the scholars, and this shows students that such disagreements are part of the profession.
As for all of this being a process that “challenges [me] the least,” you couldn’t be more wrong. You know what the least challenging method of teaching would be, for me? Walking into a classroom and lecturing for an hour and then walking out again. I have plenty of lectures written for my courses, and in many cases they’re supported by interesting and attractive images and even video. I also love talking, so giving nothing but lectures would be, for me, the easy way out.
And it can be hard getting good discussion out of students. Sometimes they don’t do the reading, some students are reluctant to speak in front of others, and some just have trouble articulating their responses to the text. Helping them bring out the key issues can be quite difficult, and often involves crafting questions that are probing, and that push them to focus on certain arguments and certain aspects of the reading. I emerge from a good discussion session far more exhausted than i do from a lecture.
I can’t speak for other disciplines, but in my own, attendance and participation in discussion isn’t something that i require simply in order to tick off a box, or as some sort of sop to my own ego. Nor is it something i do in order to make my own teaching experiences less arduous, because in many cases it actually has precisely the opposite effect. I do it because, in the hundred-plus years of the modern history profession, the role of discussion and debate has become an agreed-upon and widely-respected method for increasing student understanding of the material, and also evaluating how well students are progressing, both in their understanding of specific material, and of the processes involved in historical thinking.
Ugh. Now that I’ve read what you had to say: You can’t defend your position, so you insult me. If that’s what you learned in academia, then I definitely have reason not to take you seriously.
All you had to do was provide citations. You couldn’t do it. That means you don’t know what you think you know. I don’t give a shit whether you like me or not. The point it that you have proven yourself to be stupid, so I have no more work to do.
Okay, the board ate one of my posts, where I actually responded to the gist of this thread and not the fact that a teacher admits that he would fail a student for having a different philosophy on how education should work. I haven’t not shown up for class. I’ve just poked holes in the teacher’s argument.
Wait, I had a backup:
But the point is, if they didn’t learn it, you ought to be able to test to see if that knowledge has been acquired.
I got 100% in participation in classes where I hadn’t read anything before class. I showed up, used a few probing questions on the one guy who had, and then formed my opinion in class right in front of the teacher. It’s easy.
I don’t believe that you can objectively determine whether the person has learned anything by watching them discuss something. And if you aren’t objectively determining their knowledge, what right do you have to give them a lower grade?
And let me point this out: I did absolutely no studying, butI walked into my Intro to Biology class–and I aced the final, despite missing almost all the latter classes. Guess what? I got an A. Why? Because to be able to do that, I had to have had the knowledge necessary to pass the class. I’m not paying to be taught things I already know. I realize you have to teach to the dumbest student in the class. But there is no purpose in holding back the smart ones who want to not waste time on things they already know.
Fortunately, that teacher understood that. I got an A in the class. Heck, that’s why I didn’t attend. I knew I could do that with just what I learned in high school. I prioritized my time so I could get other things done. You know, a skill you need in real life, not a skill that only applies to academia.
(That’s another place where academics think they are better than everyone else [i.e. elitism. I already defined it if you read what I write]. I mean, I’m the type of person who likes being in school. But I would never dream of feeling the need to force other people to live under my standards of learning. If they want to be more practical, I’m not going to penalize them for not having my lofty goal of knowledge instead.)
Finally, I bring up what mhendo is talkign about now. You can’t beat my anecdotes by using appeal to authority. To convince me that participation is somehow relevant, I need studies. It’s too easy for people who are in positions of power to come up with things they think are correct, and to confirm their own biases. Putting a bunch of anecdotes together means nothing to me.
That’s why I’m saying you haven’t offered an argument. You can point out that I haven’t either, but that’s not the point. The point is, unless you can provide actual information that contradicts my observations, I have no reason to believe you. Time tested traditions mean nothing. Lots of incorrect ideas are bound by tradition.
You can do that too, if you are okay with me believing that you are just serving your own biases. Or you can try to do your profession proud and teach me and yourself that these things are relevant.
Added Later:
If I am a dullard–whose fault is that? Perhaps the teacher who shirked their duties to actually teach in order to fail people they don’t like.
And, no, I’m not letting you live that down. I know the pit is a place where people say things they don’t mean. But no teacher should use failing as an insult. Maybe it is I who have higher standards for teachers than you do.
And before anyone busts me here: I meant in classes that required attendance. Heck yeah, I skipped classes that didn’t. And, yes, it hurt me in some classes. But that was not because the teacher required an attendance grade, but because I obviously didn’t know the material.
And how did they know that? They tested me for it.
You’re funny.
I find it funny that you’ve failed to get the most simple point that you need citations to prove you have knowledge, not appeals to authority.
And that you somehow get great reviews when you fail students who disagree with your teaching philosophy. In other words, I know your insult meant jack shit.
I have never failed a student for disagreeing with my teaching philosophy. I have failed students who did not do the required work, who plagiarized, who produced substandard work, or who did not meet the requirements of the course.
If you need this explained to you, you’re too stupid for this conversation. My evaluation of the discussion in class, and of the knowledge and understanding that they demonstrate during that discussion, is no more or less “objective” than my evaluation of their exam answers or their term papers. I fully admit that there is a certain amount of subjectivity to grading in the humanities and social sciences; in most cases, as i’ve already pointed out, the issues we deal with and the questions we ask are not amenable to a simple right/wrong, yes/no, true/false evaluation system.
Unlike you, i claim no deep knowledge and understanding of things about which i am ignorant. It might, in fact, be possible to ace a biology exam without ever attending a class or reading a book.
It might also be possible that you can get everything you need to know about biology from the textbook or outside sources, without ever setting foot inside the classroom. Although, from a freshman biology class i took many years ago, i seem to remember that a crucial part of the class involved lab work where you were required to demonstrate an ability to deal things that did not involve writing, but different skills and types of understanding.
In my field, history, it might be possible to pass an exam (depending upon the type of exam) just by reading the book. But our job is not simply to teach people to pass exams. The discussion of readings and the articulation of arguments and responses related to the readings are a part of the process of learning the subject, just like cutting up frogs or studying cell cultures are a part of biology. You are welcome to believe, if your prefer, that this is a pointless and arbitrary mode of evaluation.
I completely agree with you. I firmly believe that people who do not feel that they can benefit from the pedagogical models applied in universities should refrain from attending universities. If they want to be practical out in the “real world,” and they believe that being in my classroom is of no use to them, then by all means they should not attend. I wish them every success, and i respect the fact that they are mature enough to make a decision that conforms with their preferences.
In fact, despite my belief in the value and the enrichment provided by studying the humanities, i’m also somewhat ambivalent about the “educational inflation” that has made a college degree almost a requirement for many jobs that previously only required completion of high school. It seems to me that, if their main purpose is simply to get a job, many people actually might not benefit that much from a university degree because they won’t come to it with the sort of intellectual approach that it requires.
Of course, students are in a bind: even if they don’t really want to be in school, they know that their chances of getting hired without a degree are, in many areas of employment, virtually zero. So they go, but they don’t really like it very much. They go mainly because they feel they have to. While academics benefit, in some sense, from this situation (because it means academics stay employed), the fact is that i’m not sure that employers or colleges are doing these students, or society in general, much good by insisting on post-secondary education for so many people who clearly aren’t interested in the actual intellectual value of the work involved.
Despite my own path, i was a non-traditional student who failed out of college in my freshman year, then worked as a bartender and waiter for some years before going back to university. I don’t think that having a college degree makes you a better person, and i don’t think that not having one means that you’re unintelligent or incurious. I have quite a few friends who didn’t go to college and who are doing just fine, and i’m the only one in my own immediate family who went past high school. Even my wife, who has a PhD and is a tenure-track assistant professor, dropped out of high school and had to go back and get her GED in her late 20s before attending college.
But part of choosing to go to college means that you agree to accept the professional judgment of the people who have been employed by the institution to teach you. Furthermore, within the university, each different discipline teaches in ways that reflect the particular knowledge structures and requirements of that discipline. Within the field of history, and indeed within many of the humanities and social sciences disciplines, the way in which the subject is taught and skills and understanding develop mean that the fact of being in the class yields knowledge and skills and understanding that are otherwise unavailable. If you don’t believe that, then fine. I’m not especially interested in trying any further to convince you.
To be quite honest, i don’t care if you believe me. And i’m not really interested in “doing my profession proud” in service of your ignorance. And it is ignorance, in the most basic sense of the word. Despite your claim, i have offered an argument. The fact that you choose to reject it is your right, but that doesn’t make it invalid.
I’m pretty sure mhendo and I have disagreed on any number of things before, but I wouldn’t hesitate to pony up for one of his/her courses. That’s some good stuff right there.
That’s not what elitist means. At all.
[QUOTE=m-w.com]
Definition of ELITISM
1: leadership or rule by an elite
2: the selectivity of the elite; especially : snobbery <elitism in choosing new members>
3: consciousness of being or belonging to an elite
[/QUOTE]
If none of the most useful things were on the exams, then the exams were poorly designed.
FWIW, classes like this were exactly the ones that I wanted to attend. It’s the ones where the professor was just regurgitating a bunch of crap from the textbook, but in a less cogent manner, that I wanted to be able to skip out on. But couldn’t, without being automatically failed.
This is a great argument for requiring participation. I have yet to see a great argument for requiring attendance *as a separate metric from *participation, as my university did.
Or, more accurately, you are so biased that you confuse someone not agreeing with everything you say on a topic you hold dear that you arrogantly assume that anyone holding that opinion must be doing so from a lack of understanding.
I know trying to point out problems with the modern academic system to people firmly entrenched in and benefiting from that system is a hopeless cause, but this is a site for fighting ignorance, even if it is entrenched as thoroughly as your is.