I sometimes think so. I have taught at the college level at two different campuses, one full-time and the other part-time, concurrently for the past decade. The demographics at the two campuses are different, with one having higher entrance requirements and the student pool being overwhelmingly white and surburban, but they’re otherwise comparable.
What I’ve noticed is that more and more students come into the classroom believing that it is my job to ensure they get an “A,” that everything needed for the course should be covered in class (so that nothing must be read or done outside of class), that class should never meet until the conclusion of its appointed time, that any rule or policy is negotiable or inapplicable if it inconveniences them, and that dropping a course they are doing poorly in or dissatisfied with is out of the question. Instead, it is my job to individually accommodate them, as they are–get this–“paying my salary.” Interrupting me while I’m speaking, ignoring instructions or information on the syllabus, and avoiding office hours or even a simply phone call or email when they have questions is also de riguer.
I’ve always believed that students should be treated with respect and that we should provide them with the tools and opportunities to succeed, but the notion that higher education is simply a consumer service is antithetical to the process. It is the student’s responsibility to meet the requirements for the course, to develop the intellectual, organizational, and developmental skills required to pass it, to construct a schedule that is realistic in balancing education with the rest of their lives, and to meet all deadlines as assigned at the beginning of the term. No matter what pressure a student may feel from family or society to attend, college is voluntary, and they must earn the right to remain in school by meeting its expectations, not the other way around.
Well, Gassy, I do agree with you that it should fall upon the student to meet the requirements of the course. So, I’d hold to that standard. They’re not there to buy an ‘A’ but rather to meet the levels of academic achievement the course of study demands.
It’s easy for me to say, as I’m not subject to whatever administrative pressures that you experience, but I’d say flunk 'em all if they can’t at least minimally master the material.
My employer (Vanderbilt) has sent me memos and mentioned in training sessions that there is this phenomenon about students who think that they deserve good grades and will complain if they don’t get them, but I’ve never actually seen such a thing myself. All students that I’ve interacted with are willing to put in the effort and take the consequences of it.
But if any student ever uses the “I’m paying your salary” line on me, my response will be “You are paying jack shit. Your parents are paying my salary.”
Oh, believe me, we do, but the student attitude in general is different now. In the past, a tiny minority of students who failed (or even got anything lower than a “B”) would find fault with someone or something other than themselves for their predicament. Now, it seems, larger numbers of students want to blame the instructor, the syllabus, the textbook, the curriculum, the institution, or any combination for their lack of achievement–and expect that because, again, they perceive they are paying for a service, it’s up to the providers of that service to fix things to their satisfaction.
And you’re dead on that more and more administrators seem to be caving to student pressure, with the attitude that it’s not up to the student to prove that something in error occured that hindered their progress but that it’s up to the instructor to prove that nothing in error did occur. I met a scholar at a conference this past October who said he left his last institution because his dean immediately took the student’s side when a baseless accusation was made against the scholar.
With student evaluations becoming increasingly more scrutinized for tenure and promotion, I’ve noticed that more and more of my colleagues seem to be taking the position that it’s better to dumb down their classes and give in to student expectations so that they get strong evaluations than it is to develop a reputation for being unpopular. Though I’ve been tenured for several years, I cringe at the notion that we are graduating people who are less prepared to enter an increasingly complex world than students were when I started teaching.
I teach at two public institutions, so perhaps at mine are less enculturated in the expectations at the college level?
I also teach most of my courses in the general education curriculum–primarily English service courses, though I’ve also taught advanced writing and public relations courses. I should point out that the majority of my students are fine people, but the numbers with out-of-whack attitudes seems to be increasing.
Very few kids are in college for the sheer education of it.
First off, college is now what kids of a certain class do. There are less decent jobs out there that will hire a bright hardworking kid out of high school, and not having a degree will hold you back from many jobs- even jobs that won’t use a single thing you learned in college. So less kids are in college because they are actually interested or care about learning. College is just a step between high school and making money.
Secondly, since the tech boom there has been more of an emphasis on college as trade school. It used to be that you got your undergrad degree and then went to proffessional school (law school, medical school). You undergrad education was considered a place to get an education, not a place to gain a lot of practical skills. But then the boom came and you could get a 100k job with a computer engineering degree right out out of school. Parents started expecting a results-oriented system, and collges started complying. Learning became one of the lower priorities.
Like my grad adviser used to tell me when I was a teaching assistant: “The students are not your customers. Society is your customer.” Unfortunately, many universities seem to be run by people who are not quite on board with the concept. It’s only a matter of time before a bachelor’s degree from an American university is suitable for framing but nothing else.
And the sooner that day comes the better. That way we can get over the elitist bias that exists.
Are colleges becoming diploma mills? Absolutely. Yeah, it’s nice if you learn something, but let’s be real. Since 90% of people who get a bachelor’s degree don’t work in their field, don’t you think that the concept of intense study of a subject is dated? What’s more, you’re mortgaging your future to the tune of around $25,000 before you even get out of the gate, and for what? You’re buying your advancement, and in most cases were it not for the inherent elitism of employers with degrees you could get a superb staff of people without degrees who managed to save 4 years of their lives by not going.
Let’s get real here, guys. I have the personal integrity to go into a classroom and pay attention in the hopes that I will learn something new and fascinating, but most people go because they have to because the teacher makes them or they’ll reduce their grades. And regardless, that doesn’t change the fact that I am buying myself a better future. That’s the end goal. Truth is, at the end of this I won’t be able to operate radio and television equipment any better than I do now, I’ll just have the cred to get a job that pays a living wage doing it. It won’t make me look better in a suit or give me an actual understanding of the political system, it’ll just qualify me for a job on the Hill. It’s silly when you think about it.
The answer to the question posed by the OP, therefore (in my opinion), is an inequivocal and spirited YES! It’s a way to buy the keys to the kingdom. Anything more than that is up to the individual student.
And even as I say that, I must say that I’m enjoying my return to school immensely. Talk about a paradox, eh?
I hear what you’re saying, though I don’t buy into the notion that higher education is “elitist.” I do, however, think that higher education defines goals that are different than those of business and industry.
Business and industry primarily want better worker bees. Instead of providing most or all of the required knowledge and training on their own, they want someone else to do it–higher education–and someone else to foot the bill–the state or the student. (That’s an oversimplified model, of course, not taking into account the effects of taxes, scholarships, corporate gifts, tuition reimbursement programs, etc.) That higher education in most forms resists the notion of simply being an unaffiliated branch of business and industry and expects the freedom to establish its own goals bothers a lot of people, including politicians and more and more students.
Higher education primarily wants to promote scholarship and enlightened citizenship. Those are not elitist concepts, though they might be somewhat self-serving ones. If business and industry need something else, they should establish their own trade schools, and students seeking such training should attend them. But to step onto a campus and assert “I am here for something other than what you provide–now provide it to me because I paid good money.” is absurd.