I am out of college now, but when I was in school I had something that I liked to bitch about allot, and it still bugs me to this day. I went to Penn State…a big school. Some of my classes had attendance policies. I do not think colleges should have attendance policies. The students are old enough to decide weather or not they should go to class, and it should be the teacher’s responsibility to make the class interesting enough for the student to actually WANT to go to class.
I had a German class with an attendance policy. I never scored below an 80 on any of the tests, but I still got an F. I checked the syllabus and it said you got 4 unexcused absences then after that your PARTICIPATION grade would be affected. The participation grade was 10% of the total. I figured even if I got a zero in participation, and a 40-50% in homework grade (I forget what total percentage it was) I would still get a C and be fine. All I wanted to do was pass. I hated learning German. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. Anyway, I got an F.
My question is, what is the point of testing if you can still fail a class but never get below a B on a test? The whole idea of a “test” is just that. It “tests” the knowledge that the teacher feels you should have at that time. I can understand giving people with good attendance a bonus, because some people don’t test well and by coming to class they may actually know more than their tests show, but to penalize someone for not coming to class and performing well on the tests is just ridiculous. Especially when the person is old enough to make their own choices.
Is this a debate on whether or not to have attendence policies?
If so, I’m with you. I believe that if you can pass the required tests in a class, you should pass it no matter what your attendence is.
That is why I now attend college through the Internet at http://www.esc.edu
No one asks what I’ve read or when, just that I am able to write papers that prove my knowledge and participate in discussions and such.
Zette
I had the same beef. I had the third highest test scores in a class of 25 or so. The class was some kind of multivariate calculus or something - I was a physics major and this stuff was old hat for me (taking it in my senior year)
I didn’t do any of the homework. Quelle Surprise! Homeword supposedly counted for 75% of the grade. The prof pulled me into his office and said “I must give you an F for this class, but because you did so well on the exams, I will give you a D” like he was doing me a favor. I didn’t care at the time - get me outta there, it was boring - but after that, I felt the same way as you - I had a mastery of the material - the test scores showed it - I should have received an A. The other two people who got better grades on the exams were math weasels who took every course this guy gave - they deserved the A’s they most likely got, but they didn’t know that much more than I did.
Yes. Down with attendance!!
Nun, die eigentliche Frage hier ist, ob du von diesem Kurs auch etwas behalten hast. Eine Sprache ist etwas Lebendiges, was sehr wohl Anwesenheit und aktive Teilnahme zum Lernen erfordert. Ein schriftlicher Test kann nie wirklich zeigen, ob du eine Sprache beherrschst oder nicht. Ich finde nicht, daß der Professor zu viel verlangt hat, indem er Anwesenheit vorausgesetzt hat.
But of course that’s just my opinion! 
But if you don’t like the attendance policy, just take another class. I dislike them, but I think the professor has the right to run his class the way he sees fit. For instance, a professor might feel that class discussion works better if there are more people there, so your refusal to attend is actually harming another student’s education.
The other thing is that people who don’t go to class are morons. (Myself formaerly included.) I never went to class in college, squeaked through only because three professors who should have failed me didn’t have the heart, managed somehow to get into a good law school and graduated magna cum laude having never missed a class. (I also got a lot more out of it.)
–Cliffy
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by horhay_achoa *
I am out of college now, but when I was in school I had something that I liked to bitch about allot, [spelling] and it still bugs me to this day. I went to Penn State… [incorrect punctuation] a big school. Some of my classes had attendance policies. I do not think colleges should have attendance policies. The students are old enough to decide weather [spelling] or not they should go to class, and it should be the teacher’s responsibility to make the class interesting enough for the student to actually WANT to go to class.
I had a German class with an attendance policy. I never scored below an 80 on any of the tests, but I still got an F. I checked the syllabus and it said you got 4 unexcused absences then after that your PARTICIPATION grade would be affected. The participation grade was 10% of the total. I figured even if I got a zero in participation, and a 40-50% in homework grade (I forget what total percentage it was) I would still get a C and be fine. All I wanted to do was pass. I hated learning German. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. Anyway, I got an F.
My question is, what is the point of testing if you can still fail a class but never get below a B on a test? The whole idea of a “test” is just that. It “tests” the knowledge that the teacher feels you should have at that time. I can understand giving people with good attendance a bonus, because some people don’t test well and by coming to class they may actually know more than their tests show, but to penalize someone for not coming to class and performing well on the tests is just ridiculous. Especially when the person is old enough to make their own choices. [sentence fragment]/QUOTE]
Nope, failing to attend classes has no impact on one’s education.
Sua
[sub]hey, it’s a joke. I blew off most of my college classes as well.[/sub]
I must admit I am a little rusty:), but are you saying that it is important to come because the teacher needs to be able to hear you speak and have dialog with you?
I tend to agree. My wife’s Department Head took the opposite position. He was the head of the Dept. of Epdemiology in a Medical school. He believed that med students were more interested in real medical courses, so they needed to be forced to attend their required Bio-Stat course.
Unfortunately, those who wanted to cut class got friends to answer for them when roll was called. The entire administration was unpleasant.
Still, the point of mandatory attendance isn’t fairness of grade; it’s to force students to attend class. It assumes that the students might not act in their own best interest.
It should also be said that when I was a TA at Berkeley many uearsz ago, I had no qualms about giving an F to a student. At the med school, failing a course is a big hassle. It requires that the student re-take the entire year. But, then there’s pressure on the profs to tutor the student so they can pass.
My wife resents the students who cut class after class, but then show up at her office hour asking her to teach them enough to pass the course.
ULtimately, mandatory attendance or homework assumes that many students are too immature to make proper decisions for themselves. Unfortunately, this may be true…
Guess what? Tough.
I do not have a problem with attendance policies. Frankly, professors-most of them, anyways, put a lot of time and effort into their classes-explaining concepts not in the books, going over problems, really TALKING with their students-why should they shell out for someone who isn’t interested in being polite and showing up? Sometimes teachers have changes to schedules they announce, or test dates are changed, etc etc.
I’ve learned more from lectures and notes than from books-I usually skim them. I’d rather hear my professors explain things-and debate with them.
If the person is old enough to make their own choices, fine. Then they are also old enough to deal with the consequences.
After all-do you still get paid when you don’t show up for work? I think not. And your professor does not give you a grade-you EARN your grade. It’s ridiculous at college level when everyone skips class, then starts pissing and moaning about not getting good grades. Too bad, so sad.
Cry me a river, build me a bridge and then get over it already.
And december, for once I agree with you. (I bet you’re having a heart attack right now!;)) Most of my professors are more than willing to help you out. But they’re not going to do the work for you, if you’re too lazy to bother showing up. It’s rude and insulting.
The above after being translated Babel Fish:
Now, which is actual question here whether you kept something from this course also. A language is something alive, which very probably requires presence and active participation for learning. A written test can never really show whether you know a language or not. I do not find that the professor required too much, by presupposing presence.
GG: *I had the third highest test scores in a class of 25 or so. The class was some kind of multivariate calculus or something - I was a physics major and this stuff was old hat for me (taking it in my senior year) *
So why were you taking a class where the subject material was “old hat” for you, anyway? News flash: college courses are not AP exams. The object is to have students learn the material, not to have them prove that they already know it. Doing homework and attending classes are among the things that help students learn the material, which is why many professors require them and lower your grade if you don’t do them.
Yes, if your goal for the course is not to learn the material, but instead to get good grades because you already know the material, or to get a passing grade while absorbing as little of the material as possible, then such requirements are going to seem burdensome to you. Good. Students who aren’t interested in learning the subject matter of a course—whether it’s because they already know it or because they just dislike it—are not the people that the course is designed for, and anything that discourages them from taking it is a good thing. december is right: these policies are there to give students more incentive to do what’s in their own best interest as far as learning the material is concerned. If learning the material is not what you’re after, then don’t take the course.
Yes, but if you passed the test haven’t you learned the material? And, if you can pass the test without learning the material, then the test should be harder. The whole point of a test is to see if you know the information that you should know. Thats why it is called a test.
I was required to.
Results are what counts BUT in the real world if you can’t turn of for work you still get fired.
Perhaps this is something worth learning ? no ?
Um, are they getting paid by the head? You can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think. Profs should concentrate on the students who give a damn, and accept those who don’t as detritus that goes along with their chosen profession.
**I’ve learned more from lectures and notes than from books-I usually skim them. I’d rather hear my professors explain things-and debate with them. **
I agree, and as an undergrad my SOP was to attend classes and take copious notes,rather than doing any of the readings.
That changed in law school, when I got tired of the fraternal hazing bullshit generally incompetently passed off as “the Socratic method.” Once I learned I could get a C without attending class or reading the material, hoo baby!
It’s ridiculous at college level when everyone skips class, then starts pissing and moaning about not getting good grades. Too bad, so sad.
It seems as tho the “moaners” were simply saying they should not get flunking grades or Ds. I think a C is a pretty low grade in most colleges. I think a professor’s refusal to award a C to a student who demonstrates sufficient mastery of the material, simply because that student – who paid his tuition and therby the tingod, er, professor’s salary – elected not to atttend x% of the classes, may have something to do with ego.
However, if a professor is insecure or self involved enough to require attendance, and states his policy up front, someone who fails to comply has no grounds for complaint.
I don’t understand…if you’re going to college, you must have some interest in higher learning. And isn’t that basically the way one is educated, through going to classes? I mean, the whole college/education thing is null and void if you don’t even attend class.
I find it a bit odd that you could not go to lectures/classes and still perform well on the tests. Anyway, I’m still a high school student, but I figure if you’re paying all that money for an education- or your parents are- you might as well get something out of it.
No you weren’t. It may have been a required course, but you were perfectly free to choose another major or drop out of school. Does that seem absurd? If it does, then it just means that you recognize that such solutions are not appropriate ways to deal with such a minor cost. The appropriate solution is to suck it up.
–Cliffy
Zog- I got everything I wanted out of that class, except a C so I could get the hell out of there. Some classes you like and the teachers make it interesting and you want to go. Other classes you do not like, but the teacher does a pretty good job, so you go. Other classes are easy enough for you to study on your own and still do well in the class. Aaaaaaaannnnndddddddd, other classes are at 8 in the morning on Monday, and you want to stay up drinking and taking bong hits until 7 in the morning Sunday night. 
Point is, if they are going to test you on your knowledge and you pass the test you should pass the class.
Not always, and that’s the point. For a great many of my classes, class time was not the wonderful situation Guinastasia describes in which the prof or TA was interacting with or teaching the students. The material taught in class was identical to the material in the book, just explained much more poorly. For some students, learning happened through reading the books, or through doing exercises, or through talking with people (not the prof) who knew the material.
So, should passing (or getting a decent grade in) the class be dependant upon sufficiently demonstrating that you’ve acquired the knowledge? Or should it matter that you’ve been in a specific chair a given time for so many hours each week?
Even though I don’t think it should be the latter, when attendance was required I sucked it up and went and came home and bitched.
I’ve always had an interest in teaching. The idea came to me one day that all grades counted, but at a minimum only tests counted.
Allow me to explain.
The core of the course grade would be based in the tests themselves. IF you chose to do homework for a grade, then by golly you got a grade. IF you chose not to, then no need to penalize you for it. Same goes for attendence; should you want participation to be a grade, then I have no problem doing so. Should you feel attendence is not an accurate way to measure educational ability, then I will agree and not use it against you.
I would, however, link homework/attendence to my willingness to aid a student who was having conceptual difficulty. Having a hard time, are we Mr Smith? Well, perhaps you should try joining our discussion some time. Until then I see no reason to help you.