The end of college
In my ongoing series of posts about how we need to rethink the whole college model – including the way we get kids there and what we do to them there – here’s an article from The Atlantic Monthly by a professor who seems to agree. He teaches at two colleges “of last resort” – places where average and worse students end up, and most of them can’t do what should be required of all liberally educated graduates: they cannot write.
Remarkably few of my students can do well in these classes. Students routinely fail; some fail multiple times, and some will never pass, because they cannot write a coherent sentence.
So, what happens when this happens, when so many students fail and show that they are radically unprepared for college work?
What actually happens is that nothing happens. I feel no pressure from the colleges in either direction. My department chairpersons, on those rare occasions when I see them, are friendly, even warm. They don’t mention all those students who have failed my courses, and I don’t bring them up. There seems, as is often the case in colleges, to be a huge gulf between academia and reality. No one is thinking about the larger implications, let alone the morality, of admitting so many students to classes they cannot possibly pass. The colleges and the students and I are bobbing up and down in a great wave of societal forces-social optimism on a large scale, the sense of college as both a universal right and a need, financial necessity on the part of the colleges and the students alike, the desire to maintain high academic standards while admitting marginal students-that have coalesced into a mini-tsunami of difficulty.
No one has drawn up the flowchart and seen that, although more-widespread college admission is a bonanza for the colleges and nice for the students and makes the entire United States of America feel rather pleased with itself, there is one point of irreconcilable conflict in the system, and that is the moment when the adjunct instructor, who by the nature of his job teaches the worst students, must ink the F on that first writing assignment.
Ah, so true. It is a broken system. Too many students fail, so grading gets easier. Grading gets easier, education gets worse. On and on, until China takes over.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top46 Comments to “The end of college”
This is true not just at the college level. In many public school districts, there is widespread marginalization as the district makes a greater effort to accommodate the lower end (with the idea in mind that any child can achieve anything, referenced in a prior article), and less of an effort to stimulate the higher end, who actually COULD achieve close to anything (viable) with the proper preparation.
Report comment to moderator
It’s funny that the writer points out that many college students can’t write.
It’s funny because the writer composes sentences like this:
No one has drawn up the flowchart and seen that, although more-widespread college admission is a bonanza for the colleges and nice for the students and makes the entire United States of America feel rather pleased with itself, there is one point of irreconcilable conflict in the system, and that is the moment when the adjunct instructor, who by the nature of his job teaches the worst students, must ink the F on that first writing assignment.
Honestly, you’d think he could break that whopper down a little.
Report comment to moderator
“Honestly, you’d think he could break that whopper down a little.”
I think he’s assuming that the people who’ll read this article are among the literate ones.
Report comment to moderator
I consider myself literate (just barely), but I had trouble keeping up with that sentence. KISS is a great motto for all writers, especially those trying to sound erudite.
Report comment to moderator
In my wife’s school district, they have a huge budget shortfall. There was an elementary school the district wanted to close because the student achievement there was horrible and the teachers were the worst in the district too. it was a win – win – win – win situation where the district won in reducing cost and eliminating waste, the teachers won by getting rid of the worst of them, the students won because they would get better teachers at a new school and the parents won because their children would be getting a better chance in life – something any parent would want for their children.
But, the parents of the kids that went to this school had a hissy fit because they would have to drive their kids an estimated 3 more miles to school or their kids would be riding the bus 6 minutes longer. They actually forced the school district to back down and keep this school open for next year.
This clearly proves two things. If you are an underachiever it is not your fault and you are a retarded victim . Your parents were not the sharpest pencils in the box but they didn’t even have a box so you are not at fault in any way. Two, The school district administration has proven that they can’t do anything right, even if they try and they are a not a bunch of sharp pencils either. They might know their box is missing but they don’t have clue where or how to start looking for it.
The administration is bunch of dull pencils that has their box gone missing.
Report comment to moderator
I have been in Professor Hall’s position. I have taught the returning college students who were struggling to make ends meet while keeping up with the assignments in my class. I also have high standards and feel a strong ethical obligation to turn out, if not future Pulitzer winners, at least solid, competent writers.
Thus, I feel this teacher’s pain, but it is obvious to me that some of the problems he is having are being caused either by himself or by his department, not by his students. He is clearly, first of all, a literature professor trying to force his love of literature into a writing class: “when we start reading “Araby” or “Barn Burning,” their boredom quickly becomes apparent. They fidget; they prop their heads on their arms; they yawn and sometimes appear to grimace in pain, as though they had been tasered. Their eyes implore: How could you do this to me?”
No kidding.
Why is a general level writing class reading Joyce? If a class can handle the material, then go for it, but if you’re failing 9 out of 15 students, then either you are blessed with a crop of exceptionally horrible and stupid writers, or you seriously need to adjust your strategies as a teacher. And if your department won’t let you, then that’s a more immediate problem than the relative stupidity of the returning students you teach.
English 101 is a place to teach writing, argument, sentence structure, citation, etc. Maybe some of these are things students should have picked up in high school, but a lot of then didn’t, and many of those who did have long ago forgotten it. That might indicate a general problem with the American educational system, but this article certainly offers no convincing evidence of that problem. Instead, as I read, I felt increasing sympathy for these 101 students who are being forced to read JSTOR articles (normally reserved for upper-lever undergraduate or graduate students) and try to decipher confusing assignments.
When discussing “Ms. L” for example, I’m amazed that this teacher can’t recognize the teaching opportunities he is missing in his single-minded effort to maintain “quality” in his classroom:
He says, “At our next meeting after class in the library, Ms. L. asked me whether she could do her paper on abortion. What exactly, I asked, was the historical controversy? Well, she replied, whether it should be allowed. She was stuck, I realized, in the well-worn groove of assignments she had done in high school. I told her that I thought the abortion question was more of an ethical dilemma than a historical controversy.
“I’ll have to figure it all out,” she said.”
That’s it? Based on what he writes in the article, I have no idea how he distinguishes between “historical” and “ethical” in his assignments. I have no idea how abortion is exempted from historical controversy. I have no idea why this woman couldn’t write the paper she wanted to write within the parameters of the assignment. Instead of explaining himself and teaching this student, he leaves her to wander around vaguely and then has the arrogance to write about her in the Atlantic as though it’s her fault she can’t read his mind.
I have no doubt that “Ms. L” struggled with writing. Perhaps she even deserved her F, and I’m sure there are those on this board who will applaud this teacher for his “bravery” in maintaining standards (paranoid lest the New York Times might sneak into his class for an exposé). But this article is not the kind of simplistic demonstration of failing educational standards that Harrison Key seems to think it is. Instead it is, at best, an example of a teacher who seems to have surrendered teaching for editorializing about teaching. This is certainly a better paying profession, but not necessarily a nobler one.
Report comment to moderator
Lester, I think you’re right. The sentence is readable, but my peer editing groups in high school would definitely have caught that run-on.
Report comment to moderator
Llama – Unforetunately, in most public school districts, closing the bad school with the bad teachers would not get the bad teachers out of the district – unless they were the lowest seniority teachers. Assuming that they were not lowest on the district’s seniority chart, they would have to be moved to other schools – and if any teachers were to be let go, they would be other, newer teachers (who might have been very good albeit less experienced).
Report comment to moderator
Lester, you are right. The sentence in question would work better as two or three separate sentences. However, it’s still a better sentence than what many college students write.
I used to wonder, when I was an undergraduate, what certain students were doing in certain classes. They should have realized that they could not pass. Their advisors should have known that, too. The colleges are ripping people off by taking their money under such circumstances.
One of the bravest professors I ever had told a tone-deaf percussionist that he would never be able to complete a degree in music. He was an excellent drummer, but he could not sight read music or match a pitch vocally or take down a melody line from dictation. The professor offered to help him figure out a better degree plan, and even encouraged him that he might still be able to work as a drummer or keep drumming as a hobby.
Report comment to moderator
Most discussions of unprepared or incompetent university students avoid the main issues.
*We are born with different abilities and different ability levels. It’s not fair, and it’s not PC, but it’s just the truth.
*There should be no shame in being academically weak or incapable, any more than there should be shame in not being talented in athletics or art or any other field.
*Many of these students’ failures began with poor kindergarten and first-grade instruction. Fix the elementary schools, and you will fix a lot of the university problems. Teach them to read and write in the first place, and then they will know how when they get to college.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle – you bring up some salient points, but the underlying cause is the parents.
Parents, more than anyone else, should understand their child’s abilities. They should work with the school system and the child to develop the child’s strengths and mitigate the child’s weaknesses. Trying to fit a round peg in a square hole only hurts the child.
Parents are more responsible for the school system and their child’s success in school. Yes, more responsible than the teachers and more responsible than the administration.
You don’t like the curriculum? Change it. School boards have power. Vote accordingly.
Child not doing well in school? Before blaming the teacher, look at yourself. Are you involved in the school? Are you ensuring your child does his/her homework? Are you limiting TV?
Parents are most responsible for their child’s academic achievement – by a long shot.
Once parents take back the public school system and look objectively at their child’s academic needs, the system will improve.
Unfortunately, most parents see the public schools as a babysitter or just a right of passage. Most parents are too self-absorbed to care until it’s too late.
Report comment to moderator
While it was not at a college, but rather a trade school, my husband was once honorably fired. What do I mean by “honorably” fired? I mean that he was fired for doing the ethical thing.
He was teaching at a computer training school that depended on each of the students getting a certain level of grade so that the school would get its government subsidy. He was fired for flunking students who could not do the work! As he told the students, he did not want to meet one of their future employers and be asked why he had let them pass.
I think that some colleges push students through for the same reason these days.
Report comment to moderator
The cultural problem is a deeper matter than simple achievement in any level of schooling. America tends to be a goal-oriented society, so students and professors see classes as hurdles to overcome & prizes to win, not opportunities to learn.
A proper educational system would have professors teach a certain subject to a select number of students. When the professor considers one of his students competent, the student moves on to the next subject. But that style of education-by-tutoring will never appear in the mass-produced goal-achieving society we’ve developed.
Congratulations, Capitalism. You’ve crippled us all.
Report comment to moderator
Hold on there, Eumaeus.
Our public education system looks much more like a socialist training ground than any product of capitalism.
It’s there primarily to train the workers.
It considers the state to be an exalted family, and thus usurps the actual family units.
It does this by providing “services” for the kids rather than simply educating them.
It urges children to question the “values” of mom and dad and of the church but insists that they except the “values’ of the state.
It advocates “tolerance,” which means conformity to Big Brother’s values.
I could go on. . .
Report comment to moderator
Sure, there are elements of socialism in the school system as well. That’s true of any institution paid for with public money, and particularly true of public schooling. I agree entirely.
But that doesn’t get capitalism of the hook for turning education’s focus towards goal-oriented achievement.
Why is it impossible to note a weakness of capitalism without stirring up anti-socialism arguments? Few things in real life are truly binary arguments; why do so many people in our society presume economic systems are either capitalism or socialism? A weakness with one is not an argument for a strength in the other. They’re both man-made systems.
Report comment to moderator
The Atlantic Monthly professor must be in a weird place. Public universities with which I am very familiar are much concerned with student success, attrition, and graduation rate with a whole array of supporting tutorial and advisatory internal agencies to help them.
Report comment to moderator
OZ —”English 101 is a place to teach writing, argument, sentence structure, citation, etc. Maybe some of these are things students should have picked up in high school, but a lot of then didn’t, and many of those who did have long ago forgotten it”
This very problem was being discussed in 1969 when I was a freshman and the opinion of the time was that there was no “maybe” about it—these subjects should have been introduced in middle school (known as Jr. High then), practiced in 10-11 grades, and proof of competency required from seniors to graduate. It would seem there has been no progress toward resolving this problem of college professors teaching remedial English to improperly prepared students. The remedy then was to fail them as it should be now.
For colleges to further dumb down graduation requirements in order to send the incompetent on—to what? industry?—only ensures our future as a ‘was’ world power. We will not make it as a country of burger flippers serving educational superstars from around the world for very long once they discover that our Shangri-la can be recreated anywhere if you’re willing to ignore the peasants outside the gates—just as will be necessary here.
Additionally, why would those same educational superstars want to come to our then marginal universities, staffed by marginal professors, teaching marginal students who provide no competition nor offer inspired insight worth learning from in the first place? Better schools will replace ours, drawing the best students—just as the cream always seeks and rises to the top—and there is no requirement they be located in this country.
Report comment to moderator
HSK proclaims “The End of College”
Now there’s an evangelical fantasy! Too bad that, despite HSK’s best selective quote-mining, it isn’t even close to happening.
Education will continue. That’s actually a good thing.
Report comment to moderator
We have a broken system. We’ll be paying for this for years and years to come. Maybe we need more Federal control and involvemt over education.
Yeah, that’s the ticket! And higher pay for the school district superintendents and their unionized underlings.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder, sometimes, at the conclusion of a course, when I fail nine out of 15 students, whether the college will send me a note either (1) informing me of a serious bottleneck in the march toward commencement and demanding that I pass more students, or (2) commending me on my fiscal ingenuity—my high failure rate forces students to pay for classes two or three times over.
What actually happens is that nothing happens. I feel no pressure from the colleges in either direction.
Speaking as a full time community college professor, this guy sounds like too much of a hard-ass and at many colleges wouldn’t be called back as an adjunct (who work on a semester to semester contract). I’m all for standards; at one end of the bell curve you might have profs who think grades are meaningless so everyone should get an “A” (or everyone who does the work). Failing 9 out of 15 in a typical semester is, in my opinion, too far to the other end.
Community colleges are diverse in terms of background and ability. You find the middle and teach to it. Some students (the ones headed for good 4-year colleges) will probably relatively easily get “As” and others (folks, God love ‘em who are below average intelligence, ability or motivation — I’ve had developmentally disabled, i.e, un-PC: “retarded,” students) will not pass. But the median should be in the B and C range.
Report comment to moderator
Another point: Students aren’t stupid. Once a hard ass fails them, they’ll take someone else. For ENG 101 classes, they usually have lots of other profs from which to choose and can go to ratemyprofessors.com which has markers for easiness. Unless all the english profs. make a concerted effort to be as difficult as he seems to be (some colleges have concerted action — standardized final tests, or at my college no matter what grade you get in the ENG courses, you have to pass a final standard essay; it’s P/F and doesn’t affect your grade, but you can’t get your credits until you pass the essay; you get multiple attempts to do so), he’ll fail the students unlucky enough to take him for the first time. And then they’ll take someone easier, pass, and be on their way.
Report comment to moderator
For colleges to further dumb down graduation requirements in order to send the incompetent on—to what? industry?—only ensures our future as a ‘was’ world power.
“Industry” has a lot of power or say in the matter. If they feel a degree isn’t worth the paper its written on, they can stop valuing them in terms of hiring and promotion practices.
As long as profs grade on a bell curve (i.e. don’t give everyone the same grade) industry can figure out the grade inflation and GPA, like a generalized standardize test, is often a good proxy for intellectual ability, the ability to critically think.
Employers don’t have perfect information and have to use various measures as proxies. They tend to shy away from generalized employment tests as they once used (they were attacked as “discriminatory”); but now often use such things as college degrees and GPAs. They may not be perfect predictors. But, in a world of uncertain information, they probably DO have some useful predictive ability and that’s why professions are still requiring degrees and looking at GPAs.
Report comment to moderator
Universities and colleges have it sooooo good. Tuition comes in based on the number of butts seated in the lecture hall. Whether or not teaching or learning even happens is secondary.
And with university administrators accountable to NO ONE WHATSOEVER, they can and will jack up the price ea semester.
Young people get loans or grants, so they have no incentive to demand cost containment from the colleges.
You gotta wonder how much $$ colleges spend teaching remedial stuff which should have been mastered in high school.
Sounds like a job for Dr Bill Bennet!
Report comment to moderator
When I worked in adult ed at a community college, I learned that 43% of entering college students take remedial courses (called “developmental” in pc lingo). These are usually no-credit classes that have to be passed before taking the credit courses (like Eng 101). In talking with the instructors in the department, I found out that a lot of the students were not passing, but continued taking the course because Uncle Sam was paying for them to be retrained after their factories closed. Some were 60 year old grandmothers who could not afford to retire, but were laid off and sent to the college by the job service (which had an office on campus). Perhaps the author’s school needs to offer these courses.
Report comment to moderator
This is a rather universal phenomenon. In all developed countries, college has often become little more than a multi-year vacation from the realities of life. This is also true in Europe in Japan in all but the very best universities.
It is also largely true of private Christian schools. I have a friend who taught high school science at a public school. He decided to take a pay cut and teach at a Reformed Christian high school. He found that the Christian kids were far lazier and unmotivated than his public-school students. Of course, it probably matters that he taught in a public school in an affluent suburb.
Report comment to moderator
We’ve discovered why the author is stuck writing for a second rate political blog. Goodness, Mr. Key. Also, that our universities are suffering as a result of the Republican majority over the last few terms.
Report comment to moderator
“Universities and colleges have it sooooo good. Tuition comes in based on the number of butts seated in the lecture hall. Whether or not teaching or learning even happens is secondary.”
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I learned after I obtained my Master’s Degree that I did not have to work near as hard as I did. I could have spend alot more time having fun. I don’t think the run on and on and on sentence published by the original writer is a sign of ignorance. I think the author lacked editing style but clearly portrays his/her voice in a characteristic style. That is the rationale for the teaching of e-bonics in school. You dont have to be accurate; Ya gotta have style!
I spent too many years being correct. I am just as unemployed as anyone when it comes to budget deficits. Why should we educate our students to strive for higher standards of academic excellence when we can not promise them that thier professional expertise will secure them a good job for thier future? Unemployment hits us all the same. My advice “Learn a little, laugh alot”
Report comment to moderator
Godlumps,
Of course! It’s George Bush’s fault! Why didn’t I think of that? You Dems may be a little developmentally challenged yourselves. You have one answer to every problem. “It’s George Bush’s fault.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon — “Employers don’t have perfect information and have to use various measures as proxies. They tend to shy away from generalized employment tests as they once used (they were attacked as “discriminatory”); but now often use such things as college degrees and GPAs. They may not be perfect predictors. But, in a world of uncertain information, they probably DO have some useful predictive ability and that’s why professions are still requiring degrees and looking at GPAs.”
But if professors are teaching to the middle of the class, as you, Mr. Nice Guy teacher, suggest is necessary to generate Bs & Cs, how is it that the mean value of the education you provide isn’t continually dropping along with the abilities of the students? If you must teach down to them, the value of education you impart certainly isn’t going up. And if so, the value of a GPA is dropping along with every other predictive the university provides about the student?
Industry doesn’t have the luxury of using/allowing the “float” of standards to keep the ship on an even keel. If they don’t produce within the terms of the marketplace, using the available workforce, it will find itself out of the market because those standards will always be as high as the best in the business make them. If the workforce can’t compete at that level, industry either doesn’t compete or goes somewhere else to employ a different workforce which can compete.
Report comment to moderator
If I taught at a consistently higher level (like for instance, the prose & research I often present on these threads) more students wouldn’t understand what I taught and would flunk out. Then they wouldn’t be educated at all.
I also try, after The Simpsons, (one of my favorite sources I try to use as examples to explain concepts) and Looney Toones (I would use them more often, but are now less culturally relevant) try to teach to various “levels” simultaneously.
Even with grade inflation, grades still have value as long there is ranking. $1 might not be worth as much as it was 10 years ago; but it doesn’t cancel out the fact that money still performs a very useful function. Likewise as long as everyone doesn’t get a 4.0 or a 0.0, employers will learn how to value the GPA in “real life” just as sellers know to value a gallon of milk at 3 or 4 dollars whereas 25 years ago it might have been 2 dollars a gallon.
I know this from first hand experience getting a JD and MBA simultaneously from the same college: Temple University. The grades were inflated differently. The law school originally had a forced curve of 3.0 and then went down to 2.85 to punish the students for a then lackluster bar passage rate (that problem has since been solved). In business school, A-/B+ were the median grades and a “C” was considered failing (if you had too many of them, you’d get kicked out. My law school GPA was 3.22; my MBA GPA was 3.68. My class rank in law school was probably slightly higher; thus comparatively I probably did slightly better in law school.
Employers, when faced with masses of resumes from law and business graduates from various schools tend to figure these things out relatively quickly, similar to the way in which the market understands to value a gallon of milk now between 3-4 dollars and not as it did 25 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
And again, I’ll note, Industry which does face a bottom line, demands and puts demands on academia. If education and degrees really became less valuable, industry would value them less.
It’s also a myth that there is no accountability. There is lots of accountability to government regulations and accrediting agencies. Some argue there is too much. The myriad of rules and regulations academia faces mires educators down in red tape and distracts them from teachers really want to do which is teach!
Report comment to moderator
RRBAR-29 I made no reference to President Bush. Try again.
Report comment to moderator
Jon — “If I taught at a consistently higher level (like for instance, the prose & research I often present on these threads) more students wouldn’t understand what I taught and would flunk out. Then they wouldn’t be educated at all.”
That’s true about teaching an ever increasing level of difficulty of subject matter—without regard for student ability—but shouldn’t you at least maintain the present level or standard and expect the student to meet that standard? I thought that was the fundamental goal of education—to consistently improve or grow the amount of knowledge just as you seek to improve us through these threads.
Yet, if I read you correctly, you are willing to compromise that standard because it is more important for the student to continue to warm the chair while you impart pabulum instead of the meat the student signed up for when deciding to take your class. Instead of being found incapable and suffering some sort of ego deflation at your hand it’s better for the student to falsely think themselves knowledgeable in the subject and deal with their inability when it shows up later—perhaps while employed when the penalty for incompetence could be far greater and the fall/landing much further/harder.
And what about the serious student, capable of meeting the standard you should be teaching, but must settle for a diminished version? Are they not cheated?
Report comment to moderator
RRBAR-I am an Independent. That means no party affiliation.
Report comment to moderator
No you don’t read me correctly. I don’t change my standards and I don’t have to because the general level of student ability hasn’t changed in the 9 years that I have been teaching. If anything I’m getting harder as time goes on because experience has a way of making you less soft.
Report comment to moderator
And what about the serious student, capable of meeting the standard you should be teaching, but must settle for a diminished version? Are they not cheated?
As I noted, I teach at different levels. I sometimes have to struggle not to get too intellectual or else I’ll “lose” many of the students, which happens when I use big words which I often define for them when I use them. The smart ones are never bored by the material I present (in terms of its lack of complexity or that it does not challenge; believe me, it’s impossible to teach the law of contracts and not have it be a challenge to even bright students; some might be bored because they just don’t like the material, i.e., they don’t like learning about contracts). I try to make the tests fair enough so that most of the class won’t fail or gets in the B & C range (i.e., I don’t load every single question on the test with the hardest, most challenging contractual material which would guarantee a high % of the students flunking out; you have a fair spread of questions of varying degrees of difficulty).
Report comment to moderator
#20 — ” You find the middle and teach to it.”
#36 — “No you don’t read me correctly. I don’t change my standards and I don’t have to because the general level of student ability hasn’t changed in the 9 years that I have been teaching.”
#37 — “As I noted, I teach at different levels. I sometimes have to struggle not to get too intellectual or else I’ll “lose” many of the students, which happens when I use big words which I often define for them when I use them.”
I guess it’s just me. You obviously are a rock solidly consistent teacher and a student you taught 9 years ago got the same message and education as the ones 5, 3, and 2 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Jon rowe-I like you blog spot video of O’Reilly going insane.
Report comment to moderator
The law of contracts has not changed in 9 years.
I’d imagine I’m an a) better teacher after 9 years of living and learning and b) somewhat harder in my standards as experience tends to “toughen” us teachers.
I’m still teaching them the same law of offer and acceptance. But whereas I used to sit down behind my desk the first year of teaching, now I tend to run around and jump on desks.
I feel kind of like my favorite singer Steve Walsh from Kansas. The first few years he sat down and sang because he liked to use the foot pedals of his organ. Then he started standing up and singing while playing keyboards and running around on stage.
But yes, these are for the most part, the same rules (i.e., “education”) unless those rules have changed (which they have in the one chapter of Con. Law that we teach in Bus. Law, but not in the majority of chapters which deal with common law contracts), hopefully better put as time goes on.
But believe me, with all the time I spend on law related websites like Volokh and Balkinization, I have no problem staying current with changes in the law.
Why do I feel like I’m being subjected to a harsh job interview?
Report comment to moderator
Godlumps.
Thanks. That thing is priceless.
Report comment to moderator
Revolution in purpose is what it will take. What is the purpose of college?
Report comment to moderator
I is a college student.
Just kidding. Well, I am a college student, but I apologize for the intentionally bad grammar and a bad joke. Currently I am attending a small, liberal arts college in the Midwest, though I’m having an awfully difficult time deciding upon my major. My biggest obstacle is that I enjoy and do well in all of my classes. Thus, I hate the thought of choosing just one discipline to study.
Anyways, from early on, my parents instilled in me a love for knowledge. They nurtured my interests, encouraged me to pursue my passions, and sat me under the tutelage of great teachers…Shakespeare, Lincoln, Newton, etc. I was permitted to explore and discover. Cooking was a new way to learn fractions. Interviews with Grandpa served as history lessons. Now, at twenty years old, I am quite grateful that I like to learn.
However, I feel that I am a strange phenomenon among my fellow classmates. Forgive a few generalizations: history papers are put aside until the night before or the morning of, discussions in philosophy are shallow because no one actually read “The Cave” before coming to class, and speeches are absolutely pathetic ramblings, peppered with a plethora of “like”s and “um”s. It’s frustrating.
But it’s also to be expected. College is just an extension of high school which was an extension of junior high which was an extension of elementary school. School is not about education and its significance does not lie in the precious knowledge retained afterwards. You go because it’s just one more step to climb. Get a degree, and then supposedly get a better job. Most students I know are only concerned with passing, not doing well. Screw excellence; just don’t suck. Perhaps it doesn’t help that for many, their parents are paying the price. When tuition costs close to twenty thousand dollars a year and I’M the one who has to dish it out, my time here becomes far more valuable. Some students would rather not go at all, but do only because they’re given a free ride.
I can also empathize with my professors. Most are passionate about their field, but find it disheartening to teach students who could care less about adolescent development or the theatres of Greece. Sometimes the material is difficult to grasp, even for me, but certainly one is not without adequate resources.
For example, my ENG 101 class was brimful of basic writing tips that I recalled from high school. My professor was readily available by phone, e-mail, office hours, or after/before class. Writing tutors would read and critique my papers if I wanted. Opportunities for learning (and help for those who need it) are there. But not many take advantage.
When all students care about is not failing (and some, not even that), professors must become just the slightest bit discouraged. There is so much to know! So much to learn! So much to discuss and analyze! How sad to see so many young people who are too busy with other things.
It’s not all their fault, though. A love for learning must be taught right away, early in life. If a pattern of “moving up grade levels” is established in kindergarten, one can hardly expect a college student to suddenly possess a different mindset about information. I see the problem. But I’m not quite as sure about how to fix it.
Report comment to moderator
I is a college student.
Just kidding. Well, I am a college student, but I apologize for the intentionally incorrect grammar and bad joke. Currently I am attending a small, liberal arts college in the Midwest, though I’m having an awfully difficult time deciding upon my major. My biggest obstacle is that I enjoy and do well in all of my classes. Thus, I hate the thought of choosing just one discipline to study.
Anyways, from early on, my parents instilled in me a love for knowledge. They nurtured my interests, encouraged me to pursue my passions, and sat me under the tutelage of great teachers…Shakespeare, Lincoln, Newton, etc. I was permitted to explore and discover. Cooking was a new way to learn fractions. Interviews with Grandpa served as history lessons. Now, at twenty years old, I am quite grateful that I like to learn.
However, I feel that I am a strange phenomenon among my fellow classmates. Forgive a few generalizations: history papers are put aside until the night before or the morning of, discussions in philosophy are shallow because no one actually read “The Cave” before coming to class, and speeches are absolutely pathetic ramblings, peppered with a plethora of “like”s and “um”s. It’s frustrating.
But it’s also to be expected. College is just an extension of high school which was an extension of junior high which was an extension of elementary school. School is not about education and its significance does not lie in the precious knowledge retained afterwards. You go because it’s just one more step to climb. Get a degree, and then supposedly get a better job. Most students I know are only concerned with passing, not doing well. Screw excellence; just don’t suck. Perhaps it doesn’t help that for many, their parents are paying the price. When tuition costs close to twenty thousand dollars a year and I’M the one who has to dish it out, my time here becomes far more valuable. Some students would rather not go at all, but do only because they’re given a free ride.
I can also empathize with my professors. Most are passionate about their field, but find it disheartening to teach students who could care less about adolescent development or the theatres of Greece. Sometimes the material is difficult to grasp, even for me, but certainly one is not without adequate resources.
For example, my ENG 101 class was brimful of basic writing tips that I recalled from high school. My professor was readily available by phone, e-mail, office hours, or after/before class. Writing tutors would read and critique my papers if I wanted. Opportunities for learning (and help for those who need it) are there. But not many take advantage.
When all students care about is not failing (and some, not even that), professors must become just the slightest bit discouraged. There is so much to know! So much to learn! So much to discuss and analyze! How sad to see so many young people who are too busy with other things.
It’s not all their fault, though. A love for learning must be taught right away, early in life. If a pattern of “moving up grade levels” is established in kindergarten, one can hardly expect a college student to suddenly possess a different mindset about information. I see the problem. But I’m not quite as sure about how to fix it.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry about the double post. My computer was acting up on me yesterday.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry about the double post! My computer was acting up on me yesterday.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!