<p>My local high school spent $140,000 on a security system for the front door. The back door has never been locked. It also spent $14,000 on a finger scanner for lunch, instead of the old number system. We didn’t have science textbooks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A Swarthmore senior wrote a school newspaper article a few years ago detailing his comprehensive research on the best place for a nap on campus. He covered all the obvious places, looking at their pros and cons. He finally concluded that falling asleep in the back of a dark lecture hall was the absolute best napping, but pointed out the concern that this could negatively impact your performance in class. So, he thought about it and decided that going to somebody else’s lecture class and falling asleep in the back of the room was far and away the optimum nap on campus.</p>
<p>I think part of this is that the rankings track graduation rate. If you just let in all the qualified students and then let the chips fall where they may, you get a low freshman retention rate, waste a bunch of parent dollars and for a state school, a bunch of taxpayer dollars.
If you can cajole the freshmen into getting better personal habits then more of them will be successful over all. But taking attendance by computer chip is just inviting cheating. If it’s a huge lecture class, set a seating chart and have one of the TA’s for the class compare student ID photos with the face in the seat. You are talking about 5 minutes, 3 times a week for most classes.</p>
<p>If someone at Swarthmore couldn’t come up with a better place to nap than a lecture class, then someone’s parent’s were paying too much tuition! Library, man, library!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see the logic, but it really is treating adults like children. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But do we have evidence this matters? So far, all we know there is a correlation between attendance and achievement in class. But it may not be that attendance is <em>causing</em> achievement. It could be that students that can do well (regardless), are also ones that like to attend class. It could be that some third variable, such as attitude, general good work habits, easy of understanding, both cause attendance and cause high performance. Forcing someone to attend doesn’t lead to better performance; so now they show up and they sleep. Great.</p>
<p>" If it’s a huge lecture class, set a seating chart and have one of the TA’s for the class compare student ID photos with the face in the seat."</p>
<p>In a seminar class I had at Michigan, you swiped your ID card to get into the auditorium, and there was someone watching a computer when it scanned. So they could look at the computer, and look at you. </p>
<p>Though then if you wanted to leave I guess there wasn’t really anything stopping anyone.</p>
<p>Qwerty: Where was that? I’ve never seen any scanners outside of auditoriums.</p>
<p>Engineering 407, the entrepreneurship seminar. It was in Stamps auditorium on North Campus.</p>
<p>Boy, am I surprised. I work on a college campus, although I haven’t taught for a few years, and I had never heard of such a thing. So last night I mentioned it to H, and he said, “oh yeah, some people in my dept. use the clickers.” </p>
<p>Although I never taught large lecture classes (mine were 30-40), I always took attendance. Taking attendance can consume a lot of time, unless you have assigned seats (which I thought was high schoolish). I took attendance (and assigned frequent homework) for two reasons–I felt being present (and doing hw) was essential to succeeding in the class, and I saw it as a way to “force” students to keep up. I know how easy it is to procrastinate, sleep in if you’ve pulled an all nighter, etc., and I felt my attendance policy was a little push in that direction. Students who chose not to attend (and some took that route) knew they would be penalized. Same with hw. Some people assign hw and allow students to self-grade. I always looked at the hw and made corrections/comments (if only a check mark), so that it meant something.</p>
<p>So I think clickers can be used for a positive academic purpose and are not a waste of money.</p>
<p>The local university used clickers as far back as 2004 (and I’m sure they aren’t the only ones), so I’m surprised this is news…</p>
<p>Got to say – the particular audience a given college is geared to meet has a lot to do with whether or not this makes sense. Does the average student at CMU or Chicago need this in order to do well in a class? I would guess not.</p>
<p>But NAU is a college that focuses on students whose high school experiences probably averaged as C+ - B+, and probably without a significant number of honors, AP, or IB courses. In the “Western Colleges for students with a 3.1-3.3 gpa” thread the school has gotten very positive reviews for students that were somewhat less mature, needed more support, and who hadn’t been academic superstars in high school. These are precisely the kids who really, really need to be in class every single day – they’re not necessarily capable of getting the work done on their own. But in a class of 40-60 students, taking attendance costs really valuable time that could better be spent teaching.</p>
<p>In the context of the students this school serves, the decision makes good sense to me. My nephew will be attending NAU, and his parents are thrilled at this news.</p>
<p>^ If you can get a B+ in highschool, with or without AP, and the highschool is legitimate and not just pushing kids through with grade inflation, there is no reason you can not succeed in college without monitoring. You don’t have to be an academic superstar or take “less than a significant number of AP courses” to get a degree. </p>
<p>I would also say that if you need someone to monitor you to go to college class, maybe you shouldn’t be in college. Not everyone is qualified for, into, motivated by, needs, or benefits from going to college. </p>
<p>These students might be happier, more motivated, and spend their time more wisely taking up a trade or learning a more closely related vocational skill that turns them on, or doing an apprencticeship. If going to class is a chore, and you need someone to watch you to make sure you show up, what needs ‘fixed’ is not electronic monitoring but something much bigger than that. </p>
<p>There is absolutely nothing wrong with alternative paths. If we start to elevating these paths adn giving them the respect they deserve (and the people who go down them the respect they deserve), we might collectively recognize the tremendous value in alternative post-highschool paths, we might not have this kind of nonsense.</p>
<p>Good point arabrab. Never thought of this. UW students would probably go on strike if they tried this there. The context matters- this student body would benefit it seems. Some of us are used to schools that are for other types of student bodies.</p>
<p>Starbright: Would you also say that if students need help from a tutoring center that they shouldn’t be at college? What about the counseling center? </p>
<p>I guess you can be of the opinion that the only students who should get a college education are those who are academically well prepared and strongly motivated with excellent work habits.</p>
<p>I’m of the belief that there are a lot of other kids – often late bloomers – who can be very successful in college with the right support. The reason that there are so many colleges in the country is that it isn’t one size fits all. </p>
<p>On the one hand we excoriate colleges for having poor graduation rates, and on the other we criticize a college that is taking positive action to deal with something that most college faculty and administrators would agree is a significant contributor to students not doing well in a class: failing to attend.</p>
<p>What’s wrong with this picture?</p>
<p>
A different viewpoint - attending college is entirely optional. The student should only be attending college if ‘they’ want to attend it. If they don’t then they should go do something else. Once they decide they’re going to attend college, hopefully as a means to an end, whether that be positioning for a good job, gaining knowledge, or just gaining the experience, they need to be self motivated enough to take advantage of it and participate and put in effort while they’re there. If they choose to not attend classes, choose to not study, choose not to do any of the work, choose not to take advantage of support services like tutoring, prof/TA office hours, counseling, etc., then they shouldn’t be there and should leave college and do something else until they decide they’re ready to attend. If they continue, it’s just a waste of resources, time, their own or their parents’ money, or if it’s a state school such as NAU, a waste of the taxpayers’ money.</p>
<p>Arabrab, you raise some good points. Let me try to give you my thoughts in parts. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the most interesting. I absolutely think that services should be available to assist students, especially those with learning disabilities. But I suppose why this feels different to me is because attendance is so basic and so volitional- one may not be able to change their writing abilities or study skills without help, but everyone can CHOOSE to show up for class if they so wish. As I see it, if you do not want to go to class, being forced to go to class probably isn’t good for anyone (not the student, his or her classmates, or the professor). At ages 8 or 15, yes, it makes sense. At 18 and someone else is paying for college, no. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is probably where we disagree the most. I would argue you need not be well prepared nor strongly motivated. What will suffice to be successful is a) “just prepared” (as in you really did earn a highschool diploma and weren’t pushed through the system), and b) “simply averagely motivated” (strongly motivated is not at all necessary). I would say that if you require external monitoring to make sure you go to enough classes to succeed, that sounds like you have no motivation for college and should not be at college. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would actually argue that with enough hand-holding (in various forms) anyone could go to college…even an average 15 year old who barely passed tenth grade. Where we probably disagree is how much is too much support and for me the question is, most importantly, what is the point? If you are a late bloomer, great, work for a few years and come back to it when you are mature enough or have figured out what you want to do with your life. If you aren’t motivated to go to enough classes to succeed, that is your choice and you should do something else. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The real issue is not graduation rate per se but providing a meaningful, useful education that doesn’t lead to a ton of cost in return for very little. There are tons of colleges that are merely exploiting the feeding frenzy around ‘going to college’ (particularly of the parental kind). A college for everyone! But what is the point of that? </p>
<p>Poor attendance and graduation rates are just symptoms, along with things like illiteracy or unemployment, despite having a degree in hand and a boat load of debt for it. If such schools aren’t able or willing to truly invest to make substantive differences, provide real value for the money, or at least demonstrate their value in existing at all, they probably should not be open for business. </p>
<p>I realize I’m being extreme here, so let me explain- this isn’t meant as a reflection on the school in the article or any particular school- but a more general problem with the state of the higher education INDUSTRY.</p>
<p>Starbright – thanks for your thoughtful responses. </p>
<p>This year I’ve been reading a lot of entries in the parents of the (college) class of 2013 thread, and several of these parents have kids with Asperger’s syndrome. Smart, but severely lacking in executive function skills. Lots of ADD kids have similar issues – Landmark college describes it as: “not planning, not getting to classes, not finishing homework, not turning in work even when it’s finished, not being able to complete papers or projects, etc. In other words, it’s not about being able to do the work, it’s about doing it. They have been told throughout their lives how bright and full of potential they are if they only applied themselves.” This is also similar to the behavior of a number of kids who are just slow to develop.</p>
<p>The military handles this problem – and produces many, many fine soldiers – by imposing a rigid, highly structured environment that molds often immature students into competent adults who understand responsibility and who push through problems. I’ve seen a lot of young veterans come back to college, and they bring a truly remarkable competence that they almost certainly lacked three or four years earlier. The structure made a difference, and even when the structure isn’t there any longer, the veterans are still very capable. </p>
<p>I see colleges like NAU providing a much more limited version of this kind of structure – and the kids who graduate seem to be competent - they seem to have a strong employment rate. They have a number of programs with a lot of hands-on experience that seems to be particularly beneficial for the population they serve. If providing some additional structure in the first couple of years of college helps more kids succeed, I’m in favor. I’m certainly not horrified by a school choosing to take attendance, whether that is done by a human or electronically.</p>
<p>I will note that in software development much, much use is being made of agile software development methodology, one component of which is formal daily review of projects and results and rapidly developing components in much smaller pieces. One reason companies have found this so effective is that it supplies a lot of the “executive function” support discussed above by not allowing people to get too far off-track. I see efforts like NAU’s as being quite similar.</p>