<p>He reminds me of a piano teacher I knew (we were both private piano teachers). We were discussing how to deal with transfer students who come with serious deficits and also difficult students who just don't have any underlying musical sensibility, poor motor skills, paralysing nervousness, lack of rhythm, etc. She told me she just gets rid of them, leaving her studio with only the best, talented, easy-to-teach students. I looked at her, eyes wide, and said, "How do you just get rid of a student?" She said, "I give them a very difficult piece of music- one that I know is far beyond their current level. They eventually get frustrated and quit. <em>I</em> don't have to do a thing!"
People like that shouldn't be in the teaching professions.</p>
<p>This article actually addresses two very real issues that should be of concern to our society: First, the fact that so many colleges are attempting to take advantage of and cash in on a large and growing number of non-traditional, older, returning students WITHOUT providing them with the appropriate "learning tools" (curriculum, teachers, etc)) to meet THEIR educational needs (which are very different from the college bound students fresh out of high school). By merely demanding that any student no matter what their background or age must meet one standard that is only suited for younger students who have been better prepared to meet that standard is an example of how the college has neglected its responsibility to educate </p>
<p>If these folks are truly not "college material" then why was the door opened to them? This is like telling someone who is hungry to go down to the river and catch a fish even though they do not have any fishing pole, hooks, bait etc. Like going into an elementary school and expecting students to learn - without any books, paper, pens or other resources.</p>
<p>Second, is the mere fact that so many of these "students" have even been put into this situation to begin with; they have been told that they MUST become "college material", often by their employers, who for whatever reason, have determined that the "value" of the paper that a diploma is printed on - is their employees' jobs, and that these employees, who one might have thought had already "proved" their worth, actually have no value without that diploma. </p>
<p>Isn't it sad that this piece of paper has become the end-all and be-all in the minds of so many, or that the knowledge and experience of our "grandfathers" can no longer be "grandfathered in," in this society? (My own father was one of those older employees who, 20 years ago, had reached a middle management level - without a college education - at a large company where he had worked almost his entire adult life, and was then "let go" at the age of 50 because he did not have a college degree, and replaced by someone who did... what a waste).</p>
<p>doubleplay, I have friends who both teach piano on the side. My friend says her husband has no patience with the untalented students so he passes them on to her. He's not a bad teacher, he just is a bad teacher for certain kinds of students. Perhaps you could say the same of Professor X. </p>
<p>I had to write a few joint papers in grad school at Columbia, and I can tell you there are people who even after four years at well known colleges, still are pretty marginal writers.</p>
<p>I think many of you are being unreasonably hard on Professor X. I found myself heartily agreeing with him. College is not for everybody--many people (like the cops in his example) might be able to do the work, but have no interest, and many people (like the unfortunate Ms. L) may not have the ability to do the work, or if there is underlying ability, be so woefully unprepared that it would take a year or two of remediation for them to function in a college level class. </p>
<p>I used to tutor disadvantaged elementary school students, and I do not claim to be the best tutor, but honestly--how can you expect any teacher--an elementary teacher or an adjunct at a community college--to not only teach their student the material that is part of the grade level or class the student is there to take, but also make up for the gaping lack of knowledge that makes it impossible for the student to learn the grade level material fast enough for the student to pass the class in the time allotted. How can I teach a 4th grader fractions when he or she doesn't have the faintest clue about place order and does not even know his or her basic addition and subtraction facts? How far back should this professor be expected to go in order to make up for Ms. L's lack of knowledge? He could spend a year with her and she would not be ready for English 101--typically students have 12 years of progressively more difficult language arts instruction before being expected to function at the 101 level. Why is it Mr. X's job to cram probably 6 of those 12 years of prep into out of class tutoring sessions in a semester?</p>
<p>And I'm sorry-if Ms. L doesn't have even the most basic computer skills like clicking on a link or using a search engine, how exactly can she even look up paper resources like books? There are no card catalogs any more--she has to be able to use a search engine to find a book on the shelf in any library she's likely to be in!</p>
<p>Are there no card catalogs left in any library? Wow.</p>
<p>Anyway, JSTOR is a great resource, but you have to know what you're looking for to start with. For example, if you want to write a piece on 18th century English literature, the Journal of Asian Studies is not where you'd look for it. But what journals would be good resources? This is the sort of support profs at Ivy League often provide to their students. They don't just say "Look up JSTOR."
They also provide examples of what is a good paper, what is a so-so one, and so on. Ms. L clearly did not write a college-level paper. But that she could have spent a whole semester in Prof. X's class without being shown what one would look like is mind-boggling.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why is it Mr. X's job to cram probably 6 of those 12 years of prep into out of class tutoring sessions in a semester?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because he took the job, which entails these students. If he can't do it, he should quit. As Mathmom said,</p>
<p>
[quote]
He's not a bad teacher, he just is a bad teacher for certain kinds of students. Perhaps you could say the same of Professor X.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why is it Prof X's job?? Because, unfortunately for him, his college felt it appropriate to accept Ms. L as a student at their institution and felt it appropriate to place her in his class - a class for non-traditional students only, mind you. And he was hired to specifically teach these particular students. Should a teacher who is NOT trained in teaching special needs children be given the responsibility of teaching them? Instead we see Prof X passing the buck to others when he discovers that most of students lack the skills they need to succeed in the course as he has structured it (as if THAT was not predictable??!!). He had a choice; if he did not want to deal with the "special needs" of the adult learners that he chose to teach, he should have just stuck to his day job.</p>
<p>Although certainly the "responsibility" lies mostly with the college who hired him and who seems disinterested in the education of this particular group of learners.</p>
<p>In defense of Prof X, let him vent. Many years ago I taught comp. 101--probably the most hated required course at any college.<br>
The school went out of its way to help struggling students.
There were remedial classes (ENG 097/098) that some students had completed before comp. 101. The dept. had a writing center open into the evening hours where students could get free help/tutoring. The university had a new/large/fully-staffed library where they could get help with research. Most students did not care to make use of available resources. My biggest problem at that time was plagiarism/cheating. I found that the older returning students tended to do better--they had more of a stake in it because they needed the degree for a job and/or were paying for it themselves. I was impressed with how well some of them remembered high school grammar! The younger students--well, many were there because their parents made them go. I once got a call from the dept. chair to "consider" changing a cheerleader's grade from a D to a C (her mom had called). I did. Looking back, I guess that most of the students I taught probably shouldn't have been in college. They were just wasting their parents' money. Not everyone is cut out for this type of academic work. And that is OK.
Yes, there are a few very gifted teachers out there who can pound square pegs into round holes, but I wasn't one of them. The whole scenario is just a recipe for frustration for all involved--same with the untalented piano students who continue for years making very little/no progress--wasting their own time, the teacher's time, and their parents $. Let them quit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
JSTOR is a great resource, but you have to know what you're looking for to start with. For example, if you want to write a piece on 18th century English literature, the Journal of Asian Studies is not where you'd look for it. But what journals would be good resources? This is the sort of support profs at Ivy League often provide to their students. They don't just say "Look up JSTOR."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But in the quote I posted above, Prof X does indeed demonstrate how to look up articles on JSTOR. He/She doesn't comment on other students having difficulty doing this part of the research project, so at least some of the students must get it. </p>
<p>I got the feeling from the article that Ms. L was way, way behind the rest of the class. If Prof X were to spend time bringing Ms. L up to snuff, what happens to the rest of the students? Should they be neglected, should the class level be lowered far below even them so that Ms. L's deficiencies can be properly accomodated? I can imagine the outrage that we CC parents would express if we found out that a teacher spent an entire class period giving an explanation of the internet and how to use a browser because one person in the class had never used a modern computer. We'd be asking why the teacher didn't suggest to the student that they take a class in computer use at the school library. And then most of us would expect that the student would act on the teacher's suggestion to take the additional training.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let them quit
[/quote]
.</p>
<p>That applies to profs as well as to students.</p>
<p>One of our hs teachers retired not long ago. He was the teacher that one of my S said had taught him the most about writing. He was a martinet, feared by students. But he really taught them to write, forcing them to rewrite drafts, querying the relevance of some sections of a paper, demanding evidence, pointing out non-sequiturs.
When he retired, he observed that all students in his English AP class had computers. In his CP English class, only 1/3 of the students had access to one. Guess which ones were going to attend top tier colleges and which ones weren't? It was not just the CP vs. AP level performance, it was the access or lack thereof that struck him so forcefully. Some of the AP students had jobs, but nothing like the 20+ hours a week that some of the CP students had, mostly in lines of work that had nothing to do with academics. </p>
<p>Ms. L was described as not unintelligent; she was hardworking; she wanted to succeed. I can't help feeling that, while she would not have produced a publishable paper, with some more guidance she could have written a half-way decent paper.</p>
<p>EDIT:
I know that at many top colleges, profs or TAs don't only say "use such and such keywords" to find articles on JSTOR. Some actually draw up lists of journals where students are likely to find articles relevant to their research.</p>
<p>A librarian I know was brought in to a class to discuss how to search for academic articles and suggesting that a student might look up both "cinema" "movies" and "films."</p>
<p>The fact that other students succeeded is irrelevant. A prof ought to try to help every student in the class. I was the only one in my English comp class who had a French background. I had a hard time with the "dost" and "thou" so the instructor made up a list of archaic wording I was likely to encounter in some readings.</p>
<p>Marite, I'm not following how you arrive at the conclusion that Ms.L was not given examples of what the professor expected. You state that Ivy league professors
[quote]
also provide examples of what is a good paper, what is a so-so one, and so on. Ms. L clearly did not write a college-level paper. But that she could have spent a whole semester in Prof. X's class without being shown what one would look like is mind-boggling.
[/quote]
In fact, the professor does just that:
[quote]
In each of my courses, we discuss thesis statements and topic sentences, the need for precision in vocabulary, why economy of language is desirable, what constitutes a compelling subject. I explain, I give examples, I cheerlead, I cajole.... </p>
<p>Our textbook boils effective writing down to a series of steps. It devotes pages and pages to the composition of a compare-and-contrast essay, with lots of examples and tips and checklists.
[/quote]
Ms.L. was overwhelmed. She did not take up the support & instruction opportuniteis the school offered. Perhaps for students such as her, the school should have had mandatory tutoring/resource time, much like recruited athletes at many elite schools do. I think this professor was placed in a terrible situation. I don't see whining; I see real concern for his students. I see self-depricating comments, such as his references to the fact that he, too, is not a booming success, as he's schlepping to a second job. He can commiserate with his students, but he can't make up for years of missed academic foundation in a college level writing class.</p>
<p>I agree with those who note that the article has plenty of evidence that Professor X was doing exactly what we think he should. And the article itself is not an exhaustive review of his teaching techniques, it's an op ed piece calling our attention to a particular issue, and questioning conventional wisdom on the basis of personal experience. It works well on that level.</p>
<p>Some of the speculation here on his teaching flaws are silly. The literature course and the expository writing course are separate. He didn't design the curriculum and requirements. He mentions Edward Said, but that is likely just shorthand for discussing the possibility of different perspectives on a particular work, different ways to approach it. There's no indication that he was frustrated by his inability to discuss Edward Said with his students. And I am morally certain that both the teacher and the course materials gave Ms. L many, many examples of the simple college paper she was asked to write (the kind of paper I think of as a "high school paper"). And I think marite's "Let them use Widener" position is not necessarily realistic.</p>
<p>I also agree, though, with those who say that something is wrong when a professor who consistently fails over half of his students -- adult students, motivated students. But the most likely candidate for what's wrong is that there should be more remedial classes available to prepare students for English 101.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And the article itself is not an exhaustive review of his teaching techniques...
[/quote]
Very true. It gives a flavor of his effort, the frustration both he & the students feel, and a glimpse of a very, very bad system serving non traditional students.</p>
<p>But I still think that he did not show her what a history paper was. I was told that some English majors approach reading primary sources differently from history majors. One graduate student commented that when asked to evaluate two important memos, some English majors in his section discussed the tone, nuance, etc... without actually discussing what the memos advocated which were totally different policies and the pros and cons of the policies. It happens all the time. Just as my college roommate did not know how to write about Art history. It does not make them dumb or even unprepared for college. It means that there are different types of preparation for different disciplines.
Why are Prof X. students enthusiastic at the beginning and bored by mid-term?</p>
<p>I am not convinced that Prof. X had no hand in designing his syllabus. True, there are expectations that some types of literature will be read in an English 101 class. But I doubt that an administration will demand that teachers assign David Copperfield instead of Bleak House, Hamlet instead of King Lear, Faulkner instead of Hemingway. </p>
<p>JHS: I never said "let them use Widener." In fact, this is exactly Prof X's attitude toward a student who has never had access to a computer. He should have helped her design a paper topic that made use of the resources of her college and her public library. So suppose she acquires computer skills? I'm assuming she has to work and she does not have a computer at home. When will she be able to do the computer-based research he expects of her? (when she gets a better paying job, which she won't get after flunking his course)</p>
<p>I suspect JSTOR is the resources of her college and her public library. There may be a decent public library, who knows?, but Ms. L. is about as likely to know how to use that as to know how to use the computer. Philadelphia has one of the great public libraries of the world, and 99% of its citizens have never stepped inside it, many people in the suburbs would be afraid to go near it, it has decent hours but not for people who are working, and its catalog is only available by computer. </p>
<p>I know you never really said "Let them use Widener", marite. But all of your posts assume that Ms. L, like you, has appropriate traditional library resources available to her, and that she could use them with less training than would be required to use JSTOR. Neither of which seems obvious or probable to me. In addition to which, learning how to do internet research is an important practical skill that should be part of the curriculum. I stand by my (hyperbolic, somewhat strained, but not unclever) historical analogy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not convinced that Prof. X had no hand in designing his syllabus. True, there are expectations that some types of literature will be read in an English 101 class. But I doubt that an administration will demand that teachers assign David Copperfield instead of Bleak House, Hamlet instead of King Lear, Faulkner instead of Hemingway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, many CCs do this. It's a primary difference between teaching at a CC and teaching at a 4-year. In most CCs (not all, but most), certain courses have set texts. This way, no matter what ENG 101 class you take, you will be exposed to the same stuff. Oftentimes, certain classes share a syllabus as well.</p>
<p>One of the greatest myths of teaching is that it is the teacher's job to reach every student. It's not. A teacher cannot reach every student. It's impossible, even for the best teachers. Remember the movie Stand and Deliver? Several students dropped out of that class, and he is held up as an example. As a teacher, you can only do your very best and hope to reach as many as you can. The ones you can't reach, well, you hope that someone else can. If you make it your mission to reach everyone, you will lose your mind - no exaggeration.</p>
<p>None of us know what it is like to be in Professor X's classroom. Most of the criticisms are based purely in speculation - as if Ms. L and all the others could be reached if Professor X just tried a little harder. That's fallacious reasoning.</p>
<p>Some people aren't ready for college. They should be made ready with better secondary schooling and remedial classes. One professor can't make up for all of that.</p>
<p>"it's an op ed piece calling our attention to a particular issue, and questioning conventional wisdom on the basis of personal experience"</p>
<p>That's certainly true. However, his conclusions based on his personal experience are the problem. After detailing his students' glaring deficits and his failed attempts to remediate (leaving for a moment, whether those attempts were adequate) -- he then concludes not that there should be a change in the structure of the CC curriculum nor additional remedial courses nor a re-evaluation of high school English programs which turn out students with such deficient skills. Rather, he jumps to the conclusion that requiring these students to attend college in the first place is a apparantly a futile and pathetic endeavor; moreover, businesses which require such college courses for their policemen, office-workers, etc. are misguided.</p>
<p>Although his article is certainly couched in sympathetic and initially idealistic terms ("Sending everyone under the sun to college is a noble initiative") -- his short-sighted and elitist conclusion is clear---if it's a very hard fight to teach, let's just forego the fight altogether. </p>
<p>Moreover, despite his protestations of empathy and understanding for his students -- his ultimately dismissive conclusions inform assumptions about his teaching methods, even if the entire scope of his instructional techniques is not presented.</p>
<p>I think that's a fair criticism, Jolynne. </p>
<p>In my view, college isn't and shouldn't be for everyone. But high school is and should be. And the kinds of things the author was talking about are basic, high-school type skills. Since they apparently aren't being taught in high school, someone's got to teach them, and it turns out to be colleges. This one seems not to be doing an excellent job of it, but partially because it is putting its head in the sand about the problem and its responsibilities.</p>
<p>What got me about this article is that I truly LOVE to teach and could have thought of a million strategies for engaging the students he talks about. bored police officers who think literature is irrelevant? How about assigning "In Cold Blood" and having them write up a police report rather than a research paper on the topic. How about having them write their own detective novel? How about having them critique some contemporary police procedurals? Heck, have them READ a book about crime, then compare it to a show about crime on TV. Heck, have them read about the murder in Crime and Punishment. Is this guy for real? He can't figure out how to engage people like police officers? Plenty of other good instructors could and would!</p>
<p>I totally agree with Momzie.</p>
<p>I have met with some community college teachers who could spark incredibly interesting discussions among their students, some new immigrants, by choosing novels and short stories that spoke to them and their experiences. And I have friends who teach such students and speak of the richness of the experiences that low income students or older students bring to the class, as opposed to the middle-class suburban students who populate top colleges ("what can I write my application essay about? I have had an uneventful life).</p>
<p>No one will dispute that computer skills are important and I love JSTOR. But it is entirely possible to find useful materials by going into the stacks. That's what we used to do. And indeed, there's a downside to internet browsing: you miss the serendipity of dipping into a book located near the one you were looking for. That's why academics howl at the idea of depository libraries and lament that students no longer go to the library and do most of their research from their dorm room. </p>
<p>Anyway, it seems to me that Prof X loves his subject. I'm not sure he loves his students. I have a friend who gave up tenure at CMU. He now teaches at a state college. He absolutely loves what he does; he feels he makes a real difference to his students in a way that teaching at a top college did not make him feel.</p>