<p>momzie, those are exactly the kinds of approaches that the "experts" on adult learners/continued education would suggest. We need to keep in mind and as I have said already, that while college may not be for everyone, there is also not just one way to teach, and the traditional methods do not work on this new group of students. Just because they may need to be taught differently does not mean that they do not "belong" in our college classrooms.</p>
<p>Prof Z would be well advised to include in some of the literature he reads himself, some of the "literature" on teaching older/non-traditional students...</p>
<p>I think marite and Jolynn's POV illustrates Professor X's point though. That if he can't make everybody in his class succeed it must be due to his deficiency as an instructor, his unwillingness to teach material clearly outside the syllabus (e.g. intro to the world of the internet), elitism, dismissiveness, etc.</p>
<p>There is no fundamental right to a college education in this country. As a society there is consensus that there is a right to high school--thus universal access to free, appropriate public education. BUT there is a bright line between what we as a society consider our obligation to provide, and what we consider it is the individual's obligation to pursue themselves. In education we hold K-12 responsible for uneducated students, but at the college level we have to hold the student responsible for their own education or college becomes meaningless.</p>
<p>To follow your reasoning that there is no right on the part of a college instructor to give up on a student, what other obligations do we have? Are colleges obligated to waive tuition for students who, due to financial unpreparedness are unable to pay their tuition bill? Do you think they should send taxis to pick up students whose cars break down and prevent them from getting to class? Provide daycare to those whose family responsibilities get in the way of their studies? Of course not. </p>
<p>Perhaps the fix here, and this is what Professor X alludes to early in the article but doesn't develop later in the article: it is elitist and stupid to require college for some jobs where college level skills are not really necessary to perform the job. He spends some time musing about how it would be more pleasant if a traffic cop had read literature, but is it really necessary? Presumably Ms. L and the cops are employed and are competent employees. Why do we torment them by requiring them to jump through hoops where there is no genuine interest or preparation for college level work?</p>
<p>He doesn't adequately develop the idea that we need to do a better job of preparing students for a vocational education. College isn't for everybody, and there is a lot of money wasted and hopes dashed because we aren't honest about that.</p>
<p>"Just because they may need to be taught differently does not mean that they do not "belong" in our college classrooms."</p>
<p>That's very true. And to encourage the educational exclusion of these students with his superficially sympathetic and persuasively written article provides no help to the very students who might most benefit from education in writing/literature.</p>
<p>Edit: in response to Mombot: Certainly a valid piece of the puzzle is stronger vocational training which encompasses a mastery of essential written communication. However, if that were the case, then likely the students arriving in his CC Eng 101 class would not lack the basic skills needed to engage at the next level (if they could already write and read well, they could move up to complex papers and literary analysis). Consequently, the need to argue that 'they don't belong there in the first place' would be unecessary. </p>
<p>Moreover, I would think the 'obligation' you mentioned would be self-imposed -- by the teacher him/herself. If your job is to teach (whether it ESL, literacy, CC Eng or Ivy league upper level courses) then you teach whomever you have.</p>
<p>Except Momzie--a police report isn't a college level writing assignment. The syllabus is clear, and since CC students regularly transfer to 4 year schools the CC adjunct has no right to unilaterally decide a police report is an appropriate assignment for English 101 since it would be more fulfilling for his student to do a police report than a research paper comparing two historical points of view. </p>
<p>Let's say he lets the cops write police reports and read true crime novels and he lets Ms. L write her editorial on abortion and passes them and they end up going on to complete their degree. Off they go to Cal State or some similar school, sign up for an upper division criminal justice or psychology class and they still won't be able to write a research paper.</p>
<p>Some of this is way off point. The author was teaching a course in expository writing. (Let's drop the literature course for the moment -- he barely wrote anything about that, and it's a whole different kettle of fish.) It would be great to let the cops write detective novels, but that's not what the course was about. </p>
<p>There's no indication, by the way, that the cops flunked the course. Only that they were bored and resentful. Does anyone think it's inappropriate to require senior police officials to know how to do a range of basic expository writing? I don't think it's inappropriate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A new Rockefeller Institute of Government study has found that the utilization of two-year community colleges varies widely among the states, from a high of 47 percent of higher education students attending community colleges in Wyoming to a low of less than 8 percent in Vermont.</p>
<p>According to the new analysis, the first of its kind comparing utilization rates in the 50 states, the national average of community college utilization is 27.7 percent of higher-education enrollees. The study examined data from 2000 to 2005.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to the report, states with strong community college systems offer a cost-effective way to help more of their citizens eventually earn four-year degrees; will enable more of their citizens to move up from low-wage jobs and find high-skill, well-paid careers; will bolster economic development by meeting employer needs for qualified workers; and will help high school graduates with weak skills catch up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seemingly, community colleges in different regions and states vary widely in the range of students attending and the cultures of the institutions. I wonder what proportion of credit-seeking students at community colleges are in need of remediation? The community college student in CA, for example, who successfully transfers to a UC via a well-defined pathway is presumably better prepared than a Mrs. L. Prof X is identified as teaching in the northeast. Are community colleges in the NE more often seen as "colleges of last resort" ?</p>
<p>I've been mulling over the idea that there are different types of CC's since looking at the discussion about this article on Chronicle of Higher Ed (similar arguments to what you read here, plus some really inspiring stories of people who do triumph over amazing odds, with insight into just how hard going to college is for some folks). My experience teaching night classes in a CA CC was that there are a whole range of students. In the same class, I'd have highly capable individuals who were enrolled fulltime at local 4-year universities, using the CC to take breadth courses, students who were planning on transferring to the local UC, students aiming at getting their 2-year degree, and some students who were not quite Ms. L-like in their lack of preparation but who were nowhere near being ready for college. In other words, this particular CC was both an opportunity and a last resort. I don't know what Prof X's college was like (and by the way, note how we are mostly referring to Prof X as a "he"?)--is it the same? Different? I've no idea. CCs are often set up to be all of these things, and more. They're designed to be cheap to make them accessible, but that very cheapness means there's going to be less guidance and hand-holding.</p>
<p>It has been my experience that there are two types of professors, the detective and the coach. </p>
<p>The detective
Looks at everything students do under a microscope. Any mistake is pointed out and the student is expected to figure out how to correct it. Expects students to do assigned readings on their own and self teach the material. When questions are asked about material presented in the book the student is told to go and re-read it. When questions are asked about material that has already been covered during class time, the detective makes sure to point this out to the student. Never teaches concepts, but expects students to figure them out. Gives many hints and clearly states expectations, but rarely or never gives clear examples. When a student presses for an example, the detective most often reviews the examples presented in the book. Is generally a critical personality type. Believes all students should understand and work hard to meet his expectations.</p>
<p>The coach
Looks for ways to improve his students performance on every assignment. Mistakes are used as teaching opportunities. Actively teaches concepts to students during classroom time using many different methods. Makes the material relevant for his students by giving many examples of real world applications to further understand classroom concepts. All questions asked by students are considered important, and students are encouraged to ask questions. The coach asks for feedback to make sure his students grasp the concepts being taught. Uses all the students senses to be sure to reach those who have different learning styles. Is generally a nurturing personality type. Believes it is his responsibility to help all students improve and learn in his classroom.</p>
<p>I believe it is easy to see which category Professor X falls under.</p>
<p>It has been my experience that that describes two poles, not two real teachers. And it is my observation that your bias toward the coach is showing.</p>
<p>It can be a huge growth opportunity for a student to have a teacher that falls on the detective side of the continuum.</p>
<p>It's very likely that with another teacher, Ms. L would still have failed. But maybe she would have known what a college-level paper was and not confused her own efforts with one.</p>
<p>But really, what is a college-level paper? I recall a graduate student who was invited to guest lecture at a reputable though not top college with a focus on business. He was told not to assign more than 25 pages of reading per week. As a TA, he'd been used to leading sections where students were expected to read 200 pages per week. I doubt that the students at College A were expected to produce term papers of the same length and quality of research and writing as the students in College B. But what they produced was a college-level paper anyway.</p>