<p>My late father was a tenured college professor. I used to run into former students of his. Half of them said he was really good, and the other half said he was too tough. I eventually figured out that how they responded provided much more insight into the individual students than it said about my dad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Similar situation - my late father was also a tenured professor. He was recognized as one of the best teachers at his school, possibly because he poured almost all his energy into teaching and did very little research. (Fortunately, he taught at a LAC where teaching was highly valued.) He also had a reputation as one of the tough nuts when it came to grading. Especially later in his career, he claimed to have a reputation as “one of the old fogies who still requires students to work.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that’s also been my observation as an undergrad visiting various colleges/universities, someone who had an older cousin who came close to being expelled for majoring in partying at a 3-4th tier OOS public, and as someone who maintains connections with friends who teach/TA at various universities. Even the most elite schools are not immune to this phenomenon. </p>
<p>It could also be someone who may not be partying, but is disengaged from the higher-ed process because they were not ready, not willing to put in the effort for some reason, and/or going only because their parents wanted them to without much/any interest/buy-in on their part. </p>
<p>One way colleges/universities maintain standards when dealing with such students is to not let to graduate on time/at all by delaying graduation so they could address academic deficiencies, academic suspensions for poor academic performance, or in extreme cases kicking them out for not meeting minimum academic expectations.</p>
<p>In the past 20 years, the number of faculty at the large, public university where I work has dropped slightly, while the number of administrative/professional staff has more than doubled. The administrative/professional group used to be about half the size of the faculty, and now it is essentially equal–maybe slightly more. Also, I believe that the percentage of faculty with tenure has been dropping over that period, not increasing. We have no “faculty lounge;” and I suspect that if we did, there would never be anyone in it. That seems like a concept borrowed from high school.</p>
<p>Remember: she can’t even get a job at an institution of higher education - she is a FORMER adjunct fellow of a second-rate think tank, that has an exquisite “faculty lounge”.</p>
<p>She is writing from her experience - it is all those second-rate adjunct professors at Harvard that she’s complaining about.</p>
<p>Of course you don’t get the education you paid for–you get more. The actual cost of educating a student at any college is more than the tuition, even if you’re full pay.</p>
<p>Whether you get the value of all that is paid–by you or somebody else–is more up to you. You can certainly waste all that money if you like, at any college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Problem is, prospective students and others look at graduation rates (or on-time graduation rates), so a school that has lower graduation rates because its minimum standards are higher than others looks bad to prospective students and others. Highly selective schools that can select freshmen so that they all have near-“maximum” high school academic qualifications can get away with high minimum standards without an especially high dropout rate (that doesn’t mean that they all do set high minimum standards, though), but even slightly less selective schools (including those at the level of the most selective state flagships) probably cannot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then the problem lays with parties who uncritically glance at that shallow metric without critically digging deeper to find out the reasons/causes behind the lower graduation rate. I’d also wonder whether many of them are looking for “easier schools” to get that diploma without having to put in much/any work as that attitude was quite commonly bandied about by many college students I’ve encountered at more mainstream college campuses. </p>
<p>Sometimes, the 5-6 year rate may be because a sizable chunk of the students participate in 5-6 year special degree programs(My LAC’s 5 year double degree program), may take time off for musical/artistic career opportunities(common at my LAC), Co-ops, or may need to take time off/reduce credit load for financial reasons (Common at many state schools). Reasons I don’t think should be used as an indictment against the academic/institutional quality of a given school. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if the reasons are because of bureaucratic snafus, lack of major/core requirement classes critical to graduate on time when needed(Common in the UC system from cousins’ experience in the mid-late '80s), Profs/admins tack on requirements at the last minute*, etc…then there is a serious academic/institutional problem. </p>
<ul>
<li>Granted…the only account I know of is an MFA graduate friend whose Prof deliberately delayed his graduation to gain another year of cheap TA labor out of him.</li>
</ul>
<p>The bottom 25th percentile ACT score has a very high negative correlation with graduation rate. That would lead me to believe that the reason for low graduation rates is due in large part to admitting students who cannot or will not meet college-level standards.</p>
<p>Never one to hide my ignorance, of what possible value is there in handing out thousands of BAs in English each year?</p>
<p>I remember “college night” a couple years ago and these adcom folks summarizing what they expected to gain entrance to their “hallowed halls”, I remember thinking, “WTH are YOU going to provide when they graduate and look for work”!</p>
<p>Feel free to ignore my post, I’m just not enamored with college as a corporation that really don’t give a rats patoot what happens after graduation.</p>
<p>An education is not something that you pay for and they hand it to you in a little box. An education is something you earn – what you pay a college for is the opportunity to work with their faculty to earn that education.</p>
<p>No, my S will not get the education I’m paying for. Too many weeder class tactics…too much trickery. Here’s a thought…how about the professors TEACH the material SO WELL that the kids KNOW it and get 100% on the tests ? I think it would be more honorable to have a very well educated and prepared class than to brag that no one can pass your class. Considering the whole thing is being paid for at all, I expect better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even those who don’t study? Who don’t turn in papers? Who party hearty and don’t show up for class?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What lololu said^.</p>
<p>^ ^</p>
<p>Good points! A college student is no longer in high school. It is the undergraduate’s job to take a proactive approach to his/her education process…and 90%+ of the responsibility is on his/her shoulders. </p>
<p>One’s/one’s parents’ tuition dollars only purchases an opportunity for an education much like a gym membership. It is up to the student to take as much or as little advantage of it. </p>
<p>Moreover, if the case is taught/structured to the point every kid gets 100% or even 90%s, it is often viewed by many academics and competitive employers that the course/Prof is too easy and the course’s academic/rigor standards need to be raised.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like you believe that absolutely any student- regardless of educational background, mental aptitude, or motivation, can be taught any material perfectly if the professor is really good!? </p>
<p>Wow, you are giving too much credit to professors, lol. I suppose a professor <em>could</em> achieve your goal if they dumb down the material enough so everyone gets a 100%. Rather scary proposition though when said students are later hired to build bridges, perform open heart surgery, or do risk calculations for insurance companies.</p>
<p>Where I will agree with you is that schools should be obligated to hire and retain those that can teach well, and also to offer resources that support students who struggle (be it free tutoring, mentorship programs, one-on-one assistance in math and writing in the foundational courses, counselling services, and even the chance to repeat a course or program after the first semester). </p>
<p>But beyond that, lets face it, there are certain basic standards of knowledge that student have to possess in a major in order for the major and school to have any credibility in the real world. All the hand holding in the world is not going to make an average student successful in a field that does not match their prior preparation or aptitude. Some subjects, take engineering for example, require a huge amount of prior preparation, aptitude, and motivation, to ensure students are qualified to be engineers upon graduation. A professor can not provide all three of those components. </p>
<p>The curriculum has to be the curriculum and only some students are cut out for it. But there are two ways schools can go about it. They can do the selection at the outset, and pick a smaller number of students that they predict will succeed based on their past performance (and the bar is so high that these are pretty much sure things). </p>
<p>Or they can have a more generous admissions, which enables many more students to give it a go and base the decision on staying in from how well they could handle the material once at university. There is no trickery: students entering such programs know exactly how the selection process works. They didn’t have to go there. That is why they say 'look to your left, look to your right…"</p>
<p>The latter system seems the most fair in my humble opinion because it gives students a second chance, more control over whether it will work out or not, and predictions based on past performance in highschool have error. </p>
<p>But otherwise, there is little gained about ‘weeder’ courses for professors or universities. But there IS value to the student: letting them give it a shot by trying out the major, and telling them very early on if they will be successful or not in the major. Far better to find that out early than waste your time in a major you aren’t cut out for, and kill your GPA, especially if you will fail out of later on anyways.</p>
<p>
In the past, and I assume still, there are state universities with the philosophy of being fairly open in admissions, with the understanding that not all of the students with weaker qualifications will be able to succeed in college–but some of them will. I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with this as a concept, but the execution may vary substantially in terms of how much help and support is given to students who have the potential to succeed but lack adequate preparation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s still the practice, at least here in Illinois. I think many of the kids who don’t make it on the first try do eventually manage to get a degree from somewhere. D of a friend went to the nearby directional and failed out after the first semester. She then went to a CC and got her associates and eventually went back to the directional PT and got her degree. It took her eight years or so from start to finish, so she wouldn’t appear in the six-year grad rate.</p>
<p>^^^And there is nothing wrong with this— the kid got what she needed when she was most able to make use of it. The idea that everyone should go through college in the four years immediately following high school is just another example of not understanding what education is and how it works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As someone who took 12 years to finish his bachelor’s degree, I could not agree more. There are some kids who simply are not ready for college right out of high school (and I was a poster child for that). It is not to their benefit to force the issue - yet all too many parents do just that. I’m sure that is the cause of many of the “my freshman’s at college and miserable” that clog the boards here about this time of year.</p>
<p>“Never one to hide my ignorance, of what possible value is there in handing out thousands of BAs in English each year?.. I’m just not enamored with college as a corporation that really don’t give a rats patoot what happens after graduation.”</p>
<p>Stageforsurvivor, I don’t think it’s the schools’ responsibility to figure out what grads do after graduation. It’s the student’s. </p>
<p>As for an English degree: it’s just one of dozens of majors offered by universities that don’t automatically lead to a specific profession. It’s what UNIversities provide: a BROAD RANGE of fields. </p>
<p>If you find this objectionable, there are trade/vocational schools and post-graduate training to prepare you for a specific career.</p>