Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Rob Pitingolo is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Rob Pitingolo and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Rob Pitingolo is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Rob Pitingolo and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
I used to go to a "good" university. In fact, I used to go to the "best" university in the entire state of Ohio, according to US News & World Report and any other official-sounding source that wanted to throw the university's marketing department a bone. Was it truly a good school? I don't know... it didn't seem like a bad school; and I've only attended two universities, so I don't have much basis for comparison. The question is, what makes a "good" school truly good? And does attending one mean that you leave smarter or better educated than a peer from another school? Or even that the opportunity to do so exists?
I already shared my feelings toward higher education, and my belief that some of my best learning occurred outside of the classroom. Malcolm Gladwell's newest piece in The New Yorker raises more important questions on this topic:
Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford, estimates that the students of a very bad teacher will learn, on average, half a year’s worth of material in one school year. The students in the class of a very good teacher will learn a year and a half’s worth of material. That difference amounts to a year’s worth of learning in a single year. Teacher effects dwarf school effects: your child is actually better off in a “bad” school with an excellent teacher than in an excellent school with a bad teacher.
Granted, Hanushek's research does not refer to university-level education, but the point is at least somewhat valid. I'm sure most college students would agree that having a bad professor is frustrating, both because it can be difficult to understand material, but also because at the end of the semester it feels like you invested a lot of time and energy and don't have much to take away from the course. In my six semesters of college, I have had math professors who were math-geniuses but could barely communicate in English; I had a grad student TA who seemed to care only about his tuition reimbursement and at which bar he would spend his stipend check; I have had professors who spent more time attempting to win federal funding grants for research (not even including the time spent on the research itself) than worrying about students; I had a statistics professor that was just so poor at communicating the material that I have little confidence that I could apply most of what I "learned" without retaking the course or learning that material on my own.
Remember, these professors all worked at Ohio's "best" university. Not to dismiss the few excellent professors who were incredibly talented at sharing knowledge with students, but having these professors wasn't guaranteed; sometimes it seemed like a mere gamble. And the major point is, since it is difficult to quantifiably justify whether a professor is good or bad, most surveys that tell you about America's "best" universities barely take that key variable into account at all.
Now, you could argue that by doing your research you can determine the bad professors and avoid their course sections; but it isn't always so simple. As an underclassman, I was always one of the last with the opportunity to register for classes (which makes sense, of course) but in many cases the course sections with the "good" professor was already filled. I could merely enroll in whatever had an availability. After I transferred to my new school, I had to build my schedule around work and around my limited availability on campus (probably eliminating half of all course sections in the process). As a result, I now basically enroll in whatever course sections fit in a given time-slot, with almost no regard for who is teaching them. For a full-time student with no other responsibilities, it might be possible to pick and choose professors as an upperclassman, but not everyone has such a luxury.
The implication is that you could have two students, in the same degree program at the same prestigious university who receive very different educations. Or you could have comparable students from different universities. Is a particular BA from a mediocre school with good professors better than the same BA from a good school with bad professors? Is it fair to hold it against someone that they went to what they thought was a good school but had to deal with a lot of bad professors? Does the entire situation appears slightly more complicated that you may have originally thought? I know it does to me.
The fact is that there are weak professors everywhere; even at Harvard. It's also true that one student's bad professor is another student's great professor. My College Algebra prof, "Dr. Andre," was a Ukranian math genius with a doctorate from GA Tech. He also had an incredibly thick accent. So many people complained that they couldn't understand him, but I excelled in the class, partially because I'm Russian.
All you can hope is to put off certain classes until you get a better pick of who's teaching, unless it's a time-sensitive scheduling situation.
This is a problem you will face anywhere. I have had my share of bad teachers, good teachers and people who stand in front of a class and have no idea what the hell they are supposed to do.
It's frustrating each and every time, especially when I think of the credit points I need to earn and the money I pay for my education.
But in my school there is absolutely nothing I can do about it but endure, work extra hard and hope for the best.
You're not taking the politics of higher education institutions into account. The best professors to students aren't necessarily the best professors to administration.
At one of the best schools in the country, a professor I knew was told to turn down teaching awards, because if students think you're a great professor, you're not doing enough research. And come tenure time, you don't want that cloud over your head. Seriously.
Also, college is diff't from high school. You aren't required to be there. So professors aren't obligated to do whatever song and dance is necessary to keep your attention so you'll score well enough on standardized tests that they'll keep their jobs. You have to motivate you.
And grad students who teach courses aren't taught how to teach. They get experience by teaching subjects they're hopefully competent in. Students are part of their learning process as they work towards their PhDs.
The biggest problem I ran into while in college were professors that don't speak English (or don't speak it very well at least). Basically, I ended up teaching myself the material, or getting tutored by a classmate who took the class before me.
Truth me told, Ryan Healy taught me Accounting because my professor couldn't communicate effectively. And what does that say aboutt he actual insititution?
If attendance weren't part of the grade, I probably could have just showed up for exams and passed the class. So what was being payed for?
What it comes down to is that professors are being graded on their knowledge of the material, not their ability to teach the material to others. In my opinion, that's a huge flaw in the higher education system.
Even when choosing a school online, it can be hard to really determine what makes that school good or bad. The school that I am attending now is known as one of the most recognized and best schools online. But my reason for attending was because my admissions counselor has extensive knowledge and experience in the field that I am going for and he assured me that my professors for those particular classes possessed the same credentials. Not to mention that my additional choice boasted about being a part of an organization but when I asked how this would help me or how are they affiliated, the answer was "I'll have to call you back." They never did. I can only imagine how helpful those teachers would be.
Andrea Zak, is correct. You have to realize that some professors are not there to teach! They are there to do research, publish papers and bring in grant money (some top professors are only required to teach one class a semester and even then TA's handle most tasks). In fact some of the professors that you think are great are just contact adjuncts who will not be there for very long.
Also don't be so hasty about getting a "better" education at a "lesser" school because many employers don't think or care about that issue (unless they are personally familiar with the "lesser" school you attended) I always recommend going to the "best ranked" school you can afford because many jobs will block you from applying and getting an interview if you went to a 3rd or 4th tier university. With the current economy, many of the graduates from 3rd or 4th tier schools will be hard pressed to find jobs at all let alone jobs in their fields of study. The competition out there is fierce and having a degree from a low ranked school can throw the early portion of a person’s career totally out whack.
I went to a school where motivation of the student was the greatest part, most of our profs were researchers, after Freshman year if you were not motivated you were sunk.
That having been said the specific curriculum, the texts used, all vary and do make a difference in how intricate the degree of knowledge you could be expected to get is.
You couldn't go to my university and actually graduate if you didn't go to class, at least in either of the schools of that uni I attended. You could however go to a number of universities in this country and not go to class and pass, I think there-in lies the difference. If you can "not go to class" and pass you are probably not getting you money's worth.
@Andrea Zak, @boohoo, You are right, I do not explicitly acknowledge that the incentive structure in higher education is wildly skewed, but that doesn't mean that I am not necessarily taking it into account. The reason that bad professors exist is less of a concern to me in this post than the implications of that fact. I have previously written about motivating myself – I personally think that some of the best learning can happen outside of the classroom. The key is what Dawn van Emden, Ryan Paugh and others have already said; in the case of bad professors, what are you paying for? I could probably teach myself many subjects or learn informally from others very cheaply, but students pay thousands of dollars for this service at the "good schools". Unfortunately, learning that takes place on your own doesn’t always count toward the coveted degree, which has, more or less, become a prerequisite in today's society.
Yes, it’s true that there are students do go to college to party, and the quality of their education is a secondary concern; and there are some with wealthy parents or non-merit based scholarships whose primary goal is getting that degree regardless of what happens along the way. But I know there are at least some in the world with a true passion of knowledge and who are paying our own (possibly future) money and hoping to get it in college.
["The key is what Dawn van Emden, Ryan Paugh and others have already said; in the case of bad professors, what are you paying for?"]
You are paying to document your exposure to a particular subject or class. I have always believed that universities should have a way to TEST OUT of every class, but they don't because that would have a drastic effect on attendance. There are many professions that have such involved on the job training that taking a class after the fact is a formality, but many times these people have to just take the class they need to graduate. In this example I blame the universities.
["I could probably teach myself many subjects or learn informally from others very cheaply, but students pay thousands of dollars for this service at the "good schools"."]
The problem today which did not exist in the past comes from employer mentality. 30 years ago a worker could demonstrate proficiency through a portfolio or in an interview, test or discussion. However today, "hearsay" regarding training is not good enough to any employer. Only a class or degree certifies minimum knowledge from an employer’s perspective. In this example I blame employers
["Unfortunately, learning that takes place on your own doesn’t always count toward the coveted degree, which has, more or less, become a prerequisite in today's society."]
That’s why I always say that people should try to document educational or training experience on paper if possible. Also I recommend that if you already know how to do something, go get it documented by taking a class or certification exam, even if you don’t need to study to pass. Universities and employers have forced it on all of us. Studying subjects from books at the library will never be an acceptable form of documented minimum proficiency, ever.
@boohoo et al.
Jane Jacobs wrote a book called "Dark Age Ahead" talking about the potential Dark Age coming to western civilization. One of the points she lists as contributing to this, is the decline of education and the rise of credentialing. Universities, for the most part, are becoming places where you get a piece of paper to say you know something, not necessarily to actually learn that thing.
Is that right? No. But it doesn't mean it's not happening.
In my own experience, I had both sorts of profs in university. Some were tenured and some were grad students, but there were both good and bad in each group.
I even found at times that a prof I had in a 2nd year class would be much different in a 4th year class in their area of expertise.
Stop using your companies pre-printed thank you notes. Hand write a thank you note! Hand writing is much more personal and it shows you care. More...
Josh Swindle to All Fans
7 people have recommended this.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Email
Print
