An ass-backward situation sits in front of us all: Schools and professors receive merit and credibility based on how difficult a course is to pass, even more so than their ability to educate students.
To create some type of reputation and to further accredit the value of their “A” grade, instructors often do what they can to keep the grades low, the stress high, and the impossibility on overload.
They call it “academic rigor,” but I just call it the “crash-test dummy phase:” Now that we’ve made it far enough to be accepted into a prestigious university, they have to see how well our air bags work.
That’s why every major has that certain class with an amazingly high turnover rate. What’s more, it’s one of the greatest reasons we’ve all changed our majors.
We say things like, “I wanted to be a doctor, until I took Organic Chemistry.” Or, “I was really going to do journalism, until I heard I have to do a 100-page research paper.”
These courses are the gates of hell guarding the seventh heaven of our ideal career. The professors launch us into the lion’s pit to see how many of us can outlast the assignments, the pressure and, ultimately, one another.
The primary goal of these courses is to ensure that the “best and brightest students” in a certain major are the ones who get the privilege of taking the upper-division courses, which actually teach you how to do the job you want to do.
But a couple questions never seem to be asked: If we pay thousands of dollars to come to a university for a certain major, shouldn’t that university in return do the best they can to ensure that we are on a high enough level to do what we want to do? Instead, the universities try to intimidate us from our dreams and goals.
And secondly, if an educator is supposed to educate, shouldn’t they be judged by their ability to ensure that as many people understand the content of the course as possible?
Today’s Darwinist approach to teaching is result of the Henry Ford education model: Instead of working with vehicles on an individual level to try to ensure a high enough standard, the educational system passes the ones who are already capable, leaving the others to fend for themselves or become scrap metal.
The real opportunity for educators to assess themselves lies in their ability to take that straggler and show him or her how to stay with the herd. It’s not a good class if only a few students are smart enough to pass it. And, you’re not a good teacher just because you have the renown of having one of the most challenging courses.
You’re a good teacher if people understand what is going on. You’re just another manufacturer, however, if your goal is to “keep grades low” or “decide who is determined enough to move forward.”
Students are paying thousands of dollars and busting their asses to meet your standards, and we deserve to be adequately taught along the way so as to have a fair chance of passing. No, I don’t think we need to hold anyone’s hand or pad the grade book to build someone’s confidence, but I do believe we need to educate people. And if someone wants to be a great doctor, by all means, educate them to be a great doctor.
Sure, this seems a bit idealistic, but that’s because we’ve only been taught that rigor and individualism that taught us how to work hard. Many ancient societies taught and thought collectively. Look at all the great things they achieved.
Industrialization has done great things to global productivity, but it has tainted our academics. We are trained to be academically productive, as opposed to intellectually stimulated. We are trained to be in the work force, but not to battle social forces. We are trained to be selfish, but not trained in knowing who we are conditioned to embrace.
We are here to get jobs and pay off the debt we accumulated to get those jobs.
They say this is supposed to be an enriching experience, but when the instructors are more concerned with keeping their GPAs at a certain level so that their class doesn’t get in trouble for “grade inflation,” or so that they can uphold a certain reputation of “rigor,” in my mind, all of that goes out the window.
College is the first time we’ve had to come out of pocket for an education. Yet, the structure still feels like they need to implement high levels of academic discipline and rigor to teach us how to be successful. And they’ll call the hoop-jumping “prerequisites” or “general education courses,” and tell us how important they are — even though a recent study showed that 45 percent of college students displayed no significant gains in knowledge after their first two years in higher education.
But we proceed, with our heads glued to textbooks and laptop screens, to jump through the hoops with our educational system, as opposed to attacking it and demanding it to give us adequate services.
Of course, we wouldn’t dare challenge the higher education system — we owe it too much money.
[email protected]
Harris: Weed-out courses have wrong idea
Daily Emerald
February 16, 2011
0
More to Discover