Out of class and can't resist one more response. (Sorry!)
This paragraph portion is superb: "... A teaching environment small enough to attend to individual needs. A belief in the potential success of the client. Affirmation that the expert understands the client’s struggles and can be trusted to find the best way through them. And a system designed not to wash people out but to help them succeed." ... Amen!
I teach physics to pre-meds, engineering majors, physics majors, and math folks. I have no doubt that in time the details of what I teach will be gone from their minds. The purpose of my class is to help them embed some big ideas into their mind (Newton's Laws, energy and its conservation, types of waves, etc etc) show them how a physicist thinks and analyzes a system and help them gain skills in problem analysis. I'd rather my physician have skills at problem solving skills, an appreciation of their own fallibility, a desire to solve a puzzle (my health dilemma) , and the ability to seek out new information to help solve the puzzle. Hopefully education gets most of our doctors to this place.
One final thing. Sadly, everything in the USA is now a commodity, dollars run everything. Politicians serve for the perks and the pension. There are hundreds in an Organic or Physics classroom at Big State University to minimize cost. Most of the hundreds in Organic are there not to learn Organic, but because med school requires it. And most (not all) seek med school because it's a well-defined profession parents and students understand that leads to dollars and a nice retirement account in the long run. Our universities are slowly becoming professional schools for a reason...
Superb John! I want to write more but have to head to class... let me say a few things quickly.
"But is that really true? Does a diagnostic physician think about Organic Chem when treating a patient? " Good question John--it is not true. The diagnostic physician has patients in the waiting room and must process the one before him or her expeditiously. The doctor relies on the Organic skills of the pharmacological community as they develop and test drugs, etc.
The concept of "weed out" courses has always bothered me. A course is a season of student development in a subject area. The difficult part is that our system of education demands a letter grade be assigned, and this is a subject worthy of a long discussion.
I'm reminded of a conversation with a visiting professor fresh from his PhD program during my first semester as an academic dean. I had just visited his Organic class. To this day, I can remember pieces of his lecture on Benzene Rings. The students were writing frantically to keep up with his lecture. He would explain the general pattern and then provide five exceptions to the general pattern. I told him that maybe it was enough that students grasp the general pattern and could learn about the exceptions in grad school. He wasn't sold and later determined that liberal arts education wasn't for him. I still think "less is more".
I agree! Less is more... when I was a "baby professor" it worried me if I didn't get through the book... I don't worry anymore. My hard-working students succeed, even if we don't get to cover chapter XII. A given course is a time of development, growth, inquiry, it is not like a commodity we can drop in a bag. Thanks!
Small colleges/Universities hold themselves out as exceptional because of thier low student/phd ratio. Most schools hold themselves out as having great teacher educators. Most small schools advertise a 98% acceptance rate for their graduates applying to med school. Nevermind that statistically they really don't have enough graduates applying to med school to reach a 98% acceptance rate.
The provost at my daughter's school was a dear friend. She asked me how our daughter was doing in school. I related how our daughter was struggling in O-Chem.
"Oh yes, many do. Unfortunately it is a gateway subject for med school."
I responded, "With all due respect we're not spending $55k a yr (6 yrs ago) for you to weed my daughter out of med school. We sent her here for you to teach her into med school."
Schools that hold themselves out in writing and on their website as fantastic teaching schools with a low student/PhD ratios, should never use the terms 'weed out' or 'gateway' in an effort to rationalize their own teaching failures!!
And dont get me started on students of color........
The pressure created by the "get into med school" goal is immense. I've seen data directly relating it to increases in cheating as the goal is more important than the means.
Low student faculty ratios are a real value in smaller schools. Ideally, they would also involve the level of personal involvement to help a struggling student evaluate if med school was really for them.
Makes me think of a postbac education student I counseled back in my administrative days. The education department had said that she couldn't continue. She had come to me to plead her case, arguing that God had put it in her heart to work with young children. I heard her out and told her that she needed to find a new way to follow God's call that didn't require certification from the State of Oregon.
I used to teach Physics at the local university as a lowly adjunct. My career had been in missile defense, then the Shuttle program, the end of which had imposed the need for a change in direction. I found that I loved teaching, even if the pay was terrible, since I found great joy in helping the students to grasp challenging concepts by using practical applications. Having real world experience put me in a different place than my peers who had always been in academia.
The situation with this O Chem professor bothered me intensely, as I also experienced some of his troubles. We are promised academic freedom, but if a class is too incapable or uninterested in learning, we can be crucified for being too tough. The university has high standards, but today's students with their helicopter parents know they can complain loudly enough to adjust things for comfort. Add to that the fallout from a generation raised in the "No Child Left Behind" pedagogical nightmare, and they often don't really know how to actually learn, mistaking rote memorization and regurgitation into a multiple choice format for what should instead be a rigorous and stimulating growth process filled with nuance and inspiration.
I agree with your points and appreciate the analysis of the story elements hovering between the lines. This is definitely a more complex situation than the journalist was able to capture. I hope that the article continues to generate a great deal of conversation.
I think we create a false dichotomy between high standards and student comfort. Students can grasp high expectations when they believe that the professor is there for them. Too often the subtext of the "weed out" approach, especially in STEM areas, is that there are more students out in the hall willing to take your seat. Message is that the student is expendable, or at least not worth any special consideration. The best teachers find ways of supporting their students in the pursuit of high achievement.
Out of class and can't resist one more response. (Sorry!)
This paragraph portion is superb: "... A teaching environment small enough to attend to individual needs. A belief in the potential success of the client. Affirmation that the expert understands the client’s struggles and can be trusted to find the best way through them. And a system designed not to wash people out but to help them succeed." ... Amen!
I teach physics to pre-meds, engineering majors, physics majors, and math folks. I have no doubt that in time the details of what I teach will be gone from their minds. The purpose of my class is to help them embed some big ideas into their mind (Newton's Laws, energy and its conservation, types of waves, etc etc) show them how a physicist thinks and analyzes a system and help them gain skills in problem analysis. I'd rather my physician have skills at problem solving skills, an appreciation of their own fallibility, a desire to solve a puzzle (my health dilemma) , and the ability to seek out new information to help solve the puzzle. Hopefully education gets most of our doctors to this place.
One final thing. Sadly, everything in the USA is now a commodity, dollars run everything. Politicians serve for the perks and the pension. There are hundreds in an Organic or Physics classroom at Big State University to minimize cost. Most of the hundreds in Organic are there not to learn Organic, but because med school requires it. And most (not all) seek med school because it's a well-defined profession parents and students understand that leads to dollars and a nice retirement account in the long run. Our universities are slowly becoming professional schools for a reason...
Have a blessed day. Thanks again!
Superb John! I want to write more but have to head to class... let me say a few things quickly.
"But is that really true? Does a diagnostic physician think about Organic Chem when treating a patient? " Good question John--it is not true. The diagnostic physician has patients in the waiting room and must process the one before him or her expeditiously. The doctor relies on the Organic skills of the pharmacological community as they develop and test drugs, etc.
The concept of "weed out" courses has always bothered me. A course is a season of student development in a subject area. The difficult part is that our system of education demands a letter grade be assigned, and this is a subject worthy of a long discussion.
Thanks again!
I'm reminded of a conversation with a visiting professor fresh from his PhD program during my first semester as an academic dean. I had just visited his Organic class. To this day, I can remember pieces of his lecture on Benzene Rings. The students were writing frantically to keep up with his lecture. He would explain the general pattern and then provide five exceptions to the general pattern. I told him that maybe it was enough that students grasp the general pattern and could learn about the exceptions in grad school. He wasn't sold and later determined that liberal arts education wasn't for him. I still think "less is more".
I agree! Less is more... when I was a "baby professor" it worried me if I didn't get through the book... I don't worry anymore. My hard-working students succeed, even if we don't get to cover chapter XII. A given course is a time of development, growth, inquiry, it is not like a commodity we can drop in a bag. Thanks!
As an O-Chem professor myself I completely agree
I was thinking of you while writing this.
Small colleges/Universities hold themselves out as exceptional because of thier low student/phd ratio. Most schools hold themselves out as having great teacher educators. Most small schools advertise a 98% acceptance rate for their graduates applying to med school. Nevermind that statistically they really don't have enough graduates applying to med school to reach a 98% acceptance rate.
The provost at my daughter's school was a dear friend. She asked me how our daughter was doing in school. I related how our daughter was struggling in O-Chem.
"Oh yes, many do. Unfortunately it is a gateway subject for med school."
I responded, "With all due respect we're not spending $55k a yr (6 yrs ago) for you to weed my daughter out of med school. We sent her here for you to teach her into med school."
Schools that hold themselves out in writing and on their website as fantastic teaching schools with a low student/PhD ratios, should never use the terms 'weed out' or 'gateway' in an effort to rationalize their own teaching failures!!
And dont get me started on students of color........
:)
The pressure created by the "get into med school" goal is immense. I've seen data directly relating it to increases in cheating as the goal is more important than the means.
Low student faculty ratios are a real value in smaller schools. Ideally, they would also involve the level of personal involvement to help a struggling student evaluate if med school was really for them.
Makes me think of a postbac education student I counseled back in my administrative days. The education department had said that she couldn't continue. She had come to me to plead her case, arguing that God had put it in her heart to work with young children. I heard her out and told her that she needed to find a new way to follow God's call that didn't require certification from the State of Oregon.
(Not sure what to make of your last line)
I used to teach Physics at the local university as a lowly adjunct. My career had been in missile defense, then the Shuttle program, the end of which had imposed the need for a change in direction. I found that I loved teaching, even if the pay was terrible, since I found great joy in helping the students to grasp challenging concepts by using practical applications. Having real world experience put me in a different place than my peers who had always been in academia.
The situation with this O Chem professor bothered me intensely, as I also experienced some of his troubles. We are promised academic freedom, but if a class is too incapable or uninterested in learning, we can be crucified for being too tough. The university has high standards, but today's students with their helicopter parents know they can complain loudly enough to adjust things for comfort. Add to that the fallout from a generation raised in the "No Child Left Behind" pedagogical nightmare, and they often don't really know how to actually learn, mistaking rote memorization and regurgitation into a multiple choice format for what should instead be a rigorous and stimulating growth process filled with nuance and inspiration.
I agree with your points and appreciate the analysis of the story elements hovering between the lines. This is definitely a more complex situation than the journalist was able to capture. I hope that the article continues to generate a great deal of conversation.
Hi Don! Thanks for subscribing!
I think we create a false dichotomy between high standards and student comfort. Students can grasp high expectations when they believe that the professor is there for them. Too often the subtext of the "weed out" approach, especially in STEM areas, is that there are more students out in the hall willing to take your seat. Message is that the student is expendable, or at least not worth any special consideration. The best teachers find ways of supporting their students in the pursuit of high achievement.