As was very well pointed out, getting a BA has become a necessity for students who want to make a living sufficient to support themselves and a family on in today's economy in the US.
Yes, we do have different students, we have a many coming from the pipeline with great self-esteem but little in the way of skills. As I have aged, I find myself adjusting better to the changes. I am sometimes appalled by the reality that with a high school education few students can get married, buy a house, have children and support them and a stay-at-home mom. yet, it was clearly the case in the late 60's, when I graduated from high school, that that was the case. So many students who probably would not have considered going to college then, are going now and we have to deal with the reality of a different mind-set. I find that even the students who do well, as doing well not for any love of knowledge, but for what doing well will eventually get them--into graduate school or a professional program, or something along those lines. In other words, performance orientation predominates and mastery orientation means little to students who are living in a MUCH MUCH MUCH more competitive society than I did. And if I have learned anything at all by examining the self-esteem literature it is that student self-esteem grows when they do well--they do not do well because they have high self-esteem. So I have started to focus on teaching for mastery and on teaching skills, as many of you have already mentioned. Anyway Marc asks where the students of yesteryear are? First, I think they were a bit of a myth, but for the rest, everything has been bumped up: the students who would have stopped with a BA in years gone by are now in graduate programs. At least, that's my belief. But just because we have to teach basic skills to students who never got them in high school (and can we hold them responsible for the changes that have occurred at that educational level? I don't!--the changes in education have occured all the way down the pipeline--students in my day, late 60's, could get great paying blue collar jobs without even a HS diploma) it doesn't mean that we can't keep planting seeds of love of knowledge, etc. I think in some ways our jobs are harder than they were years ago. We have to do more. Just rambling, but good topic. Annette Quoting Marc Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > After reading your note I'd have to consider myself an educational > Luddite (or something like that), holding fast to an old and now quaint > (a good word for it) idea that education is something that is good in > itself, that makes more informed citizens, that makes individual lives > richer. I'm a big fan of ideas; ideas can change the world, and if we > don't teach ideas rather than just skills, I get worried. Going to > college quite literally changed my life in ways I find difficult to > express; it was changed not because of the particular things I learned > (as might happen with a preprofessional degree), but rather that I > learned to value learning. > > Am I, one so young yet, already a dinosaur? > > What's going to become of us? > > I hope this thread stays alive. I'm truly curious about what education > in the US is going to become, and talking with educators about it might > assuage some of my fears (or, on the other hand, might just exacerbate > them!). I'd like to know what educators think. > > So: What is education about? Are small, liberal arts institutions going > to go away? Is education ever going to be valued again for its own > sake? Did we really sign up to teach high school? (Not that I don't > value high school educators! I just don't think I have the stamina to > do it.) > > Again, thanks for your comments; they pointed out a whole other issue. > > m > > -- > Marc Carter > Baker University Department of Psychology > Assistant Professor, Itinerant Scientist, > Inveterate Skeptic, Former Surfer. > --- > The test of our progress is not whether we add more > to the abundance of those who have much; > it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. > ----- Franklin Roosevelt > ------------------------------------- > Bike __o > to _`\<,_ > Work! (_)/ (_) > ------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Okami [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 9:28 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > Subject: Re: improving student performance and grades through extra > credit? > > Marc's was a most thoughtful message. I would like to address the part > where he suggests that some people "just shouldn't be in college." > > I taught for most of my ten year teaching career at UCLA, first both in > the Psych department, where the average grade is C, and the > Communication Studies department, where the average grade is B or B+ and > almost as many students get A as B. But I've also taught at Community > Colleges and non-traditional colleges, and right now I'm teaching a few > classes at Neumann college in Pennsylvania, a Franciscan institution > that prides itself on taking students who averaged C or D in high school > and "giving them a chance" to make it in college I should add that I > entered academia late in life--I'm 56 now, so I did most of my > undergraduate work in the 1960s. > > I'm giving this long preamble for a reason. Having taken college > classes 40 years ago, and having taught both the elite and the low-end > of college students currently, I have given a lot of thought to changes > in the quality of education over the years. I have seen the level of > education in institutions shift radically. The quality of work in > contemporary undergraduate institutions is similar to the quality that > was expected of students of my generation in high school. The first > year or two of graduate school now resemble undergraduate work of 40 > years ago (I did my graduate work at UCLA, by the way). Moreover, there > are many, many students enrolled in colleges currently who could never > have been accepted 40 years ago. > > From my teacher's perspective, I find it frustrating (maddening, > actually) to teach under these circumstances, especially freshman > classes. Students come in with no interest whatever in learning > anything at all, lacking curiosity, hostile and sullen, maintaining that > "Us vs. Them (teachers)" > demeanor characteristic of high school students. (I admit that I didn't > teach freshman at UCLA very often, so this may not be the case there, > but I suspect it is.) > > However, looking at things more objectively, I can see that the entire > purpose of college has changed over the decades, and what is happening > is probably unavoidable, and perhaps (?) necessary. Colleges have > become trade schools because trades have become more complex and more > technological. > People need to know more things to go to work than they used to. > Employers won't hire people who have not demonstrated the qualities that > are necessary for success in college. Liberal Arts have become > increasingly marginal and considered by many (not by me) to be > unnecessary. The notion that learning for its own sake is valuable is > now quaint. > > So keeping people out of college because they lack intellectual skills > or aptitude is a very different act now than it was 40 years ago. 40 > years ago, such people could still look forward to useful employment and > careers in areas that do not require higher learning. This is no longer > true. The whole purpose of college has changed, and so the quality of > student, and expectations teachers have of students have also changed. > > My two cents. > > Paul Okami > > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
