I wrote:
>The question for me is: What should we be doing to change this view?
At 08:51 AM 1/27/99 -0700, you wrote:
>My answer: Don't try to change it. Why waste the time? You would have a better
>chance of stopping a glacier. Instead, try to expand their view of education:
>try to draw them in to include your view about what an education is for. For
>me, those responses expressing both orientations were the most interesting.
>There is nothing wrong with having a job orientation when entering college; the
>most important aspect of my job is not to let it end there. So, if you accept
>my argument, the question becomes, how can we expand their view of what a
>college education is for?
I have to agree with you and I would even concede that a credentialling view is not
entirely inappropriate, particularly if it is part of wider approach of what a college
education should be about.
>I ask my students questions such as the one I gave them so I can understand
>better how they are looking at their worlds. By understanding what they find
>most interesting, I can develop lectures and discussions that might "grab" them
>more. By building lectures around such topics, I hope to better show how
>satisfying and meaningful it can be to learn about themselves and the universe.
My problem is that when the "college degree as a means to a better job" attitude is
the predominant view, and we are then forced to meet students' demands for
"relevance", we run the risk, IMO, of turning what we teach into a boring subject.
I'll give you an example. Some years ago, I decided to stop teaching one of my
favorite courses: Theories of Learning. The reason? It is one of the "content"
courses, perhaps on a par with History and Systems (another favorite of mine but one
which I do not usually teach), which our students find the most "boring". Let's face
it, it can be difficult (though I admit not impossible) to find "relevant"
applications about sensory preconditioning, Osgood's surface, or whatever other subtle
learning concepts are typically covered in these courses. Unfortunately for me, I
found that the more "relevance" I tried to inject into this particular course the less
it appealed to me. IN fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this process turned _me_ into
a bit of a boring prof. Things got so bad, that at one point I started to seriously
question the need for a traditional theories of learning course at the undergraduate
level (a good topic for another TIPS discussion, don't you think?)
>So, if their job orientation has brought them into my
>class, instead of condemning it, I can use it to draw them just a bit closer to
>my orientation (but not too close: I would never be that mean).
And such should be the attitude of a good professor. But, I wonder if, in the process
of tolerating and meeting students' views of education, we are subtly changing the
nature of our profession (teaching professors), even that of our own field
(psychology), in an undesirable direction similar to what is occurring with fundable
research (Say, are there too many commas in that last sentence?). That is, more and
more institutions are pushing their faculty to get grant money in order to satisfy
tenure and promotion demands. And, as we all know, grant money is increasingly tied
to areas that have some sort of direct application ("relevance"!). Is this a problem?
I think it is. Sooooooo ..... I admit that you are correct, it would be foolish for
us to try to stop the glacier. But, I sure hope we are all making an effort to
redirect it in the correct direction.
>Just thinking out loud,
Yo tambien, colega, yo tambien. :)
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
Miguel Roig, Ph.D. Voice: (718) 390-4513
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology Fax: (718) 442-3612
Division of Social Sciences [EMAIL PROTECTED]
St. John's University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
300 Howard Avenue http://rdz.stjohns.edu/~roig
Staten Island, NY 10301���������������
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
