I'm currently struggling with the excruciating task of evaluating term papers for a senior (4th year) course I teach. The course is about the molecular and cellular mechanisms of animal development (i.e. this is not an English course, and writing is not the subject), but each student has to submit a final paper, which is worth a substantial fraction of their final grade. These are fairly substantial papers (averaging about a dozen typewritten pages, plus a few pages of references), and I give them the option of submitting drafts early for feedback (only 2 out of 24 students took advantage of this, and both of them were pretty good even as drafts).

What astounds me is the number of 4th year undergraduate students who are apparently incapable of constructing a grammatically correct english sentence, know nothing about standard citation format (let alone when to cite a review paper vs. a primary literature paper), or the use of punctuation. (I should also add that several of the students submitted excellent papers, with very few problems in the writing).

What is going to happen is that, when I fail these students, they will complain to the dean/vice president/president of the university, because this will prevent them from graduating. But I cannot, in good conscience, pass this level of work.

My question is: should students who have paid 4 years of tuition, when they clearly should've been failed in first year, sue the university to recover the cost of the 3 years worth of tuition they have been unfairly charged?

I'm currently struggling with the excruciating task of evaluating term papers for a senior (4th year) course I teach. The course is about the molecular and cellular mechanisms of animal development (i.e. this is not an English course, and writing is not the subject), but each student has to submit a final paper, which is worth a substantial fraction of their final grade. These are fairly substantial papers (averaging about a dozen typewritten pages, plus a few pages of references), and I give them the option of submitting drafts early for feedback (only 2 out of 24 students took advantage of this, and both of them were pretty good even as drafts).

What astounds me is the number of 4th year undergraduate students who are apparently incapable of constructing a grammatically correct english sentence, know nothing about standard citation format (let alone when to cite a review paper vs. a primary literature paper), or the use of punctuation. (I should also add that several of the students submitted excellent papers, with very few problems in the writing).

What is going to happen is that, when I fail these students, they will complain to the dean/vice president/president of the university, because this will prevent them from graduating. But I cannot, in good conscience, pass this level of work.

My question is: should students who have paid 4 years of tuition, when they clearly should've been failed in first year, sue the university to recover the cost of the 3 years worth of tuition they have been unfairly charged?

Memorial University has been faced with this problem, yours truly included. MUN's policy is that we have to state at the onset of the course what is required in a final exam. Thus, if a well written final is required, utilizing proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, and APA style, if this is stated at the onset of the course, we are allowed to go with this standard.

I too give my final question at the onset of the course, as well as letting my students submit questions about the final and even an outline and first draft of their first page or so to me prior to final submission. My standards are high, and the few students who did fail their exam, and the course, had their papers reread by a committee and the committee upheld my initial grade.

I am not sure how you could prove that a student should have failed in year one. Still, I can see a law suit someday re this matter. It is happening in the US, from high school grads, university grads, and even graduate school grads. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.

It really aggravates me to see students getting into my 4th year classes lacking these very basic communication skills. I'm not teaching this stuff, but it is required to pass my course, so it feels very unfair to both me and the students to have them fail my course due to their lacking skills they should've mastered in first year (or high school).

These student are not failing because they can't do the thinking I require of them; I can't tell if their thinking is any good because I can't understand what they've written half the time.

If they fail my course, and therefore do not earn a degree, they have every right to be angry. But when they fail my 4th year course due to their lack of 1st year writing skills, it seems outrageously obvious that the university has been bilking them out of tuition without teaching them anything.

These students have been getting passed along at every stage so that the university can continue to collect tuition. When they get to the end of their degree, either they'll run into an old professor who no longer cares and just passes them, or a very young professor who is too afraid of not getting tenure to fail them, or someone like me who still thinks a baccalaureate degree should mean something, who therefore fails them. So either they wind up with a degree that means nothing (further eroding the meaning of a degree), or without even a degraded degree, because the faculty responsible for maintaining standards at the first and second year level have succumbed to the pressure to pass everyone and ensure 'student retention.'

It really aggravates me to see students getting into my 4th year classes lacking these very basic communication skills. I'm not teaching this stuff, but it is required to pass my course, so it feels very unfair to both me and the students to have them fail my course due to their lacking skills they should've mastered in first year (or high school).

These student are not failing because they can't do the thinking I require of them; I can't tell if their thinking is any good because I can't understand what they've written half the time.

If they fail my course, and therefore do not earn a degree, they have every right to be angry. But when they fail my 4th year course due to their lack of 1st year writing skills, it seems outrageously obvious that the university has been bilking them out of tuition without teaching them anything.

These students have been getting passed along at every stage so that the university can continue to collect tuition. When they get to the end of their degree, either they'll run into an old professor who no longer cares and just passes them, or a very young professor who is too afraid of not getting tenure to fail them, or someone like me who still thinks a baccalaureate degree should mean something, who fails them. So either they wind up with a degree that means nothing (further eroding the meaning of a degree), or without even a degraded degree, because the faculty responsible for maintaining standards at the first and second year level have succumbed to the pressure to pass everyone and ensure 'student retention.'

Sadly, I am sure that this lack of writing ability goes back further than freshman year university. Schools just pass students along and then they become too old to hold back, so they are passed along even further.

MUN loses more students due to their failing math and failing first year English courses.

I'm not sure what grounds there is for suing the university, unless it is the university itself that's encouraging passing along poorly prepared students. Or some other systemic problem that's causing individual professors to keep passing students along. Which is to say, is it the university or individual professors who should have failed them and didn't?

I would fail them, personally.

If you are, however, looking for a graceful way out, could you fail them but then allow them the summer (or something) to rework these papers and submit them for regrading?

It would be really difficult in these cases to prove you were suing because you're incompetent in demonstrating abilities required by the core curriculum--since it's fairly easy to fake that. You might get a portion of your tuition back for showing that failing work consistently received a passing grade.

is it the university or individual professors who should have failed them and didn't?

It's a systemic problem. If a professor fails an unusually large proportion of their class, they'll hear about it from higher up (which is probably as it should be), but if they can justify their grading, it won't really cause them much difficulty. What will cause them a lot of difficulty is if students feel that they're unreasonably tough (and remember that, especially first year students coming out of high school have been getting A's for simply attending class, and B's for not attending, but showing up for exams), they'll give these professors negative student evaluations.

Student evaluations are often the *only* measure of teaching effectiveness used when a professor is considered for tenure. So giving out easy marks improves your chance of getting tenure.

Furthermore, university administrations are always worried about 'student retention.' Students that fail drop out and don't pay tuition. In contrast, students that pass, even with a C, will carry on with their degree programme, and continue to pay tuition.

So faculty who insist on high standards will get grief from the students and the administration. Therefore standards tend to erode.

Eventually I wind up with students who can't write in my 4th year class.

I would fail them, personally.

That is my inclination as well. But I certainly sympathize with them, in that they have been completely ripped off by the university system, and I agree that they should get their money back.

If you are, however, looking for a graceful way out, could you fail them but then allow them the summer (or something) to rework these papers and submit them for regrading?

Yes. I've already started doing this with some of the less egregious cases. I certainly have nothing against the students, and I know some of them have worked very hard on their papers. It's just that no one has ever given them any corrective feedback on their writing (marking papers takes *a lot of time* so most professors use multiple choice exams, especially in the large-enrollment introductory courses). But I really don't feel like it should be my place to teach these kids English; I'm not even a very good writer myself. I have enough difficulty teaching them molecular biology.

showing that failing work consistently received a passing grade.

Yes, this would be the key. And I really think that it's going to take some gutsy person who has been awarded a degree to decline it, and take their papers to a neutral 3rd party to show that they were consistently passed on the basis of work that should've been failed. Then the university should be sued for academic malpractice.

One or two public humiliations of universities like this, and I think we'd see 'academic rigour' being touted as a virtue in undergraduate programs pretty quickly.

Anyway, I probably shouldn't post more about this today... these papers are really getting to me. :mad:

I'm currently struggling with the excruciating task of evaluating term papers for a senior (4th year) course I teach. The course is about the molecular and cellular mechanisms of animal development (i.e. this is not an English course, and writing is not the subject), but each student has to submit a final paper, which is worth a substantial fraction of their final grade. These are fairly substantial papers (averaging about a dozen typewritten pages, plus a few pages of references), and I give them the option of submitting drafts early for feedback (only 2 out of 24 students took advantage of this, and both of them were pretty good even as drafts).

What astounds me is the number of 4th year undergraduate students who are apparently incapable of constructing a grammatically correct english sentence, know nothing about standard citation format (let alone when to cite a review paper vs. a primary literature paper), or the use of punctuation. (I should also add that several of the students submitted excellent papers, with very few problems in the writing).

What is going to happen is that, when I fail these students, they will complain to the dean/vice president/president of the university, because this will prevent them from graduating. But I cannot, in good conscience, pass this level of work.

My question is: should students who have paid 4 years of tuition, when they clearly should've been failed in first year, sue the university to recover the cost of the 3 years worth of tuition they have been unfairly charged?

They could if they wanted to but I don't see how they could ever win such a suit as it would require actual evidence which may be hard to come by 3 years after the fact i.e. samples of writing.

Additionally I don't see how the University could be held to be culpable or accountable for the standard of grading by individual professors when it comes to writing skills. If anything I would think that such a litigation would be more likely to be successful if it was filed against the secondary school, school board as in this case the school board is responsible for making sure that individual teachers follow the curriculum.

"It's a systemic problem. If a professor fails an unusually large proportion of their class, they'll hear about it from higher up (which is probably as it should be), but if they can justify their grading, it won't really cause them much difficulty. What will cause them a lot of difficulty is if students feel that they're unreasonably tough (and remember that, especially first year students coming out of high school have been getting A's for simply attending class, and B's for not attending, but showing up for exams), they'll give these professors negative student evaluations." I was once called before the Registrar's Office to defend my grades. Of 42 grades, there were 11 grades of C and 31 grades of B. No grades of A, D or F. I thought that I was going to be called upon to justfiy why no A's ................ but rather, I was asked how come no D's or F's. Seems as if I was replacing a prof who had just retired and he always gave out A's to F's based on a curve. However, I graded based upon the basis of everyone could get as high a grade as they were able to attain. I was untenured at the time, but I stood my ground and defended why I had no F's, D's or A's. I must have proven my point, since this was 34 years ago and I am still teaching at MUN.

That is my inclination as well. But I certainly sympathize with them, in that they have been completely ripped off by the university system, and I agree that they should get their money back.

It quite likely goes beyond university.

I had my 15 year old nephew helping out in the office one day. To keep him busy, I had him write a very simple business letter. I was fully expecting that he'd write it and I'd have to re-write it (i.e., scribble corrections over it and then make him decipher and re-type those corrections.) To my surprise, his first attempt was perfectly acceptable. All he needed to learn was the format of a business letter, but the actual writing was fine.

I know university graduates who cannot manage the same. And thinking about it, it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect a high school student to be able to write a basic letter.

So I suspect the lack of preparedness or inability to write goes back quite a ways.

It quite likely goes beyond university.

I had my 15 year old nephew helping out in the office one day. To keep him busy, I had him write a very simple business letter. I was fully expecting that he'd write it and I'd have to re-write it (i.e., scribble corrections over it and then make him decipher and re-type those corrections.) To my surprise, his first attempt was perfectly acceptable. All he needed to learn was the format of a business letter, but the actual writing was fine.

I know university graduates who cannot manage the same. And thinking about it, it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect a high school student to be able to write a basic letter.

So I suspect the lack of preparedness or inability to write goes back quite a ways.

My point exactly, Sonal, or, in the case of your nephew, the ability to write goes way back as well.

In that this is my area of expertise, I urge my students to truly consider early identification of needs in terms of reading/writing, and then proactive intervention to help prevent this problem from getting out of hand.

My point exactly, Sonal, or, in the case of your nephew, the ability to write goes way back as well.

In that this is my area of expertise, I urge my students to truly consider early identification of needs in terms of reading/writing, and then proactive intervention to help prevent this problem from getting out of hand.

I have to say, it made me feel much better about the future to see that yes, there are high school students who can string together coherent sentences.

Dr.G, how much of the time do you suppose that it's an actual inability to write well, versus unwillingness?

I have to say, it made me feel much better about the future to see that yes, there are high school students who can string together coherent sentences.

Dr.G, how much of the time do you suppose that it's an actual inability to write well, versus unwillingness?

Good question, Sonal. This links in with the old question of being "illiterate" vs "aliterate" -- thus, being unable to read vs being unwilling to read even though you are able to read. Studies have shown that there are more people who cannot write effectively than those who cannot read effectively. Still, in both cases, if you are able to read and write, but choose not to use these abilities, then that is another matter entirely.

Paix, mon amie.

You know, it just occurred to me. I have a friend who is a biochemist, who's taken some time away from lab research to rethink what she wants to do with her life. To make ends meet, she's picked up some work freelance editing biochem papers. She was surprised that no one had cornered that market yet... perhaps it's just a very, very big market?

My question is: should students who have paid 4 years of tuition, when they clearly should've been failed in first year, sue the university to recover the cost of the 3 years worth of tuition they have been unfairly charged?

I would fail them without a second thought on the basis that their papers were not of sufficient quality. Presumably these students are destined for jobs in the real world. What value is their understanding of the science, if they lack the ability to communicate it? I agree it is a systemic and wide-spread problem. Companies are rife with employees who simply cannot write a simple letter or report. I see this daily and it is getting worse all the time.

[QUOTE=bryanc;1190275]But I certainly sympathize with them, in that they have been completely ripped off by the university system, and I agree that they should get their money back./QUOTE]
I don't feel sorry for them at all. It may sound cliche, but university isn't a place you go to be taught. It's a place you go to learn. The onus is on the students to improve their communication skills as needed to be able to write a meaningful and useable paper. i'm quite certain someone will eventually sue a university over it. I think, however, that when instructors have to start considering potential lawsuits as part of the grading process, it's time to find other employment.

Well, one solution could be right at school-level, when kids make grammar and spelling mistakes, stop tolerating it as "creativity" or "the English language evolves" or "well, as long as the message is communicated who cares about form etc." and start insisting on good grammar, good spelling, punctuation and sentence construction - even when the subject is Science or Maths or History or Geography or Sociology or whatever.

Cheers

Well, one solution could be right at school-level, when kids make grammar and spelling mistakes, stop tolerating it as "creativity" or "the English language evolves" or "well, as long as the message is communicated who cares about form etc." and start insisting on good grammar, good spelling, punctuation and sentence construction - even when the subject is Science or Maths or History or Geography or Sociology or whatever.

Cheers

An interesting idea. They are going in the opposite direction at Cambridge University --

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg.
It is an elxampe of the phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig
to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr
the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist
and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and
you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid
deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig
huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt!

Well, one solution could be right at school-level, when kids make grammar and spelling mistakes, stop tolerating it as "creativity" or "the English language evolves" or "well, as long as the message is communicated who cares about form etc." and start insisting on good grammar, good spelling, punctuation and sentence construction - even when the subject is Science or Maths or History or Geography or Sociology or whatever.

Cheers

Luckily, computer word processing programs have a spell checking function --

"Eye halve a spelling chequer It came with my pea sea It plainly marques
four my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a key and type a
word And weight four it two say Weather eye am wrong oar write It shows
me strait a weigh. As soon as a mist ache is maid It nose bee fore two
long And eye can put the error rite Its rare lea ever wrong. Eye have
run this poem threw it I am shore your pleased two no Its letter perfect
awl the weigh My chequer tolled me sew."

"The The Impotence of Proofreading," by TAYLOR MALI - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OonDPGwAyfQ)

Warning -- a few of off-color words, but not too severe.

Yeah, I have read the same piece about the first and last letters, but even when you look at that sentence, Marc, you will see that it is grammatic and makes sense, except for spelling.

However, when you mix up "your", "you're", and the "there" alternatives, and keep using "lol" and stuff like that; or make your sentence completely ungrammatic, it does affect readability. Case in point, your second example. Perfect spelling, even decent grammar, but completely nonsensical until you actually read it aloud to someone else.

To paraphrase your own signature, the man who does not write well has no advantage over the man who cannot write.

Cheers

Students should never be accepted by a university if they can't express themselves properly in their written work. This would be a pretty easy screening job at admission time.

Yeah, I have read the same piece about the first and last letters, but even when you look at that sentence, Marc, you will see that it is grammatic and makes sense, except for spelling.

However, when you mix up "your", "you're", and the "there" alternatives, and keep using "lol" and stuff like that; or make your sentence completely ungrammatic, it does affect readability. Case in point, your second example. Perfect spelling, even decent grammar, but completely nonsensical until you actually read it aloud to someone else.

To paraphrase your own signature, the man who does not write well has no advantage over the man who cannot write.

Cheers

Very good points, tilt. Paix, mon ami.

Taylor Mali on "What Teachers Make" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU&feature=related)

Students should never be accepted by a university if they can't express themselves properly in their written work. This would be a pretty easy screening job at admission time.

The trouble is students represent "bums in seats" to borrow an airline term.

Cheers

Very good points, tilt. Paix, mon ami.

Taylor Mali on "What Teachers Make" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU&feature=related)

Heheheh, your comment actually started me googling for stuff and I came across Taylor Mali by chance; and now you too link to one of his performances! I am developing a serious liking for his work thanks to you!

Cheers

well, one solution could be right at school-level, when kids make grammar and spelling mistakes, stop tolerating it as "creativity" or "the english language evolves" or "well, as long as the message is communicated who cares about form etc." and start insisting on good grammar, good spelling, punctuation and sentence construction - even when the subject is science or maths or history or geography or sociology or whatever.

Cheers

+1

Heheheh, your comment actually started me googling for stuff and I came across Taylor Mali by chance; and now you too link to one of his performances! I am developing a serious liking for his work thanks to you!

Cheers

My pleasure, mon ami. Paix.

Late again to the discussion it seems. From my point of view, this thread summarises what has been governmental policy for years, which is throughput.
I'm 62. When I went to school ( up to and including high school ) everything was written in ink with a cartridge pen. Every aspect of the papers and other assignments were marked ...thus you lost marks on math papers for spelling and grammar.

Then the argument started..... What does spelling have to do with math.... Parents politically won out and education became compartmentalised...only the subject you were in mattered. Slowly our skills in written communication dwindled to a basic "good enough" level. Then came the numerous waves of technological changes....lap tops, tabs, spell checkers....students and teachers accepted just getting the gist, which is the grist of this issue.

When the job markets shrunk the focuses new skills and through put. It seems if you cannot find work the government's solution is more education....thus the flood we are seeing today. Little by little we seem to be educating more but learning less.

This would be similar to the changing of aspects within the building codes. Little by little we shave standards until a house can meet code and fall down within 10 years but one built and still standing 150 years ago can't

Late again to the discussion it seems. From my point of view, this thread summarises what has been governmental policy for years, which is throughput.
I'm 62. When I went to school ( up to and including high school ) everything was written in ink with a cartridge pen. Every aspect of the papers and other assignments were marked ...thus you lost marks on math papers for spelling and grammar.

Then the argument started..... What does spelling have to do with math.... Parents politically won out and education became compartmentalised...only the subject you were in mattered. Slowly our skills in written communication dwindled to a basic "good enough" level. Then came the numerous waves of technological changes....lap tops, tabs, spell checkers....students and teachers accepted just getting the gist, which is the grist of this issue.

When the job markets shrunk the focuses new skills and through put. It seems if you cannot find work the government's solution is more education....thus the flood we are seeing today. Little by little we seem to be educating more but learning less.

This would be similar to the changing of aspects within the building codes. Little by little we shave standards until a house can meet code and fall down within 10 years but one built and still standing 150 years ago can't

An excellent analogy, Rps. I have seen this erosion in my 40 years as an educator. Still, I try to do my best these days to show pre and in-service teachers that there are various ways to help students become more effective and strategic readers/writers.

Paix, mon ami.

This thread is exactly why many universities and I don't see eye to eye. I've had the same issue as Dr. G, defending my marking scheme when there wasn't enough "spread" even though the class itself was just a statistical outlier. Everyone attended every class with perhaps two exceptions. That has never happened to me before or since. Their work was similarly unexpectedly above average.

The flip side is of course, I don't have any problem failing students for two reasons: 1) a university education is not a straight line, it is not a product you buy off the shelves, it does not guarantee you will learn anything. Just because I buy a really expensive guitar does not make me a musical genius. 2) As instructors we have to bust our butts to make sure the student receives an adequate sampling of their grade (10%-15%) before the deadline to drop the course without academic penalty or serious financial penalty. So they should have an idea of where they stand in the course before continuing on. This should allow you as an instructor to mark according to predefined standards and to go back to previous assignments and determine if their standards have improved throughout the term.

Having said that, I've heard horror stories from colleagues that have been muscled into passing students or overruled when it comes to charges of blatant plagiarism. I'd probably commit career suicide and quit on the spot should that happen to me which is why I'm not so sure I'm cut out for academia the way many standards are going.

To the OP, I have total sympathy for you, and it's never an easy decision. Particularly in cases where there is a language barrier or some other communication barrier. But for the most part, learning something without demonstrating or communicating it would be the equivalent of saying "I know karate, but I can't explain it or demonstrate it".

Cap10, I have always felt that Ontario missed the boat when it dumped Grade 13. If I had the power to reinstate it, I would make it a first year of university level where students would hone their skills in preparation for further studies.

Not a bad idea but there's no magic bullet. I was in grade 12 the year they dropped it in Alberta and they introduced "Centre High" for the first time. Basically you had to pay to upgrade any courses you failed to get your diploma only it cost you out of pocket. It turned into a pretty decent threat for parents to say, "if you fail a course you're taking it again at centre high, and you're getting a job to pay for it!"

Anyways, the argument of course being that if you didn't learn it in 12 years, you won't learn it in 13 all things being equal.

But I agree in principle that there needs to be a change in the system that allows for University prep.

While the thread title was specifically about university students and their lack of written communication skills, I think the issue is much older and much broader than simply language and grammar.

I finished high school in 1962 and did not write a final exam for grade 12 in Saskatchewan. At that time, teachers had to power to give complete or even partial 'recommends' so if a student was carrying an average grade that was high enough, it negated the need to write departmental exams to prove competence in the subject.

I carried 12 subjects during that final year and received a 'complete recommend' and as such, did not have to write departmental exams and was awarded a senior matriculation as it was the called then, two weeks prior to the end of the school year.

I entered the work force as a printer that year and became part of the management team four years later when I attained journeyman status. I stayed in management at various levels my entire career and began to notice in the middle 80s that high school grads we hired, (our primary new employee source for the skill set required) were lacking in basic skills that we would end up teaching them, so they could perform their duties effectively. These were otherwise bright and motivated individuals, they just could not perform certain tasks they should have learned in high school.

I am referring here to some pretty basic skills that I certainly learned in high school, and grade school for that matter, that they had in many cases never been exposed to:

- Ph levels in the water fountains of the printing press were a mystery to them, as was how to change those levels up or down to alter the quality of the print job.
- Aperture openings versus exposure to properly develop a negative. I recall them being amazed that pure silver was a byproduct of photography of any kind. These simple chemical reactions or how cameras and lenses worked were part of our sciences curriculum.
- Basic math skills to figure how many impressions one could get out of a roll of newsprint of a certain thickness and weight.
- Using math to determine how efficiently we could cut large sheets of flat stock into smaller sheets and how to determine how many of the large sheets had to be cut to produce the required quantity of the smaller size for the printed job.
- Simple writing skills, like a proper business letter when one was required to send to a company explaining why their product was inferior if we had an issue.
- Calculating the size of an advertisement over set numbers of columns by agate lines (14 lines to the inch) rather than the then standard 'inches'.

I remember one young man who could not figure a way to cut stock. When I pulled out a large piece of scrap paper and used a bold pencil to show him using long division, how to arrive at the answer, he looked at me and said, that's not the way we were taught. He was taught 'new math' and we were at a stalemate as neither of us understood the other.

We raised three children with absolutely no way to assist with the understanding of their homework, because we didn't understand a new method that was foreign to us being taught at their schools.

I could go on, but this is long enough already. My point being, the issue of a combination of a changing curriculum, and a lack of understanding or absorption of said information, goes back much further than first year university.

"I could go on, but this is long enough already. My point being, the issue of a combination of a changing curriculum, and a lack of understanding or absorption of said information, goes back much further than first year university. " Very good point, Sinc. The curriculum needs to evolve, but I find in math it is going back and forth and back again. At least in the language arts, here in NL, it is slowly evolving in a positive direction. Still, our province is moving into a focus upon test scores in literacy for grades 3, 6 and 9, and many parents are more concerned with grades than authentic literacy abilities (i.e., critical understanding of what is read, and being able to effectively communicate this understanding via the written word).

Math, I find, is a particularly difficult one when it comes to curriculum changes. The math itself is unchanged, but the method by which it is explained or approached. If one has a good functional understanding of mathematic operations (which is what most people use day to day), then changes like this can become incomprehensible.

If you have a deep understanding of math, then changes to method aren't so difficult to cope with, but that's a very small group of math nerds. ;) :)

Considering Grade 13 again, that was in part intended as a university prep year (well, so I was told) but even that varied wildly on how much preparation one had. A good example was calculus. The Grade 13 requirements were to teach derivatives only. But as most first year university calculus courses consisted of both derivatives and integrals, a lot of high schools would teach both in Grade 13 to varying degrees. I came out of one such school, and to be honest, I can't see how you can spend a full year on just derivatives.... you'd have to be teaching at a glacial pace.

So here we all are in a first year university Calculus course (which was just 4 months long vs. 10 months of high school) and I was the lucky student who'd covered most of the material in high school, so even though things were considerably faster and more detailed, I could manage to keep up, and then there were other students from Ontario who'd covered less than half the material in high school and took more than twice the time to do so. Is it any wonder they struggled?

Math, I find, is a particularly difficult one when it comes to curriculum changes. The math itself is unchanged, but the method by which it is explained or approached. If one has a good functional understanding of mathematic operations (which is what most people use day to day), then changes like this can become incomprehensible.

If you have a deep understanding of math, then changes to method aren't so difficult to cope with, but that's a very small group of math nerds. ;) :)

Considering Grade 13 again, that was in part intended as a university prep year (well, so I was told) but even that varied wildly on how much preparation one had. A good example was calculus. The Grade 13 requirements were to teach derivatives only. But as most first year university calculus courses consisted of both derivatives and integrals, a lot of high schools would teach both in Grade 13 to varying degrees. I came out of one such school, and to be honest, I can't see how you can spend a full year on just derivatives.... you'd have to be teaching at a glacial pace.

So here we all are in a first year university Calculus course (which was just 4 months long vs. 10 months of high school) and I was the lucky student who'd covered most of the material in high school, so even though things were considerably faster and more detailed, I could manage to keep up, and then there were other students from Ontario who'd covered less than half the material in high school and took more than twice the time to do so. Is it any wonder they struggled?

True. From what I have been able to see, my son went into "new math" ......... which was upgraded to "new new math" by the time he graduated high school. Then, there was a shift to something called "approximation and estimation" where coming close to the correct and expected answer was accepted ............. which has not turned into "mental math", which is another name for memorization and understanding of the addition/subtraction/division and multiplication processes. Thus, I am able to do 8 X 6 + 2 in my head, and then subtract 10 from this number and then divide it by two ....... and actually get the correct answer without a calculator. The premise is that once a child understands these basics, higher level math will be possible. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

There is also the problem of consistency between schools. I moved alot. From Saskatchewan to Manitoba, from the city to rural areas, and I think every school I went to, was at a slightly different levels for the same grade or taught in a different style. And all of these school systems went from K - 12.

As an example, I went one year from a city school where they expected you to be able to carry on a French conversation in French and know your numbers from 1 to 100, to a school where you did written exercises and know very little about counting.

Math was probably the one curriculum with the least difference between schools. But I was always good at math and science. SINC PH issues sound interesting. You would have thought they learned about PHs, acids and bases in Science.

I probably went from being the average student in the city schools to the genius in the rural schools. I had little competition for the highest mark in the rural schools - maybe one or two girls.

But strangely enough, I had no problems with my first year University courses. Some of it was a review of the last year of High School. Graduated high school in 1985. Thing is I probably missed all that new fangled stuff. I learned my division the long way and we were the lucky generation that had to know both the standard and metric system and how to convert between the 2. To this day I can do some those conversions in my head, unlike my mom.

I remember one young man who could not figure a way to cut stock. When I pulled out a large piece of scrap paper and used a bold pencil to show him using long division, how to arrive at the answer, he looked at me and said, that's not the way we were taught. He was taught 'new math' and we were at a stalemate as neither of us understood the other.

wIWaJ0sy03g

Consider the perspective of students who are actually 'getting' it in class, who hand in their papers and projects on time, and who then witness fellow students who obviously don't 'get' it, who are chronically late handing in papers ... still walking across that floor to get a diploma. It cheapens the whole experience and value of the program.

If the academics who've participated in this thread are correct, and the Universities are just in it for the tuition money, I think we need a reevaluation of the whole system and the purpose and value of a University education and degree.

Consider the perspective of students who are actually 'getting' it in class, who hand in their papers and projects on time, and who then witness fellow students who obviously don't 'get' it, who are chronically late handing in papers ... still walking across that floor to get a diploma. It cheapens the whole experience and value of the program.

If the academics who've participated in this thread are correct, and the Universities are just in it for the tuition money, I think we need a reevaluation of the whole system and the purpose and value of a University education and degree.
I agree it cheapens the whole experience and value but hopefully the graduate who "earned" the degree will continue to use his or her knowledge and skills to get the right career and expand on it. I know the people who barely earned the "piece of paper" will not succeed in their career.

If the academics who've participated in this thread are correct, and the Universities are just in it for the tuition money, I think we need a reevaluation of the whole system and the purpose and value of a University education and degree.

I really do think this is a real problem, but also probably something that is self-correcting to some extent; the pendulum will swing back as it becomes obvious that university degrees don't get you a job.

I will also say that I think a major factor in this has been the trend towards installing business people in the administration of universities. I remember being appalled when I started noticing the vapid business-speak starting to emanate from university presidents and VPs back in the '80s, and getting completely cynical about it when the president of SFU gave a speech about being "client driven" and "synergising our core competencies" to "produce the best product" (he viewed our graduates as the product, and our clients as the business community who would be hiring these brain-washed automatons). While I'm all for balanced budgets and systemic efficiency, universities are not businesses; they don't sell a product and they shouldn't be making a profit.

Eventually, as more and more young people (and their parents) recognize that 2 years in a community college learning to weld or do something practical is far more likely to land you a job than 4 years of reading poetry or learning about protein structure, enrolments in universities will start to drop off. At that point, if the whole house of cards does not completely collapse, we'll be back to dealing with students who are genuinely curious about complex subject matter, and who will actually benefit from a chance to work with academics who are pushing the frontiers of their fields.

Exactly. I wanted my daughter to get a University degree, because I thought she needed exposure to the things she didn't have an opportunity to learn about growing up in a small town, from real live people who were passionate about their work. She loved university, and excelled, and expanded her horizons so much further than I'd been able to do (trips to Europe notwithstanding). She came out of University even more curious about the world, which was my goal. (In her case she was fortunately to have parents who plan & save for things, so she also came out of University without any student debt.) Her professors wanted her to continue on to graduate studies, and go into research, but looking at her fellow students she decided she didn't want to end up teaching bored students who wouldn't 'get' how fascinating it is to study how the brain perceives word meanings. She may decide to go back later as she really did love the research aspect. But she'd definitely be one of those who would be conflicted 'passing' students who didn't deserve it.

(Now that she's completed the University degree, she's taking a BCIT course. The BCIT course is much more stringent in its rules than the University was, and some of the people in her 'intake' have already failed the course and had to leave. Anyone who finishes the course is generally recruited right from it, sometimes even while they're still in the course. Employers know. Quite the difference between the tech school and University, though.)

Interesting.

I am of the very strong opinion that we should strive for a society in which most, if not all adults have the option of a real university education (where 'real' means a degree that exposes them to significant intellectual challenge, promotes and practices their critical thinking capacities, forces them out of their comfort zones, gives them a variety of alternate perspectives, and provides them with a sophisticated understanding of some aspect of human knowledge). However, in my experience, most 18-19 year olds are not sufficiently mature to take advantage of this sort of opportunity, even if they're lucky enough to get it (I certainly wasn't). Furthermore, the undergraduate university degree has become so degraded in the past three or four decades that it no longer necessarily accomplishes what it advertises, and it has (falsely) become viewed as a pre-requisite for getting a job.

I think most young people would be better served working for a few years after high school, and then considering what they want to do with their lives after they've got some 'real world' experience.

I'd agree that 'most', at that age are not ready for the experience, but some are.

I'd agree that there is a false perception of a University degree being somehow a better indicator of employability. (Especially given the discussion in this thread regarding the literacy abilities of some university students.)

To my mind a University is really just a convenient way of assembling the ability to learn in one focused place. I don't agree that pursuing education at a University is the only way adults can experience exposure to (to quote) "significant intellectual challenge, promotes and practices their critical thinking capacities, forces them out of their comfort zones, gives them a variety of alternate perspectives, and provides them with a sophisticated understanding of some aspect of human knowledge". People can learn just as much outside an institutional setting and come out just as well rounded and informed, but it takes longer and is less focussed. University is just an easier and quicker way to gain knowledge without the distractions of life (unless you're an 18 year old male who has just reached drinking age...)

I will admit being prejudiced against a lot of academic types who flaunt their degrees as bestowing some sort of special aura of intelligence. I've got a grade 12 education, and that's it, but I don't feel any less 'intelligent' just because most of my learning has been done outside of academia.

But I do agree that all people, whether in school or out, should be encouraged to always learn. I think where our schools fail is in imparting the 'love of learning' for the sake of learning, rather than 'learning by rote'. Primary school used to be called 'grammar school', because that was where they learnt the fundamentals of communication - reading, writing, etc. Because isn't education just 'communicating knowledge'? We've failed a whole generation because we've forgot the reason behind the learning.

I don't agree that pursuing education at a University is the only way adults can experience exposure to (to quote) "significant intellectual challenge, promotes and practices their critical thinking capacities, forces them out of their comfort zones, gives them a variety of alternate perspectives, and provides them with a sophisticated understanding of some aspect of human knowledge". People can learn just as much outside an institutional setting and come out just as well rounded and informed, but it takes longer and is less focussed.

I have no disagreement with you on this at all.

University is just an easier and quicker way to gain knowledge without the distractions of life

Not necessarily easier or quicker (you're talking to someone who spent 10 years in graduate school), but a university can do two things WRT education that you aren't likely to encounter elsewhere. Firstly (and most obviously), there are the esoteric academic pursuits of basic research that you won't find going on anywhere else. Secondly (and of more practical value to most people) there's the issue of evaluation & accreditation.

Having a degree from the "school of hard knocks" or other real world experience may well have provided you with an excellent education, but it's pretty difficult for someone who doesn't know you to ascertain that. So one of the things a university degree is supposed to do is provide an indicator to society at large that a person has demonstrated uncommon intellectual aptitude and has mastered some aspect of academic knowledge to a significant degree. Thus, having completed a degree becomes a quick-and-easy means by which society can select for individuals with these aptitudes and abilities. Historically, that meant society missed a lot of bright people who didn't have the opportunity to go to university, and even worse, now we have a system that allows a lot of people who really don't have these aptitudes or abilities to get degrees anyway.

Because isn't education just 'communicating knowledge'?

Not really. I definitely view education much less similar to transferring knowledge from one brain into another, and much more like one candle lighting another.

The other aspect of this "what is the role of university" discussion is the whole "creation of new knowledge" thing... but I have to run, so I'll leave that for another time.

I'm remembering back to my first degree, when it was widely believed that the program was designed to be so difficult in years one and two that the majority of the students would flunk, transfer or drop out within the first two years. I have no idea what the numbers were (though it was rumoured that only 1/8 to 1/3 could survive) but certainly, there were a lot of students in my first year classes that were not there by third year. The thinking was that if you could make it through year one and two, you could manage years three and four.... and I can't recall anyone from year 3 who didn't ultimately graduate.

Such thinking is also common in engineering programs, or at least, it was.

But the type of thinking that used to offend me, personally, was that the point of university was to get a piece of paper which would enable someone to get a job. Pragmatically speaking, yes, it's true that a university degree usually leads to better career prospects. But I never thought that was the point of it all. (Of course, I say this as someone about to enter a graduate degree program which will qualify me for exactly nothing. :) )

I say this as someone about to enter a graduate degree program which will qualify me for exactly nothing. :)

:clap:

Good for you! Education should be something one pursues out of passion and curiosity, not avarice.

What are you studying?

:clap:

Good for you! Education should be something one pursues out of passion and curiosity, not avarice.

What are you studying?

Creative Writing. Masters of Fine Arts degree, which is really more of a studio program than an academic one, even though I technically get a graduate degree out of it.

:clap:

Good for you! Education should be something one pursues out of passion and curiosity, not avarice.

What are you studying?

Why should there only be two motivations for higher learning...?

Perhaps passion/curiosity were yours but why would you seemingly be willing to pass judgment on those with other motivations... immigrants and aboriginal people come to mind.... not to mention anyone who wishes to better their physical real life lived conditions/well being. Why should such motivations be frowned upon? Please explain.

Or should people with such motivations be merely relegated to colleges? What about those pursing MBAs? Do you really think that people pursuing these degrees are doing so based on purely passion and curiosity?

Sorry but your comment seems all too "ivory tower" for me.

Why should there only be two motivations for higher learning...?

Perhaps passion/curiosity were yours but why would you seemingly be willing to pass judgment on those with other motivations... immigrants and aboriginal people come to mind.... not to mention anyone who wishes to better their physical real life lived conditions/well being. Why should such motivations be frowned upon? Please explain.

You're right, I did mean university education should be motivated by passion and curiosity. And I certainly don't frown upon other motivations, I just think other motivations should probably be motivating you in other directions.

Or should people with such motivations be merely relegated to colleges?

You're the one putting pejorative connotations on it; I think colleges are great, and provide a much better (and cheaper) education better suited to most people and most of societies pragmatic needs than universities are designed to. Although, as I've said, in an ideal world I'd like to see most people getting university educations as well as training in some sort of practical skill...that way someone could make a good living building houses, and write poetry or compose symphonies in their spare time/retirement (or whatever).

What about those pursing MBAs? Do you really think that people pursuing these degrees are doing so based on purely passion and curiosity?
Nope. And to be honest, I think the MBA is a degree designed entirely to generate profits for the universities.

:clap:

Good for you! Education should be something one pursues out of passion and curiosity, not avarice.



I agree also. There seems to be a bit of snobbery for people having degrees toward those having diplomas which is totally unfair. There are many useless degrees as well as diplomas. For instance I have a buddy, a super geek, who took a year and a half computer programing course in college for a year and a half (this was years ago) after finding the computer course at universities not up to his standards. Now my friend is doing amazingly well in computer programming making awesome money. On the flip side my niece took 4 years of non-science courses for environmental studies at university. She had no real goal and now has no real job. So when someone ask they have a degree or diploma, "I ask in what?".

...such a litigation would be more likely to be successful if it was filed against the secondary school, school board as in this case the school board is responsible for making sure that individual teachers follow the curriculum.

Being a secondary English teacher, I can tell you this is probably behind the big policy pushes we've seen lately here in Ontario. Somewhere, some school board lawyer is trembling because he knows it just takes one kid to get a bright idea about such a suit. The administration is more worried about covering their legal asses than upholding any sort of academic principle. "Education" replaced "academics" a long time ago in primary and secondary schools and now we see the cost of that shift.

I too mark papers and despair. I am forced to send kids off to university despite the fact that they don't even know what a paragraph is. I used to try and fail them but I got no support from administration -- instead it became all about me and how I had failed to get a rampant plagiarist or drug dealer or your garden-variety lazybones to appreciate Hamlet.

Sad to say, most of my students were doomed by kindergarten to a life of borderline illiteracy thanks to shoddy parenting and dubious educational practices. By the time they get to me in high school, the damage is done. But hell if our "success" rate doesn't look fantastic on paper. Look at all those credits dished out!

Being a secondary English teacher, I can tell you this is probably behind the big policy pushes we've seen lately here in Ontario. Somewhere, some school board lawyer is trembling because he knows it just takes one kid to get a bright idea about such a suit. The administration is more worried about covering their legal asses than upholding any sort of academic principle. "Education" replaced "academics" a long time ago in primary and secondary schools and now we see the cost of that shift.

I too mark papers and despair. I am forced to send kids off to university despite the fact that they don't even know what a paragraph is. I used to try and fail them but I got no support from administration -- instead it became all about me and how I had failed to get a rampant plagiarist or drug dealer or your garden-variety lazybones to appreciate Hamlet.

Sad to say, most of my students were doomed by kindergarten to a life of borderline illiteracy thanks to shoddy parenting and dubious educational practices. By the time they get to me in high school, the damage is done. But hell if our "success" rate doesn't look fantastic on paper. Look at all those credits dished out!

I recently re-read this gem by another fairly well known author. Your rant brought it to the top of my memory heap and I am afraid I simply cannot resist inserting it here.

With all due apologies:
The Immortal Bard - Isaac Asimov (http://www.angelfire.com/weird/ektomage/otherwriting/bard.html)

By the time they get to me in high school, the damage is done. But hell if our "success" rate doesn't look fantastic on paper. Look at all those credits dished out!

I know exactly what you mean. I see students at 2nd year who have "straight As" in first year, and they clearly shouldn't have graduated high school - they can't write coherent sentences, they can't do basic arithmetic (some literally cannot multiply or divide by 10 without a calculator), they don't understand graphs (even on linear axes), they have no concept of basic chemistry (these are students taking biochemistry, who have passed no less than 4 first year chemistry courses to get in), and they are irate with me when they fail the first exam and I tell them they're not prepared to take my course. This apparently means that I'm a "bad prof" and "don't care about students", and it is reflected in my student evaluations. If I had tenure, that wouldn't bother me, but the fact is that early-career faculty are under enormous pressure to continue this trend of grade-inflation precisely because giving easy exams and high marks are the best way of ensuring good student evaluations.

I don't think they should be allowed to sue if the course curriculum and criteria was laid out from the beginning.

I think this is a broader issue of not failing kids in elementary school. The education system seems to think that keeping a kid back sends the wrong message and can impact the kid emotionally etc... when clearly they, for whatever reason, don't have the necessary skills to move forward.

Unfortunately, the downside, as you are probably experiencing, is having students who either don't have the basic communication skills and/or they just don't care because they know they'll pass.

Good luck! Kudos to you for taking a stand :clap:

I don't think they should be allowed to sue if the course curriculum and criteria was laid out from the beginning.

Keep in mind that I'm not worried about students who fail suing us... it's the students who pass that I think will eventually realize how badly they've been ripped off if we continue to lower our standards and pass student who deserve to fail.

I recently re-read this gem by another fairly well known author. Your rant brought it to the top of my memory heap and I am afraid I simply cannot resist inserting it here.

With all due apologies:
The Immortal Bard - Isaac Asimov (http://www.angelfire.com/weird/ektomage/otherwriting/bard.html)

Heh. I enjoyed that and even though I'm a fan of Asimov this piece was new to me. I briefly considered showing it to my students but I can already picture their reaction: "Sir, we have to read a WHOLE PAGE?" :baby:

Heh. I enjoyed that and even though I'm a fan of Asimov this piece was new to me. I briefly considered showing it to my students but I can already picture their reaction: "Sir, we have to read a WHOLE PAGE?" :baby:

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Glad you took that in the spirit intended.

Keep in mind that I'm not worried about students who fail suing us... it's the students who pass that I think will eventually realize how badly they've been ripped off if we continue to lower our standards and pass student who deserve to fail.

ah...I didn't read that properly.

I don't think any of them would be smart enough to think of suing the university. Seriously. I'd be surprised if any of them admitted they weren't up to snuff then tried blaming someone else.

Then again this is a weird world we live in.