Would College Students Retain More If Professors Dialed Back the Pace?(npr.org)
npr.org
Would College Students Retain More If Professors Dialed Back the Pace?
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/02/01/581864513/
117 comments
The whole "that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger" and "in order to learn about how much there is you don't know and thereby develop a lifetime love of learning you should drink from a firehose for approximately four years" set of arguments is probably just producing a lot of semi burned out college grads IMO.
I'd like to see computer science taught at a slower pace, especially in the beginning.
I know, I know, standards. And they do matter! But when I was a grad student at Berkeley (not in CS, I just knew someone taking the course), I saw what undergrads go through in their second course in CS (data structures and algorithms), and egads.
I see this as particularly worrisome in CS, because I consider the course to be a bit like teaching Spanish to people who grew up hearing Spanish but answering their parents in English. Yes, technically they are taking an intro course on grammar and writing, and maybe even speaking, but there's a gulf of difference between someone like that and someone who is genuinely new to Spanish (or perhaps has grown up in a monolingual environment).
The reason this is insidious, in my opinion, is that places like Berkeley take smart young people who would be good CS majors, puts them in an "impacted" major that is deliberately trying to shed students, and knocks them out by teaching Data Structures and Algorithms at a brutal pace. I think this is irresponsible, especially in an environment where 1) industry is braying about a shortage of talent, and 2) there are serious questions about low representation from certain demographic groups.
How about you teach data structures form the book, the first time around? Here's a linked list, here's how you code one. Now, let's code a binary tree. Now a hash map. Finally, let's try a graph. Ok, let's redo those an a more interesting context. If you're new to the language we're using, we'll give you the option of taking some time to learn it.
I don't want to lower standards long run, and I'm all for CS remaining a very rigorous major, but I think we lose real talent but running the major this way.
There's also a possibility that Berkeley is atypical, in that it is a program that draws strong students, but unlike an ivy or Stanford, has a lot of undergrads and is trying to weed them out. That may be a rare combination that gave me an unusual impression of what happens to CS majors.
Still, I hear there is a high attrition rate in CS even at elite privates that have more support. I've probably said this enough times, but I'll repeat it once more - I am not in favor of lowering standards too far, just taking it a little slower. I think many students lost to the major would meet these higher standards with a bit more time in the beginning.
I know, I know, standards. And they do matter! But when I was a grad student at Berkeley (not in CS, I just knew someone taking the course), I saw what undergrads go through in their second course in CS (data structures and algorithms), and egads.
I see this as particularly worrisome in CS, because I consider the course to be a bit like teaching Spanish to people who grew up hearing Spanish but answering their parents in English. Yes, technically they are taking an intro course on grammar and writing, and maybe even speaking, but there's a gulf of difference between someone like that and someone who is genuinely new to Spanish (or perhaps has grown up in a monolingual environment).
The reason this is insidious, in my opinion, is that places like Berkeley take smart young people who would be good CS majors, puts them in an "impacted" major that is deliberately trying to shed students, and knocks them out by teaching Data Structures and Algorithms at a brutal pace. I think this is irresponsible, especially in an environment where 1) industry is braying about a shortage of talent, and 2) there are serious questions about low representation from certain demographic groups.
How about you teach data structures form the book, the first time around? Here's a linked list, here's how you code one. Now, let's code a binary tree. Now a hash map. Finally, let's try a graph. Ok, let's redo those an a more interesting context. If you're new to the language we're using, we'll give you the option of taking some time to learn it.
I don't want to lower standards long run, and I'm all for CS remaining a very rigorous major, but I think we lose real talent but running the major this way.
There's also a possibility that Berkeley is atypical, in that it is a program that draws strong students, but unlike an ivy or Stanford, has a lot of undergrads and is trying to weed them out. That may be a rare combination that gave me an unusual impression of what happens to CS majors.
Still, I hear there is a high attrition rate in CS even at elite privates that have more support. I've probably said this enough times, but I'll repeat it once more - I am not in favor of lowering standards too far, just taking it a little slower. I think many students lost to the major would meet these higher standards with a bit more time in the beginning.
Yes. They might also get more sleep and sleep is pretty important for cognitive functions. The fact that sleep deprivation is a normal on campuses and even in hs is a travesty.
Not sucking at scheduling would also do wonders.
Also, some space to interact with the topic the way I want. Tell me whats needed by the end of the semester and let me study for it my way.
Not sucking at scheduling would also do wonders.
Also, some space to interact with the topic the way I want. Tell me whats needed by the end of the semester and let me study for it my way.
> Also, some space to interact with the topic the way I want. Tell me whats needed by the end of the semester and let me study for it my way.
As a professor, I so wish we could do this more. But realistically, it seems that we just can't afford to let students fail who aren't yet equipped to learn that way. But I do try to allow for this while still staying within the bounds of fairness, for example, giving students a grade based just on exam scores when that would be a higher grade, so they can blow off homeworks that other students really need credit for to shore up their grade.
As a professor, I so wish we could do this more. But realistically, it seems that we just can't afford to let students fail who aren't yet equipped to learn that way. But I do try to allow for this while still staying within the bounds of fairness, for example, giving students a grade based just on exam scores when that would be a higher grade, so they can blow off homeworks that other students really need credit for to shore up their grade.
> let students fail who aren't yet equipped to learn that way
This is a failure of the system tho. It's my understanding that e.g. in Czech Republic failing actually isn't a big deal as you can retake the exam (same material, different actual exam) shortly after the first one. This can make a huge difference.
I can go into more detail. I realize that things probably won't change but small changes can have big impact.
This is a failure of the system tho. It's my understanding that e.g. in Czech Republic failing actually isn't a big deal as you can retake the exam (same material, different actual exam) shortly after the first one. This can make a huge difference.
I can go into more detail. I realize that things probably won't change but small changes can have big impact.
My best strategy for this is to push for more acceptance of pass/fail courses. The main downside is that I find myself having to take better notes for future recommendation letters.
People tend to forget information that is not useful to them. The age old problem with school curriculum is so much of it doesn't apply to day to day or even professional know-how. Getting students to retain more information is pointless if there is no value in retaining the information beyond final exams.
The better pursuit is for schools to work on constantly realigning their curriculum towards what is necessary for modern life and employment. Drop the overpriced, poorly executed general education classes and stop hindering students from learning more about what they're interested in.
The better pursuit is for schools to work on constantly realigning their curriculum towards what is necessary for modern life and employment. Drop the overpriced, poorly executed general education classes and stop hindering students from learning more about what they're interested in.
I do not believe a university is a job training program so I don't think we should optimize for employment. Skills necessary for modern life include critical thinking and diverse perspectives on the world. This is the value of "general education".
College students don't know what they are interested in, that's a big reason for going to college in the first place. You can't ask them what they need to know because they don't know it yet.
College students don't know what they are interested in, that's a big reason for going to college in the first place. You can't ask them what they need to know because they don't know it yet.
You may not believe that a university is a job training program, and I agree that it shouldn't be this way, but effectively, most students, educators and employers treat it as a training program. If universities weren't the only places to be trained for some jobs, few students would pay the high fees to receive "general education". If universities didn't provide job training, few employers would care about a degree any more than about the candidate's hobbies.
If universities are not supposed to focus on job training, then they need to be replaced in this function by some other kind of institution that does. But so long as there are no established alternatives, universities will need to continue looking out for their student's employment prospects.
If universities are not supposed to focus on job training, then they need to be replaced in this function by some other kind of institution that does. But so long as there are no established alternatives, universities will need to continue looking out for their student's employment prospects.
Technical schools exist for job training and have for decades. There is an entire industry built around technical training and certifications in the IT field.
University educations are valuable for more than just job skills, that is why they cost more and cover topics not directly related to one specific job.
University educations are valuable for more than just job skills, that is why they cost more and cover topics not directly related to one specific job.
Unfortunately, technical schools have been very effective at giving themselves a black eye for being degree mills, scamming veterans, and churning out people who have little to no idea how to do the jobs they supposedly have credentials for.
Higher education is not a whole lot more than a filttation system; a wildly inefficient IQ and personality test for employers.
Higher education is not a whole lot more than a filttation system; a wildly inefficient IQ and personality test for employers.
People with a degree tend to make more money than people without, even after adjusting for ability and conscientiousness. This is why most students are there at most colleges. It's very hard to teach people things they aren't willingly there for, so that they really get it.
Ok but why do people with college degrees generally make more money?
Bryan Caplan argues it's mostly signaling: employers think (reasonably) that degree-holders tend to be more valuable employees than dropouts and people who didn't go to college, even though the education didn't add much to their productivity. They can't easily tell the able/conscientious/conformist dropouts from the others. https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11225.html
I remember when I was in 7th grade and we were first introduced to the Saxon math books. We would learn new material, but our homework constantly reinforced information from previous sections so that we never needed to go back to study anything, because we were solving the older problems on a daily basis and could be expected to solve them on tests.
Requiring that students not only show that they understand current knowledge but also that they retain past knowledge seems to be a much better way to educate students. It obliterates the slacker cram mentality that many students have.
Requiring that students not only show that they understand current knowledge but also that they retain past knowledge seems to be a much better way to educate students. It obliterates the slacker cram mentality that many students have.
> Drop the overpriced, poorly executed general education classes and stop hindering students from learning more about what they're interested in.
I remember more from my first-year philosophy/communications/ethics classes then I do from half of my CS curriculum. I didn't have much of a classics education, but presumably, the value of it is not in learning the classics (Nobody actually gives two rat's asses about the the themes of the Illiad), but in learning how be analytical.
The purpose of general education classes is to turn us into better people, and the purpose of specialization classes is to make us employable. I think Silicon Valley could use a lot more of the former.
I remember more from my first-year philosophy/communications/ethics classes then I do from half of my CS curriculum. I didn't have much of a classics education, but presumably, the value of it is not in learning the classics (Nobody actually gives two rat's asses about the the themes of the Illiad), but in learning how be analytical.
The purpose of general education classes is to turn us into better people, and the purpose of specialization classes is to make us employable. I think Silicon Valley could use a lot more of the former.
It’s deeply ironic. We accept “teaching the classics teaches people how to be analytical” as a shibboleth to which we apply no scrutiny or analysis. Is there evidence showing that teaching classics helps with analysis more than say teaching math, logical reasoning, statistics? I strongly suspect that we would get better results if we replaced instruction on Greek myths with courses on Bayesian reasoning.
You may be right that the classics aren't necessary for critical thinking. To me, that's not even the main reason they're important. It's more about the type of questions we ask.
We study humanities to help us realize that the values we collectively hold didn't come from nowhere, and that those are the things we should really be analyzing and questioning. You don't get that in a statistics course. And through studying thoughts on the big questions of life from people in different contexts from us, we can gain power to decide for ourselves what makes life meaningful. Or is education only useful if it makes us a better cog in the globalized economic machine?
We study humanities to help us realize that the values we collectively hold didn't come from nowhere, and that those are the things we should really be analyzing and questioning. You don't get that in a statistics course. And through studying thoughts on the big questions of life from people in different contexts from us, we can gain power to decide for ourselves what makes life meaningful. Or is education only useful if it makes us a better cog in the globalized economic machine?
> Or is education only useful if it makes us a better cog in the globalized economic machine?
To the extent we require people to go to school for a big chunk of their life, and spend hundreds of billions of tax dollars per year on it, this should be the only function of at least a public education.
If people want to think about the “big questions” they should read the Iliad or the Bible or whatever of their own volition.
To the extent we require people to go to school for a big chunk of their life, and spend hundreds of billions of tax dollars per year on it, this should be the only function of at least a public education.
If people want to think about the “big questions” they should read the Iliad or the Bible or whatever of their own volition.
This is an idea that seems to be common among technically (STEM) educated people, among others, and it scares me.
I believe we end up with a healthier society if we teach people diverse topics and introduce them to new ideas in an intellectually safe environment. Contrast this with going to school to double down on whatever you thought in high school and I hope you can see a benefit beyond pure economic gain.
In a democracy everyone should think about the "big questions". If we optimize for brainless robot workers then why ask them for input on how to run our society?
I believe we end up with a healthier society if we teach people diverse topics and introduce them to new ideas in an intellectually safe environment. Contrast this with going to school to double down on whatever you thought in high school and I hope you can see a benefit beyond pure economic gain.
In a democracy everyone should think about the "big questions". If we optimize for brainless robot workers then why ask them for input on how to run our society?
> introduce them to new ideas in an intellectually safe environment
I do not think that means what you wrote. I've seen "intellectually safe", and it gets converted to "I accept nothing outside of my bubble". Worse yet, students get actively hostile to foreign ideas.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/safe-spaces-college-int...
I think the better term is "intellectually rigorous". Let people have opposing views, but instead challenge them on logos, ethos, and pathos. That discussion is where the truth lies.
I do not think that means what you wrote. I've seen "intellectually safe", and it gets converted to "I accept nothing outside of my bubble". Worse yet, students get actively hostile to foreign ideas.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/safe-spaces-college-int...
I think the better term is "intellectually rigorous". Let people have opposing views, but instead challenge them on logos, ethos, and pathos. That discussion is where the truth lies.
What I meant by intellectually safe is a place where it is safe to explore new ideas.
> I believe we end up with a healthier society if we teach people diverse topics and introduce them to new ideas in an intellectually safe environment.
That's great you have this "belief." But we spend $600 billion per year on education in this country. We make kids spend most of their childhoods chained to a desk learning about a variety of things teachers "believe" will help them that they'll never use in their lives. As a taxpayer and a parent, I want this whole expensive, time-consuming endeavor to be based on more than "belief."
Just watch a politician speak sometime: education is billed to the public as a way to help the economy and make sure people have jobs. If you told parents: we want you to spend all this time and money helping your kids learn "how to think" (oh and by the way, it will be based on vague humanistic values that may be quite different from what you would have taught your kids), then you wouldn't get very many people to sign up. And that's an incredibly dishonest thing to do.
That's great you have this "belief." But we spend $600 billion per year on education in this country. We make kids spend most of their childhoods chained to a desk learning about a variety of things teachers "believe" will help them that they'll never use in their lives. As a taxpayer and a parent, I want this whole expensive, time-consuming endeavor to be based on more than "belief."
Just watch a politician speak sometime: education is billed to the public as a way to help the economy and make sure people have jobs. If you told parents: we want you to spend all this time and money helping your kids learn "how to think" (oh and by the way, it will be based on vague humanistic values that may be quite different from what you would have taught your kids), then you wouldn't get very many people to sign up. And that's an incredibly dishonest thing to do.
How do you know that students will never use a given lesson? Which ones are they? In this case what you want as a parent (and taxpayer) is no more or less valuable than what I want as a taxpayer. This is all opinion.
What kind of a return do we get on that 600bn?
Personally I think part of the value of education is that it does teach students things their parents wouldn't. Why should children learn only from their parents?
You're going to have to be more specific than putting words in the mouth of a hypothetical politician for me to find your argument remotely compelling. As a member of the public and a consumer of public education I do not consider it to be only job training or a way to support the economy. There are less tangible benefits, especially in higher education.
What kind of a return do we get on that 600bn?
Personally I think part of the value of education is that it does teach students things their parents wouldn't. Why should children learn only from their parents?
You're going to have to be more specific than putting words in the mouth of a hypothetical politician for me to find your argument remotely compelling. As a member of the public and a consumer of public education I do not consider it to be only job training or a way to support the economy. There are less tangible benefits, especially in higher education.
I didn't downvote you for that opinion. But I could never share it, if for nothing else but personal reasons. I have a Comp Sci degree, but I credit the humanities professors in my public university for playing a big part in helping me be liberated from the prejudices ingrained in me by the community I grew up in. For that, I'm eternally grateful.
Anecdotally, I credit the humanities professors at my university for helping me tune my BS detector.
From my experience, I think it more likely that liberating a student from the prejudices ingrained in them by their previous environment simply opens the way for different prejudices to be injected into the void.
I am thankful that I was able to recognize the abuses of academia before allowing myself to get pulled into the Ivory Tower's stairmill-powered meat grinder. I still have to do stupid useless crap sometimes, but I actually get paid for that.
From my experience, I think it more likely that liberating a student from the prejudices ingrained in them by their previous environment simply opens the way for different prejudices to be injected into the void.
I am thankful that I was able to recognize the abuses of academia before allowing myself to get pulled into the Ivory Tower's stairmill-powered meat grinder. I still have to do stupid useless crap sometimes, but I actually get paid for that.
This is such a complicated statement to respond to! :) You could follow the thread of irony, of the kinds of abilities "analysis" is equivocal between, of what relevance evidence might have...what it might be applied against, what might even count as evidence, and, obviously, what results we even want!
Here's just one bigger picture thought to consider. For a reasonably motivated and bright person, it's pretty easy to teach yourself programming (I'd be willing to bet most people on this forum are self-taught). And, after you get some basics, pretty easy to teach yourself nice tidy applied math-y things like Bayesian reasoning. Likewise it's easy to teach yourself science. One reason why is that in every case you can self-correct: the program doesn't work, the calculation is wrong, the world says otherwise.
That simply isn't the case with the humanities. You need the guidance of an expert for a while.
I'll leave it at that for now, just noting that to the extent humanities help with "analysis" it's probably going to be especially beneficial with messy, open problems where even the criteria for success may be vague and shifting. Thinking critically about product design rather than improving an algorithm, to bring it into HN.
Here's just one bigger picture thought to consider. For a reasonably motivated and bright person, it's pretty easy to teach yourself programming (I'd be willing to bet most people on this forum are self-taught). And, after you get some basics, pretty easy to teach yourself nice tidy applied math-y things like Bayesian reasoning. Likewise it's easy to teach yourself science. One reason why is that in every case you can self-correct: the program doesn't work, the calculation is wrong, the world says otherwise.
That simply isn't the case with the humanities. You need the guidance of an expert for a while.
I'll leave it at that for now, just noting that to the extent humanities help with "analysis" it's probably going to be especially beneficial with messy, open problems where even the criteria for success may be vague and shifting. Thinking critically about product design rather than improving an algorithm, to bring it into HN.
Well...the classics include logic and reasoning, or should. It is part of the Trivium (Classical Liberal Arts). The problem is that people only associate old books with a Classical Education when in reality Math and Science is indeed a great part of it. How can one be well rounded without math, science and logic - you can't be.
The best evidence is in the process.
When a literature class reads a novel, the professor doesn't just teach students to accept the words as they are. The students are encouraged to interpret and to understand how the author's thoughts originated, and then to extrapolate how that might be applicable in a modern context. Even the worst literature classes I've taken were taught like this.
When a math class is introduced to a new theorem, a professor will often breeze through the derivation of it (if you're lucky). This just trains students to find the right order of manipulations that solves the equation, rather than to understand what the equation and its transformations really represent. Sure, some classes at some schools might be better than this, but there are plenty more who aren't.
When a literature class reads a novel, the professor doesn't just teach students to accept the words as they are. The students are encouraged to interpret and to understand how the author's thoughts originated, and then to extrapolate how that might be applicable in a modern context. Even the worst literature classes I've taken were taught like this.
When a math class is introduced to a new theorem, a professor will often breeze through the derivation of it (if you're lucky). This just trains students to find the right order of manipulations that solves the equation, rather than to understand what the equation and its transformations really represent. Sure, some classes at some schools might be better than this, but there are plenty more who aren't.
I suspect that you're right about being able to teach analytic thinking better if we designed a cirriculum around things more directly relevant to that. However, liberal arts schools that follow the classical philosophy don't just teach mythology, they also spend a lot of time on classical texts in mathematics, philosophy, and logic. So it isn't completely without directly relevant courses.
Studying history, the classics, anthropology, etc may not increase analytical ability directly, but it increases the breadth of an individual's understanding of how human society got to where we are today, warts and all.
That knowledge is a very important input to any logical or statistical analysis, or resulting system, that affects people's lives.
It just may not be important for someone tasked creating a Bayesian model.
History is especially important for people to learn because without it, history can be (and is) used as a tool by those who have studied it against them.
That knowledge is a very important input to any logical or statistical analysis, or resulting system, that affects people's lives.
It just may not be important for someone tasked creating a Bayesian model.
History is especially important for people to learn because without it, history can be (and is) used as a tool by those who have studied it against them.
Actually there has been centuries of scrutiny and analysis applied to the classics.
Also, it seems a bit silly to say we should teach Bayesian reasoning instead of the classics, considering Bayes himself studied the classics.
Also, it seems a bit silly to say we should teach Bayesian reasoning instead of the classics, considering Bayes himself studied the classics.
What kind of "better results" are we looking for?
Simply producing more STEM graduates does not necessarily lead to better results when so many of them sell out to companies with business models that are adversarial to humanity at large.
Perhaps reading Plato or Marcus Aurelius could lead those graduates to take a more ethical approach in their technological endeavors.
Simply producing more STEM graduates does not necessarily lead to better results when so many of them sell out to companies with business models that are adversarial to humanity at large.
Perhaps reading Plato or Marcus Aurelius could lead those graduates to take a more ethical approach in their technological endeavors.
Teaching math, physics, and logic teaches you how to form and analyze, broadly speaking, chains of logical statements. This is an incredibly useful technical skill.
Teaching classics teaches you how to analyze writing. Writing written by people with a vastly different perspective, culture, and assumptions then your own. (This is also why I think that limiting it to Western European classics is bullshit.) We spend a lot of time reading and writing, and very little of what we produce or consume can be distilled down to chains of logical statements.
It's not going to help you derive Kepler's laws of planetary motion, or figure out how to use the new flavour-of-the-week web framework, and that's fine.
Teaching classics teaches you how to analyze writing. Writing written by people with a vastly different perspective, culture, and assumptions then your own. (This is also why I think that limiting it to Western European classics is bullshit.) We spend a lot of time reading and writing, and very little of what we produce or consume can be distilled down to chains of logical statements.
It's not going to help you derive Kepler's laws of planetary motion, or figure out how to use the new flavour-of-the-week web framework, and that's fine.
> Writing written by people with a vastly different perspective, culture, and assumptions then your own.
Right, a different set of axioms.
Any sort of analysis will, ultimately, be a series of arguments using the text and the set of axioms you mentioned.
Right, a different set of axioms.
Any sort of analysis will, ultimately, be a series of arguments using the text and the set of axioms you mentioned.
Also ironic: "shibboleth" seems to be the new favorite buzzword of the HN shibboleth.
This seems like confirmation bias. Have you considered that what you learned in CS may have had similar abstract analytical benefits? That is, even if you retained 0% of the practical programming content (like you retained 0% of the Illiad), you still exercised the logical side of your brain and learned to think algorithmically/logically.
>I remember more from my first-year philosophy/communications/ethics classes then I do from half of my CS curriculum.
Davka to disagree with you, I think that might just mean you had more life experience before going into those classes than most people do. IME, formalized humanities material really needs to build on, well, some basic foundation of personal worldliness.
Davka to disagree with you, I think that might just mean you had more life experience before going into those classes than most people do. IME, formalized humanities material really needs to build on, well, some basic foundation of personal worldliness.
That would be a great if school was actually about turning us into better people, but it's not. College nowadays is just a jobs training program separated from the employer so they can lower training costs. Almost all good jobs require degrees nowadays.
“All good jobs require degrees” does not support that college is job training, only that it is used by employers as a filter. But the fact that it is used as a filter does not mean that it is indicative of needed skills, and even if it was that wouldn't mean it was training for those skills. It could be neutral impact as training but still tend to fail out unsuitable candidates, which would make it a useful skill or aptitude filter without being job training.
And, of course, it could be conmonly used as a (cargo cult) filter without actually being a useful skill/aptitude filter at all.
And, of course, it could be conmonly used as a (cargo cult) filter without actually being a useful skill/aptitude filter at all.
Yet an IT graduate is unlikely to be hired as a book keeper, right? And I bet a Law graduate would have a hard time getting a job involving direct healthcare. That association between college program and career does indicate that some job training is involved and necessary for career growth.
Bookkeepers, lawyers and healthcare professionals require very specific and specialized training and in many cases it is not even legal to be employed as, say, lawyer or doctor without having specific credentials. But many jobs aren't like that - and still require degrees.
> That association between college program and career does indicate that some job training is involved and necessary for career growth.
For some jobs - definitely. But there are plenty of others where degree is just a very rough filter and degrees that do not provide any direct training for the specific job are still required (and accepted).
> That association between college program and career does indicate that some job training is involved and necessary for career growth.
For some jobs - definitely. But there are plenty of others where degree is just a very rough filter and degrees that do not provide any direct training for the specific job are still required (and accepted).
> That association between college program and career does indicate that some job training is involved and necessary for career growth.
While I'd certainly agree that there are, in fact, at least some career paths for which that is true, but even a job having a preference for certain degrees doesn't have to imply that training is happening; different degree programs could have different filtering effects without being actual training.
And, of course, not all jobs that require degrees are narrowly focussed on specific fields.
While I'd certainly agree that there are, in fact, at least some career paths for which that is true, but even a job having a preference for certain degrees doesn't have to imply that training is happening; different degree programs could have different filtering effects without being actual training.
And, of course, not all jobs that require degrees are narrowly focussed on specific fields.
> just a jobs training program
I was lucky enough to do my undergraduate at a university where this was sort-of true, we didn't do any math apart from some very basic things that I was taught early in high school, and most of the classes were hands-on programming. Most of the assessment was coursework-only as well, only about 20% of the modules had a final exam.
I barely had to do anything as I taught myself most of what they were teaching long before university, but for some of my peers that were only starting to code it was amazing. From my limited experience the quality of developers (at least the ones who actually put in some work instead of just trying to pass) coming from my university was miles ahead of the ones that studied at a 'regular' university where some of my friends went. They taught them theory, math, or even physics, but somehow forgot to teach them how to code.
I was lucky enough to do my undergraduate at a university where this was sort-of true, we didn't do any math apart from some very basic things that I was taught early in high school, and most of the classes were hands-on programming. Most of the assessment was coursework-only as well, only about 20% of the modules had a final exam.
I barely had to do anything as I taught myself most of what they were teaching long before university, but for some of my peers that were only starting to code it was amazing. From my limited experience the quality of developers (at least the ones who actually put in some work instead of just trying to pass) coming from my university was miles ahead of the ones that studied at a 'regular' university where some of my friends went. They taught them theory, math, or even physics, but somehow forgot to teach them how to code.
"Almost all good jobs" require degrees because it's a cheapest way (to the employer) to filter for certain qualities that they require (which usually have very little to do with actual content of the degree and more with being able to work in structured workplace, basic literacy and social skills, not being a career criminal, etc.).
For various reasons other ways have been made either hard to do or illegal, so the easiest way to select for candidates with certain capabilities is to require a degree. That doesn't mean candidates without a degree don't have them - but the cost of missing a viable candidate is near zero, and the cost of hiring bad one is substantial. Thus, degree is used as screener. The overall costs of it pretty bad, since degree costs way more than would a screening system that does screen for necessary qualities directly, but the alignment of incentives and costs makes it the best short-term solution for many employers.
For various reasons other ways have been made either hard to do or illegal, so the easiest way to select for candidates with certain capabilities is to require a degree. That doesn't mean candidates without a degree don't have them - but the cost of missing a viable candidate is near zero, and the cost of hiring bad one is substantial. Thus, degree is used as screener. The overall costs of it pretty bad, since degree costs way more than would a screening system that does screen for necessary qualities directly, but the alignment of incentives and costs makes it the best short-term solution for many employers.
I believe where that started was after Griggs v. Duke Power, where pre-employment tests were found to discriminate against African Americans. These tests were effectively banned, even if the intent was not to discriminate against minorities.
What happened after that, was that the "testing" was legally sent to the colleges and universities for them to vet. And only with paper from them, could you obtain the job. It didn't matter, and doesn't matter, that many jobs would not need a degree. On the job training would completely suffice for most positions.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
citation of claim of aftermath: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1121428?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont...
What happened after that, was that the "testing" was legally sent to the colleges and universities for them to vet. And only with paper from them, could you obtain the job. It didn't matter, and doesn't matter, that many jobs would not need a degree. On the job training would completely suffice for most positions.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
citation of claim of aftermath: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1121428?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont...
> I believe where that started was after Griggs v. Duke Power, where pre-employment tests were found to discriminate against African Americans.
That is not what was found that case. What was found was that any hiring criteria which had an unequal racial impact and was not sufficiently demonstrably tied to actual job performance was illegal racially discriminatory. It neither extended to all pre-employment testing nor limited itself to pre-employment testing.
> These tests were effectively banned
No, they weren't. Pre-employment IQ testing is still used.
> What happened after that, was that the "testing" was legally sent to the colleges and universities for them to vet.
Blaming that on Griggs v. Duke Power is especially rich because one of the hiring filters which was found to be illegal discrimination as applied by Duke Power in that case, because it was not demonstrably tied to job performance, was a diploma requirement.
Now, if you want to blame this on some kind of popular mythology about the legality of pre-employment IQ testing, based on a misperception of Griggs v. Duke Power, okay, fine. But that's a different story than the actual legality.
That is not what was found that case. What was found was that any hiring criteria which had an unequal racial impact and was not sufficiently demonstrably tied to actual job performance was illegal racially discriminatory. It neither extended to all pre-employment testing nor limited itself to pre-employment testing.
> These tests were effectively banned
No, they weren't. Pre-employment IQ testing is still used.
> What happened after that, was that the "testing" was legally sent to the colleges and universities for them to vet.
Blaming that on Griggs v. Duke Power is especially rich because one of the hiring filters which was found to be illegal discrimination as applied by Duke Power in that case, because it was not demonstrably tied to job performance, was a diploma requirement.
Now, if you want to blame this on some kind of popular mythology about the legality of pre-employment IQ testing, based on a misperception of Griggs v. Duke Power, okay, fine. But that's a different story than the actual legality.
Starbucks has an initiative to hire veterans and spouses of veterans. Starbucks is a for-profit corporation so they must believe at some level there is a benefit to the company in hiring these individuals. What skills do veterans and their spouses have that are useful to Starbucks?
To be clear: I think this is a great idea on Starbucks' part.
To be clear: I think this is a great idea on Starbucks' part.
I agree in spirit with this though I find internalizing the facts is less important than internalizing the method or theory of knowledge which they aren't getting either in my opinion.
Personal anecdote: I believe there is a broad and pervasive culture of extreme procrastination across liberal arts campuses (it's much harder to do this in the sciences because if you don't keep up you completely drop off). Vast majority of my peers were pulling all nighters and needed a looming deadline to finish any assignment. It is very difficult to retain information on no sleep.
Personal anecdote: I believe there is a broad and pervasive culture of extreme procrastination across liberal arts campuses (it's much harder to do this in the sciences because if you don't keep up you completely drop off). Vast majority of my peers were pulling all nighters and needed a looming deadline to finish any assignment. It is very difficult to retain information on no sleep.
The fundamental problem with schools is that they’re run by professors and teachers, who have almost a pathological aversion to teaching people anything useful.
[deleted]
I'm not sure that slowing things down would necessarily work well in science or math fields, but I can name what I think would: focus on doing rather than reciting. The best calculus courses twin it with basic physics, showing not only how the material is used in-context, but its aesthetic qualities and what it sets the stage for.
I agree strongly.
As an example of a major doing things correctly, in my opinion, is MIT's aerospace engineering with their "unified engiineering" course that covers the basics in a highly integrated fashion.
My experience in a different engineering program was that I learned some sophomore math freshman year (because I had placed out of "freshman calculus"), then didn't use it at all until junior year when I had forgotten it. And then things tried to be integrated senior year when we had a senior design project that tied all our random classes together. I turned out alright, but I think an integrated approach would be much more fruitful.
All that said, I do think there is some value in having the purely mathematical ability to look at an equation, classify it as a certain type, and then know how to solve it. Not every problem you face in life will be an application that existed when you were in college.
As an example of a major doing things correctly, in my opinion, is MIT's aerospace engineering with their "unified engiineering" course that covers the basics in a highly integrated fashion.
My experience in a different engineering program was that I learned some sophomore math freshman year (because I had placed out of "freshman calculus"), then didn't use it at all until junior year when I had forgotten it. And then things tried to be integrated senior year when we had a senior design project that tied all our random classes together. I turned out alright, but I think an integrated approach would be much more fruitful.
All that said, I do think there is some value in having the purely mathematical ability to look at an equation, classify it as a certain type, and then know how to solve it. Not every problem you face in life will be an application that existed when you were in college.
My uni (Wisconsin), in the engineering program, apply some old philosophy of a ratio of time in class to time in lab. It's something like 50/50 or 40/60, I think a lot of students prefer it that way.
I've had one math class that intertwined short exercise sessions with short lecture sessions and it was the most amazing class I ever had. I still remember everything I learned there.
It was so interesting that the professor would do theorems walkthrough classes which were optional and everyone would attend them.
It was so interesting that the professor would do theorems walkthrough classes which were optional and everyone would attend them.
That sounds fascinating to me - is there any way you could elaborate a bit on the specifics of a typical class structure (how many/how long, were exercises limited to the subject at hand or more integrated with other topics, etc)? I'm trying to raise my own teaching game and that sounds like something I should try.
It was a math analysis class 101 (on limits). The professor would print a one-page summary of the class, hand it to us and go through it. After an hour of class we would do exercises for one hour perhaps, and then get back into the sheet he had handed over us.
Yes.
This goes to basic misunderstandings of the goals of education. At the collegiate level, the goal (opinion statement) of education is creating deep understanding, higher level thinking, and life-long metacognitive and learning skills. While this may incidentally occur via a philosophical model of pedagogy that is driven by transmitting information, that approach is massively inefficient.
Giving more information is not the same as creating better understanding. Creating better understanding requires time and practice. The phrase of art in educational research is Deliberate Distributed Practice...DDP.
But you have to structure courses around it. The best method known is backwards design. Backwards design involves clearly identifying learning goals in advance and then backing out from that the appropriate content, pedagogical approaches, and assessment measures to achieve those goals. These things must by systematized and cannot be simply flipped on by teaching a faculty member basic elements of using active learning in the classroom. That won't work because such faculty members still hold a view of education as transmitting content, which is an entirely different paradigm in which lecturing actually makes rational sense.
This goes to basic misunderstandings of the goals of education. At the collegiate level, the goal (opinion statement) of education is creating deep understanding, higher level thinking, and life-long metacognitive and learning skills. While this may incidentally occur via a philosophical model of pedagogy that is driven by transmitting information, that approach is massively inefficient.
Giving more information is not the same as creating better understanding. Creating better understanding requires time and practice. The phrase of art in educational research is Deliberate Distributed Practice...DDP.
But you have to structure courses around it. The best method known is backwards design. Backwards design involves clearly identifying learning goals in advance and then backing out from that the appropriate content, pedagogical approaches, and assessment measures to achieve those goals. These things must by systematized and cannot be simply flipped on by teaching a faculty member basic elements of using active learning in the classroom. That won't work because such faculty members still hold a view of education as transmitting content, which is an entirely different paradigm in which lecturing actually makes rational sense.
At the collegiate level, the goal (opinion statement) of education is creating deep understanding, higher level thinking, and life-long metacognitive and learning skills.
Nominally, yes. In reality? No. The reality of higher education is to act as a preliminary screen for employers. Few people who apply to well known schools get in. Fewer still survive to complete their degree. Many switch programs (to a less competitive field), drop out, or even commit suicide.
I wish universities were as committed to education as they say they are. But we wouldn't have people failing right out of school if that were the case.
Nominally, yes. In reality? No. The reality of higher education is to act as a preliminary screen for employers. Few people who apply to well known schools get in. Fewer still survive to complete their degree. Many switch programs (to a less competitive field), drop out, or even commit suicide.
I wish universities were as committed to education as they say they are. But we wouldn't have people failing right out of school if that were the case.
You don't learn from reading, you learn from doing; i.e. working problems. Even then it usually takes doing something 3 times for it to sink in.
The point of the fast pace is to weed people out. At least that is my take from engineering courses.
The point of the fast pace is to weed people out. At least that is my take from engineering courses.
Why do they want to weed people out?
I think it is for the same reason that many STEM programs require their undergraduate students to "apply for entry" to the STEM part of the program.
For example, at $GenericUniversity all CS students are listed as pre-engineering until completing calculus, data structures, discrete math, and a few introduction to programming courses. The school then "weeds" out students by making the initial coursework high-paced and somewhat difficult. After each round of courses a few "weaker" students drop out of the program.
Eventually, the students that make it through the pre-engineering curriculum apply for the engineering school and are admitted, assuming they have the right grades. The school now hopes that the students who have made it this far will be be the "better" students and thus will get better grades and be more likely to graduate. By weeding out the "weak" students before the students are in the Engineering School, the school can report a higher graduation rate and overall GPA for students in the program. Though everyone knows that many engineering students failed (or were failed by) the program, it doesn't go into the School of Engineering's reported stats.
I don't have any sources on this, but I do have numerous friends who work for universities and have heard this same story in varying capacities over the years.
For example, at $GenericUniversity all CS students are listed as pre-engineering until completing calculus, data structures, discrete math, and a few introduction to programming courses. The school then "weeds" out students by making the initial coursework high-paced and somewhat difficult. After each round of courses a few "weaker" students drop out of the program.
Eventually, the students that make it through the pre-engineering curriculum apply for the engineering school and are admitted, assuming they have the right grades. The school now hopes that the students who have made it this far will be be the "better" students and thus will get better grades and be more likely to graduate. By weeding out the "weak" students before the students are in the Engineering School, the school can report a higher graduation rate and overall GPA for students in the program. Though everyone knows that many engineering students failed (or were failed by) the program, it doesn't go into the School of Engineering's reported stats.
I don't have any sources on this, but I do have numerous friends who work for universities and have heard this same story in varying capacities over the years.
Teaching students and teaching in general is time not spent writing that paper that gets you your PhD / postdoc job / tenure. Eliminate as early as possible to make sure 1) the load from incompetent students does not potentiate and 2) to spend more time with & recognize the ambitious students that you can recruit for free work on your PhD / postdoc / tenure paper or as TAs if your department is rich.
Also, in Germany, university is free and publicly funded. There is only a small incentive for universities to pass as many students as possible and almost none for the immediate professors and doctoral candidates that do the teaching. Alongside with the public funding comes the implicit understanding that not everyone, for whatever reason, is meant for a college degree and so 40-50% of certainly engineering related students will drop out. No biggie, you are not 150k in debt, just do an apprenticeship.
Also, in Germany, university is free and publicly funded. There is only a small incentive for universities to pass as many students as possible and almost none for the immediate professors and doctoral candidates that do the teaching. Alongside with the public funding comes the implicit understanding that not everyone, for whatever reason, is meant for a college degree and so 40-50% of certainly engineering related students will drop out. No biggie, you are not 150k in debt, just do an apprenticeship.
Colleges have become a confidence game where people exchange money for membership in an exclusive club. That's not say colleges SHOULD be this way, but the reality differs from the old rhetoric.
As Peter Thiel often says, why aren't all classes at Ivy League schools simulcast on YouTube if they're so great? We have the technology, it would be a boon to all humankind. But they make money off their exclusivity. (If the teacher contact compels you, why not at least make the lectures available to all and people can pay for the tutoring, you can probably keep enrollment up that way).
As Peter Thiel often says, why aren't all classes at Ivy League schools simulcast on YouTube if they're so great? We have the technology, it would be a boon to all humankind. But they make money off their exclusivity. (If the teacher contact compels you, why not at least make the lectures available to all and people can pay for the tutoring, you can probably keep enrollment up that way).
> why aren't all classes at Ivy League schools simulcast on YouTube if they're so great?
Some are. See Coursera, Udacity, MIT OpenCourseWare, etc. There are now potrals organizing open university courses, and there are quite a lot of them out there.
Some are. See Coursera, Udacity, MIT OpenCourseWare, etc. There are now potrals organizing open university courses, and there are quite a lot of them out there.
Taking things slow is good under certain circumstances. You have to ask yourself whether or not the content of the class is disjointed from the rest of the curriculum for most of the students that are taking it. A computer science student will be constantly using basic programming skills, giving it time to crystallize into long-term memory; introductory programming classes can be rushed and still effective, as long as the content is constantly reused. The same goes for many other skillsets. In my anecdotal experience, learning things slowly is most effective when studying content that doesn't have a convenient connection to a current understanding, or even no connection at all.
The biggest problem with this approach is that general education requirements in modern education strongly disincentivizes taking things slow. Most universities I know of bog students down in 2 or more semesters of classes entirely irrelevant to their field of study. Although taking another 2+ semesters of relevant study would definitely improve understanding, very few students are going to eat thousands of dollars going out of their way to make up getting shafted by gen-ed classes.
The biggest problem with this approach is that general education requirements in modern education strongly disincentivizes taking things slow. Most universities I know of bog students down in 2 or more semesters of classes entirely irrelevant to their field of study. Although taking another 2+ semesters of relevant study would definitely improve understanding, very few students are going to eat thousands of dollars going out of their way to make up getting shafted by gen-ed classes.
Computer science is probably not the best example. That’s one subject where 99% of learning happens by doing the problem sets.
I even had one teacher who told us he never went to class, so he didn’t expect us to, but that showing up would make the problem sets easier. In classes like that, the lectures basically act as a starting point, and establish the scope of the problem sets. If you didn’t attend the lecture, you can still do the problem set, but you’ll probably end up over complicating it because you missed the many hints of how to approach it that were in the lectures.
I even had one teacher who told us he never went to class, so he didn’t expect us to, but that showing up would make the problem sets easier. In classes like that, the lectures basically act as a starting point, and establish the scope of the problem sets. If you didn’t attend the lecture, you can still do the problem set, but you’ll probably end up over complicating it because you missed the many hints of how to approach it that were in the lectures.
99% of learning in math and science is doing the problem sets.
99% of learning in history and literature is doing the reading and writing essays.
99% of the learning in arts is making art.
99% of learning in history and literature is doing the reading and writing essays.
99% of the learning in arts is making art.
I would argue that computer science is a bad example because blue collar programming, systems administration, etc. largely doesn't require a college education at all, for the reasons you mentioned. Short of research and study concerning the mathematical limits of computers, hardware, and software, much of the computer work that is largely better served by a period of work experience than that same period in university.
The point that I was (and doing a poor job of) trying to make is that concepts that will be constantly reviewed anyway probably won't benefit from an inordinate amount of time being dedicated to them, as the "working memory, long-term memory" issue mentioned in the article doesn't fit such situations.
The point that I was (and doing a poor job of) trying to make is that concepts that will be constantly reviewed anyway probably won't benefit from an inordinate amount of time being dedicated to them, as the "working memory, long-term memory" issue mentioned in the article doesn't fit such situations.
Even “white collar” programming doesn’t require a CS degree. Several of the most innovative, careful, and productive programmers I have ever met were English or Philosophy majors (arguably we should hire more of those in the software industry).
What would be the correct pace for a classical liberal-arts education, do you think? The subjects are weakly related (you can reuse things you learn in studying philosophy or a language like Latin in the study of history) but they don’t really build any of the same skills. Did the classical Universities teach more slowly when trying to imbue such knowledge?
Non-major courses are an amazing opportunity for students to learn about a wide variety of scholarship from some of the top experts in those fields. The cognitive strategies / methods of inquiry of various fields vary significantly, and learning to “think like a historian” or “think like an ethnographer” or “think like an economist” or “think like a philosopher” or “think like a mathematician” etc. is incredibly valuable for future work and also for becoming an informed citizen and an inheritor of the richness of human culture. Liberal arts degrees are not supposed to be narrow job training.
The problem here is the debt students need to take on to go through college, not the college content per se (at least at the level of which courses students need; some of those courses themselves could use better content and pedagogy).
The problem here is the debt students need to take on to go through college, not the college content per se (at least at the level of which courses students need; some of those courses themselves could use better content and pedagogy).
There's a difference between what liberal arts degrees are "supposed" to be and what they are. College has been effectively (but incorrectly) marketed as a requirement for the everyman to stand any chance of success in the future economy. For better or for worse, Joe Average couldn't give a shit less what an ethnographer thinks of the plight of rice farmers in Cambodia or what a philosopher thinks of the absurdity of the human condition. What he does care about is having a viable income in an economy where unskilled gravy jobs have dried up.
Informed citizens and "inheritors of the richness of human culture" generally care about such things before they even reach a university. For everyone else, it's a place that takes their money so they can get a degree and stand a fighting chance in the job market. The overall problem isn't that it's too expensive (it is), it's that people are effectively being forced to go to college in the first place, spending four years earning a degree when they would have been better served by four years of work experience.
Informed citizens and "inheritors of the richness of human culture" generally care about such things before they even reach a university. For everyone else, it's a place that takes their money so they can get a degree and stand a fighting chance in the job market. The overall problem isn't that it's too expensive (it is), it's that people are effectively being forced to go to college in the first place, spending four years earning a degree when they would have been better served by four years of work experience.
Joe Average can do a wide variety of vocational training programs, go to a technical/engineering college, join the military, or skip college and go straight into working if he so desires. It’s hardly the colleges’ fault that people show up who don’t really want to be there and “don’t give a shit” about the concept of liberal arts. What kind of future career does your imagined Joe Average aspire to?
Semi-skilled manufacturing jobs have mostly dried up because of automation, healthcare costs continue to skyrocket due to the financialization of the medical industry, and wages have been depressed by a range of policy changes that give more and more power and wealth to rentiers and capitalists at the expense of everyone else. I suppose as an alternative all the Joe Averages could get together and vote European-style socialists into office.
Semi-skilled manufacturing jobs have mostly dried up because of automation, healthcare costs continue to skyrocket due to the financialization of the medical industry, and wages have been depressed by a range of policy changes that give more and more power and wealth to rentiers and capitalists at the expense of everyone else. I suppose as an alternative all the Joe Averages could get together and vote European-style socialists into office.
Paying a top expert in Foo to teach Foo 101 is either a massive waste or a huge lecture hall that may as well be a video.
The "gen-ed", "distribution" concept is very USAmerican. European universities tend to avoid it, and so students complete bachelors/masters 1 or 2 years sooner than USAmericans.
[deleted]
I think the point of undergrad is to have as much exposure to relevant material in the field, so later in their professional life if something relevant comes up they'll at least remember that they learned about it and know where to look. Also, if the students find one particular thing interesting and want to learn more about it, that's what grad school is for.
I don't remember the details of every algorithm I learned in college, but if a need arise, I know what my options are and the details are usually one Google search away.
I don't remember the details of every algorithm I learned in college, but if a need arise, I know what my options are and the details are usually one Google search away.
Also, the organization of the massive amount of information available out there into a nicely sequential curriculum is understated when talking about the benefits of college.
Slowing things down implies selectivity. If you have time to talk about fewer topcis, you'd better be quite sure they're more important than the ones you've omitted. It's a high-risk endeavor for the instructor. What if you pick the wrong topics? You have to have a lot of confidence in your judgement to teach a slow class. Much safer to cram as many topics as possible into the semester.
As an undergrad, what's honestly needed is a variety of pace. I don't mind sprinting through a topic, but I can't do it for a whole class all semester. Students become complacent if you slow down permanently, but also fail to absorb information if you constantly push.
Run the blitzkrieg, but give me a week every once in a while to catch up and consolidate the knowledge.
Run the blitzkrieg, but give me a week every once in a while to catch up and consolidate the knowledge.
I've taught some undergrad courses, and unfortunately in practice this is a bit of an upstream problem. The pace of main line non-remedial courses is often set by the scope of course objectives, which in many cases are tied to accreditation. For higher-level more specialized courses, there is at least more freedom.
Basically, even something that seems like a simple shake-up in education often would require a top-down redesign when considering actual implementation. Higher education is highly conservative and bureaucratic in its processes.
Basically, even something that seems like a simple shake-up in education often would require a top-down redesign when considering actual implementation. Higher education is highly conservative and bureaucratic in its processes.
Universities try to shoot for 90% correctness/retention for students. In almost every post-college career, that number is 70% or even less in order to be a successful employee. Being correct about facts 90% of the time is less valuable than having a better overview about more topics. I think schools should speed up in information rate but decrease the required retention for excelling. The most useful classes I had for my career were the ones taught at 900mph where I thought I understood nothing, yet I learned the most from them.
This article is untethered from the mammoth amounts of research that's been done specifically on how people learn. The answer to this question doesn't lie in anecdotes about various professors' "philosophy", in fact that kind of approach is a huge barrier to actually improving the learning that occurs on college campuses. This is an opinion article, so I understand it's not thorough reporting, but the author should familiarize herself with the literature.
A book like https://www.amazon.com/Make-Stick-Science-Successful-Learnin... is accessible and provides a good survey of what we know about how the brain learns and remembers things, and how it relates to existing practices.
A book like https://www.amazon.com/Make-Stick-Science-Successful-Learnin... is accessible and provides a good survey of what we know about how the brain learns and remembers things, and how it relates to existing practices.
Aside from the fact that pedagogical research is 95% focused on youth and not learning across the lifespan, there is a massive divide between pedagogical research and practice that doesn't look to improve, and the problem is as much political as it is historical.
This.
For instance, we all probably had to go through math classes where the professor writes so fast that it's a hand cramping race just to even scribble together enough notes to follow each gigantic derivation later for learning purposes. Nobody in that class is retaining any of that.
The kid who aces that class, is almost invariably someone who likes to to play with the equations in their free time at their own pace, so they get a feel for what process they need to employ toward a solution rather than brute forcing it. (When applicable, sometimes brute force is the only tactic.)
Math classes in general really, desperately need to slow down and let students grasp higher-order concepts. The number crunching method is stressful, and all it does is massively discourage bright people who may be geniuses in their field but flee University because the school made Calculus their "breakout" class.
Anecdote. When I went to University, I had a professor who graduated MIT tell the class that he'd realized how much pressure we were under in our Calculus class trying to keep up, that this was deeply unfair, and that he was erasing our last test score because they were unreflective of the performance that he knew we were capable of if we had any time for his class. Calculus was a core requirement, his class was elective, so almost every student had been forced to ignore his class, and we were amazingly lucky that he was good enough to sympathize.
This man used to work at Bell Labs and swam 200 laps a day to keep fit. And he was telling us we had it rough. I saw people cry out of gratitude.
For instance, we all probably had to go through math classes where the professor writes so fast that it's a hand cramping race just to even scribble together enough notes to follow each gigantic derivation later for learning purposes. Nobody in that class is retaining any of that.
The kid who aces that class, is almost invariably someone who likes to to play with the equations in their free time at their own pace, so they get a feel for what process they need to employ toward a solution rather than brute forcing it. (When applicable, sometimes brute force is the only tactic.)
Math classes in general really, desperately need to slow down and let students grasp higher-order concepts. The number crunching method is stressful, and all it does is massively discourage bright people who may be geniuses in their field but flee University because the school made Calculus their "breakout" class.
Anecdote. When I went to University, I had a professor who graduated MIT tell the class that he'd realized how much pressure we were under in our Calculus class trying to keep up, that this was deeply unfair, and that he was erasing our last test score because they were unreflective of the performance that he knew we were capable of if we had any time for his class. Calculus was a core requirement, his class was elective, so almost every student had been forced to ignore his class, and we were amazingly lucky that he was good enough to sympathize.
This man used to work at Bell Labs and swam 200 laps a day to keep fit. And he was telling us we had it rough. I saw people cry out of gratitude.
Anecdata: I didn't grasp any of algebra until 10th grade. From about 7th to 10th grade chemistry class, I was just winging it. Sure, 10x=30, I could get x. But any of the trig or the parabolas, not a chance. It wasn't until chemistry, when I actually had to use algebra to get the molarity, moles, grams, etc, that I was able to grasp it. I remember sitting in class after the bell let out, on my desk, just doing the molarity equations over and over. It was one of the largest smiles of my life. I finally got it.
So, math happens when it happens. Maybe, yeah, I was a little retarded from the rest of my peers in grasping this idea of algebra. But I did get it eventually, when I needed to use it, finally. Saying that math is 'hard' isn't the best way of going about it. Everyone is different and learns differently and at different times. Some may not be able to get 3rd year Calc until they are 30, some get it at 15.
I tapped out of formal math classes at number-theory at ~22. Diff-eqs, Lagrangians, General Relativity, all fine with me, but number theory was a whole different level of pedantry I was not about to dive into.
So, math happens when it happens. Maybe, yeah, I was a little retarded from the rest of my peers in grasping this idea of algebra. But I did get it eventually, when I needed to use it, finally. Saying that math is 'hard' isn't the best way of going about it. Everyone is different and learns differently and at different times. Some may not be able to get 3rd year Calc until they are 30, some get it at 15.
I tapped out of formal math classes at number-theory at ~22. Diff-eqs, Lagrangians, General Relativity, all fine with me, but number theory was a whole different level of pedantry I was not about to dive into.
It wasn't until chemistry, when I actually had to use algebra to get the molarity, moles, grams, etc, that I was able to grasp it.
There was this study that found this kind of difference in application. People were given a logic problem phrased abstractly. Then other people were given the same logic problem, but phrased in terms of catching someone cheating at something. It was like people's IQ's suddenly greatly increased.
I also remember an anecdote about this father coaching his kid through the multiplication tables, which the kid didn't like and had trouble with. They were riding in the car quizzing the kid, who was not doing well, but then the kid asked to do the 7's, which he rattled off with aplomb. Turns out, the kid really liked football. (US football)
There was this study that found this kind of difference in application. People were given a logic problem phrased abstractly. Then other people were given the same logic problem, but phrased in terms of catching someone cheating at something. It was like people's IQ's suddenly greatly increased.
I also remember an anecdote about this father coaching his kid through the multiplication tables, which the kid didn't like and had trouble with. They were riding in the car quizzing the kid, who was not doing well, but then the kid asked to do the 7's, which he rattled off with aplomb. Turns out, the kid really liked football. (US football)
Nice ones!
I think application is important, but the diversity of what a child will care about is crazy large. You can't reach them all. My SO is a teacher (of chemistry, ironically) and some kids get the material and some just don't. It's not a lack of trying, it's just that they don't get it. As such, the frustration of the child comes out and makes things worse. Good family lives are very important throughout their lives and help, but some kids just aren't going to get certain subjects. We're all different people.
I think application is important, but the diversity of what a child will care about is crazy large. You can't reach them all. My SO is a teacher (of chemistry, ironically) and some kids get the material and some just don't. It's not a lack of trying, it's just that they don't get it. As such, the frustration of the child comes out and makes things worse. Good family lives are very important throughout their lives and help, but some kids just aren't going to get certain subjects. We're all different people.
I think your first reference is to the Wason selection task:
https://puzzlewocky.com/brain-teasers/the-wason-selection-ta...
https://puzzlewocky.com/brain-teasers/the-wason-selection-ta...
What a hero. In my opinion academics often take their role quite a bit too seriously. They are not aware that their role outside of the actually practice related subjects is mostly to be a brain teaser.
It's heroic to give someone a passing grade in a college level class when they can't keep up with a college level workload?
I think that its just fraud.
I think that its just fraud.
A hero for realizing being just another minor data point for most of his students lifes.
It is sacrificing his academic creditably for the good of his student's gpa.
In a perfect world, neither group would care about either of those things.
I can see how GPA imperfectly measures a student's knowledge/intelligence. However credibility and honesty should be valued in a perfect world.
It's not a perfect world.
A reviewer of the book mentions this magazine article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-works-what-d...
("What Works, What Doesn't: Some study techniques accelerate learning, whereas others are just a waste of time—but which ones are which? An unprecedented review maps out the best pathways to follow.")
Behind paywall, but mirrored at http://tguilfoyle.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/file/view/What_work...
A short summary for the article is:
https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~mernst/advice/effective-stu...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-works-what-d...
("What Works, What Doesn't: Some study techniques accelerate learning, whereas others are just a waste of time—but which ones are which? An unprecedented review maps out the best pathways to follow.")
Behind paywall, but mirrored at http://tguilfoyle.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/file/view/What_work...
A short summary for the article is:
https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~mernst/advice/effective-stu...
I don't disagree, but to add some additional complexity: cog-sci-y "learning science" literature mostly just captures one (very significant!) part of what goes on in a college course...learning things in the sense of being able to then recall facts (WWI started from an assassination!), perform new tasks (implement a linked list!), develop specific useful habits (cite your sources!), and so forth.
I know the headline says the word "retention" and the content deals with this above stuff to some degree, but there's also different goals stated like inspiring students to want to learn, getting students to reflect on their inherited values, and becoming sensitive to experiencing themes in literature. For purposes like these, there's simply no point to covering a lot of material, and it may often be counterproductive.
I think one key point is stated in the article: no one thinks "slow teaching" should be the only method. But (anecdotally lol) I personally am glad I had a few seminars with a glacial pace, as those were the ones where I really learned how to write, plus how to think when facts aren't available or directly relevant.
Personally I think stepping back and asking what a course is trying to do is the first step. If it's to expose students to as much evo bio as possible, a slow teaching "philosophy" wouldn't be appropriate. If it's to get a group of people who might be hostile to the idea of evolution to consider the possibility ("reflecting on values"), I don't know what other approach could work.
I know the headline says the word "retention" and the content deals with this above stuff to some degree, but there's also different goals stated like inspiring students to want to learn, getting students to reflect on their inherited values, and becoming sensitive to experiencing themes in literature. For purposes like these, there's simply no point to covering a lot of material, and it may often be counterproductive.
I think one key point is stated in the article: no one thinks "slow teaching" should be the only method. But (anecdotally lol) I personally am glad I had a few seminars with a glacial pace, as those were the ones where I really learned how to write, plus how to think when facts aren't available or directly relevant.
Personally I think stepping back and asking what a course is trying to do is the first step. If it's to expose students to as much evo bio as possible, a slow teaching "philosophy" wouldn't be appropriate. If it's to get a group of people who might be hostile to the idea of evolution to consider the possibility ("reflecting on values"), I don't know what other approach could work.
It seems like you might enjoy the article Stupid Tutoring Systems, Intelligent Humans! It talks about some less commonly thought of factors (e.g.emotional) that are important for teaching processes.
http://www.columbia.edu/~rsb2162/STS-Baker-IJAIED-v15.pdf
http://www.columbia.edu/~rsb2162/STS-Baker-IJAIED-v15.pdf
Thank you for the link! I was actually wanting to read a survey on this topic. I'm obviously sympathetic with the general approach of focusing on augmenting rather than replacing humans in teaching.
I confess I'm more skeptical of "data, data, and more data" than the author (from whence it comes? an A/B test of the video widget we wrote last week? the "anecdotes" of a skilled teacher with decades of experience can surely be more informative sometimes!), but I'm certainly eager to incorporate what good data is available!
I confess I'm more skeptical of "data, data, and more data" than the author (from whence it comes? an A/B test of the video widget we wrote last week? the "anecdotes" of a skilled teacher with decades of experience can surely be more informative sometimes!), but I'm certainly eager to incorporate what good data is available!
The biggest issue for me was that it was hit or miss if my professors were going to actually teach or if they were going to power through powerpoint slides for 50 minutes. Mostly research heavy professors that are just doing classes because of contractual obligations.
The best professors I had did not read exclusively off of the projector.
The best professors I had did not read exclusively off of the projector.
Is the ability to memorize as important in an always connected world? A broad overview means that you at least know what to search for when it is time to study something in depth.
[deleted]
I deliberately selected a college where I knew I would be pushed hard. And I was. The first year was pretty hard, as I thought I could wing everything like in high school. By my junior year, things got a lot better. I was learning more at a faster pace, and it was good.
It depends on what you want. I didn't want to waste time in college. I wanted to get all I could out of the 4 years.
As for sleep deprivation, sure that happened, but it was my choice. There were too many fun things to do! I was never bored in college.
It depends on what you want. I didn't want to waste time in college. I wanted to get all I could out of the 4 years.
As for sleep deprivation, sure that happened, but it was my choice. There were too many fun things to do! I was never bored in college.
> I deliberately selected a college where I knew I would be pushed hard.
Learning a lot in a short period of time is strongly coupled with coping strategies and discipline due to time pressure and the high requirements. After this process you probably have gained some insights about yourself and further, confidence to have capabilities to read and learn through whatever comes your way. At least to a certain degree.
> It depends on what you want. I didn't want to waste time in college. I wanted to get all I could out of the 4 years.
However, I think there's still a lot of space for improvement. Especially towards technical or math expertise. A lot of students even lack of the bare basics just a few months after the exams are over. And even more importantly, problem solving skills and critical thinking are, at least in my experience, neglected. One of the main reasons therefore is the lack of time. Thinking and solving a problem _yourself_ instead of looking up the solution or being able to reproduce a solution at your exams are two different things. With the former being the critical point at which universities currently fail the most.
Learning a lot in a short period of time is strongly coupled with coping strategies and discipline due to time pressure and the high requirements. After this process you probably have gained some insights about yourself and further, confidence to have capabilities to read and learn through whatever comes your way. At least to a certain degree.
> It depends on what you want. I didn't want to waste time in college. I wanted to get all I could out of the 4 years.
However, I think there's still a lot of space for improvement. Especially towards technical or math expertise. A lot of students even lack of the bare basics just a few months after the exams are over. And even more importantly, problem solving skills and critical thinking are, at least in my experience, neglected. One of the main reasons therefore is the lack of time. Thinking and solving a problem _yourself_ instead of looking up the solution or being able to reproduce a solution at your exams are two different things. With the former being the critical point at which universities currently fail the most.
[deleted]
I retained the most when the prof actually enjoyed teaching. I retained the least when I was forced look at 80 powerpoint slides within 90 minutes.