That class you just cant get an A in

[Anathema]

---

Members don't see this ad.

To play devils advocate, you're not paying for the classes but rather the degree. You just need a grade in your courses and lectures may or may not be part if that equation.

 

[coyotelime]

Biochem

Class demographic = Mostly seniors who've made it through all the weed-out classes
Professors Exam Questions = Unfair to say the least, some just confusing to the point where you don't even know what is being asked
Averages = C

Oh this is at a "top 20" school for what it's worth

 

[Koosalagoosagoo]

Dat uncurved general chemistry II class because community college. Start with 45 people in class, about 10 people are now taking the ACS final with a passing grade. Have a 88 %

 

[dfib slim]

.

 

[EarthtoneJon]

If you don't like the schedule and time commitment your university is asking for, you don't have to pay them.

Is it fair to condense your argument to this line? I think this is basically what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong.

Right, I don't have to pay them. But there are people who advocate far-reaching reform in the business, legislative, medical, or academic sectors of this country, and they are concerned with more than just their personal bubble. In this case, I am one of them. The argument "well, if you don't like it, go somewhere else / do something else / buy something else" is a viable solution for me, but it does not improve higher education at colleges and universities in the United States. I think higher education would be better without mandatory attendance. The above quote is like telling a member of P.E.T.A not to wear fur. "If you don't like fur, don't wear it" does not address the organization's argument.

 

[Bangersandmash]

Is it fair to condense your argument to this line? I think this is basically what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong.

Right, I don't have to pay them. But there are people who advocate far-reaching reform in the business, legislative, medical, or academic sectors of this country, and they are concerned with more than just their personal bubble. In this case, I am one of them. The argument "well, if you don't like it, go somewhere else / do something else / buy something else" is a viable solution for me, but it does not improve higher education at colleges and universities in the United States. I think higher education would be better without mandatory attendance. The above quote is like telling a member of P.E.T.A not to wear fur. "If you don't like fur, don't wear it" does not address the organization's argument.

For you, my argument essentially boils down to what you summarized. I understand what you're saying, but P.E.T.A. has some guiding principles to stand on, like animals are treated cruelly and that's inhuman and immoral.

Why do you think higher education is better without mandatory attendance? All I've picked up from your arguments is that you are paying for it and you want to decide how to spend your time. How will a lack of mandatory attendance be beneficial for college society as a whole? Forgive me if I've missed this part of your argument.

Just keep in mind that many people at traditional 4 years are still students who have loans or whose parents are paying for their education. It's hard enough to get kids to study on their own and attend class without supervision. Do you think instituting mandatory non-attendance will improve things? That kids will suddenly start using their time wisely or have higher graduation rates? I'd like to hear some reasoning.

 

[EarthtoneJon]

All great points, Bangersandmash.

Why do you think higher education is better without mandatory attendance?

I think the issue goes pretty deep. To give you a preface (I can completely understand if you don't agree with it) I think that way too many people go to college. The bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma. Many degree programs prepare students to do specifically nothing- albeit they leave with greater knowledge of the material in their field, and in debt. The "good" jobs are obtained after a master's degree or terminal degree. I think that our country needs to move toward job training- not the mechanized job training that prepared unassuming young men to have their appendages chopped off in the fumigated factories of the industrial revolution- but intelligent job training that will give students a rigorous understanding in a highly specific field. It would enable them to be a part of research, operate specific machinery or instruments, work on certain building and engineering projects, etc. The argument against this line of thinking is "well, students won't see the big picture, can be susceptible to manipulation and may wind up in a dead-end job." I can see the validity of this point. Again, the job training that I propose is a lot like a bachelor's degree in that it provides some surface knowledge, but it includes more rigorous understanding of a specific task, piece of equipment, research topic, or the like. So, graduates would be informed, but ALSO could hit the ground running, ready to pay off their debt and make an impact in their field.

Why am I telling you this? Because "mandatory attendance" is another contributor to the bachelor degree's movement toward meaninglessness. Colleges in general (not all colleges) are filled with pacified students who, like they probably had during their pre-college years, rely on others to budget their time and provide a false sense of accomplishment: "come to class, hand in x y and z assignment, take 4 tests, and you have learned something." This is just such a poor way to evaluate real progress!

To summarize the downside of mandatory attendance (and please note, I do agree with you that it has some upside):

1) It is another small reason that graduates leave unmotivated, irresponsibly, and disconnected from their role in their own education, because it promotes an environment of childish supervision instead of accountability.

2) It does not give due credit to independent or atypical learners (I was not one, but knew a few of them.) This may be of no consequence in a given semester...but it also may!

3) It gives undue credit to those who want to do the bare minimum. Students should go to class because that is where they learn. It should not be worth a single gosh darn tenth of a percent of credit.

Again, all small things, but still contributing to what I see as a major problem in American colleges and universities. Thanks for asking- it's nice to get these thoughts out!

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Believe it or not, Microbiology.

No study guide + lots of material + tests that sometimes ask trivia = hard to get an A.

 

[Bangersandmash]

All great points, Bangersandmash.



I think the issue goes pretty deep. To give you a preface (I can completely understand if you don't agree with it) I think that way too many people go to college. The bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma. Many degree programs prepare students to do specifically nothing- albeit they leave with greater knowledge of the material in their field, and in debt. The "good" jobs are obtained after a master's degree or terminal degree. I think that our country needs to move toward job training- not the mechanized job training that prepared unassuming young men to have their appendages chopped off in the fumigated factories of the industrial revolution- but intelligent job training that will give students a rigorous understanding in a highly specific field. It would enable them to be a part of research, operate specific machinery or instruments, work on certain building and engineering projects, etc. The argument against this line of thinking is "well, students won't see the big picture, can be susceptible to manipulation and may wind up in a dead-end job." I can see the validity of this point. Again, the job training that I propose is a lot like a bachelor's degree in that it provides some surface knowledge, but it includes more rigorous understanding of a specific task, piece of equipment, research topic, or the like. So, graduates would be informed, but ALSO could hit the ground running, ready to pay off their debt and make an impact in their field.

Why am I telling you this? Because "mandatory attendance" is another contributor to the bachelor degree's movement toward meaninglessness. Colleges in general (not all colleges) are filled with pacified students who, like they probably had during their pre-college years, rely on others to budget their time and provide a false sense of accomplishment: "come to class, hand in x y and z assignment, take 4 tests, and you have learned something." This is just such a poor way to evaluate real progress!

To summarize the downside of mandatory attendance (and please note, I do agree with you that it has some upside):

1) It is another small reason that graduates leave unmotivated, irresponsibly, and disconnected from their role in their own education, because it promotes an environment of childish supervision instead of accountability.

2) It does not give due credit to independent or atypical learners (I was not one, but knew a few of them.) This may be of no consequence in a given semester...but it also may!

3) It gives undue credit to those who want to do the bare minimum. Students should go to class because that is where they learn. It should not be worth a single gosh darn tenth of a percent of credit.

Again, all small things, but still contributing to what I see as a major problem in American colleges and universities. Thanks for asking- it's nice to get these thoughts out!

Interesting perspective. I completely agree with your idea behind vocational training. I come from a long line of teachers and both my parents are public school teachers. I have had discussions with my dad before about vocational training and he is a strong proponent of it. He teaches remedial high school math and is a firm believer that if you can't read or do basic algebra as a senior in high school, you should probably think about a vocation and not general education. It's a very European way of thought. Germany actually has their schooling setup like this (based off of discussions with a German in high school). They have three levels of secondary education that kids are placed into based on exams. The top is STEM, the middle is like what people with bachelor's do here and the lowest is vocational. Good luck getting America to adopt that.

Your point about the declining value of the college degree is also interesting. This article by the economist is a good read and very recent: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21567373-american-universities-represent-declining-value-money-their-students-not-what-it

However, I still don't think mandatory non-attendance is the right thing to do. It isn't conducive to a large portion of students who still attend college and need something to make them go to class and learn. K-12 is compulsory for good reason. College shouldn't be as strict, but having a few classes with mandatory attendance and participation isn't the primary factor causing educational decline.

 

[lobo.solo]

Upper division underwater basket weaving 😀

 

[dfib slim]

.

 

[arresteddev]

Yep. My Spanish class makes a 96% an A with participation 20%. I have shown up to every single class, have been attentive, and try my best to contribute to class discussions. I'm still getting an 80 for participation.