Fast Food Education - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 22, 2005

RE: Fast Food Education

Date: Nov 22, 2005

LVN wrote:

Trying to think like an undergrad -- it would have been interesting to take my "Art in America" course in a minisession. Very intense and connected and interesting. But Algebra? "The Continental Novel" (wherein we read War and Peace)? Hardly. But Folk Dance would have worked nicely, or Ice Skating, or Music Appreciation -- but not German 101, or Latin, or Trig. Some things just can't be absorbed in that length of time. (In the case of me and Trig, a hundred weeks would not have sufficed, alas.)

I always wondered why the IHL Board didn't fun the university based on the quality of the course and difficulty of the subject matter. At present it seems to me the university gets 3 credit hours for basket weaving or brain surgery. There are more customers who can take the basket weaving than the brain surgery so that get taught. Surely the Trig course is in a different class than the ice skating. Who are we fooling with all of these time wasting courses that do not benefit the state in the long run?

Date: Nov 22, 2005

stephen--i'm glad you feel comfortable saying that "individual faculty members or even whole departments sometimes do not always see how they fit into the big picture." history is not one, in your judgment, but which don't meet your muster? based on what?? i am more than a bit puzzled by the omnipotent nature of your claim. i won't comment on its arrogence. how do you know what you claim? don't forget--you were maybe the first to take a "shot" at the shakespeare course. care to share what people or departments are on your list?

i've asked repeated, to you, amy, and anyone else that wants to chime in, what's the bright line. do those that read this list realize that we teach 2 week, 3 week, 6 week, 8 week, and 10 week classes? care to establish the criteria that decide where we draw the line.

i believe we engage in a large amount of trust in this educational enterprise. maybe it's time to begin reestablishing it. and one way to reestablish it is not to second guess departments that decided to try and offer a mini-session class.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

long in the tooth wrote:

stephen--i'm glad you feel comfortable saying that "individual faculty members or even whole departments sometimes do not always see how they fit into the big picture." history is not one, in your judgment, but which don't meet your muster? based on what?? i am more than a bit puzzled by the omnipotent nature of your claim. i won't comment on its arrogence. how do you know what you claim? don't forget--you were maybe the first to take a "shot" at the shakespeare course. care to share what people or departments are on your list? i've asked repeated, to you, amy, and anyone else that wants to chime in, what's the bright line. do those that read this list realize that we teach 2 week, 3 week, 6 week, 8 week, and 10 week classes? care to establish the criteria that decide where we draw the line. i believe we engage in a large amount of trust in this educational enterprise. maybe it's time to begin reestablishing it. and one way to reestablish it is not to second guess departments that decided to try and offer a mini-session class.

My taxes are paying for this crap. You better believe that I want quality questioned at every turn. Arrogance or not we better second guess and never stop. All levels of government could use this done. I'm tired paying taxes for services without questioning.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Thinker wrote:

LVN wrote: Trying to think like an undergrad -- it would have been interesting to take my "Art in America" course in a minisession. Very intense and connected and interesting. But Algebra? "The Continental Novel" (wherein we read War and Peace)? Hardly. But Folk Dance would have worked nicely, or Ice Skating, or Music Appreciation -- but not German 101, or Latin, or Trig. Some things just can't be absorbed in that length of time. (In the case of me and Trig, a hundred weeks would not have sufficed, alas.) I always wondered why the IHL Board didn't fun the university based on the quality of the course and difficulty of the subject matter. At present it seems to me the university gets 3 credit hours for basket weaving or brain surgery. There are more customers who can take the basket weaving than the brain surgery so that get taught. Surely the Trig course is in a different class than the ice skating. Who are we fooling with all of these time wasting courses that do not benefit the state in the long run?

It is difficult to tell what may benefit the state -- or who would determine that.

The benefits of having a lively intellectual and cultural atmosphere that come from a dynamic university are often indirect -- having such a community in a city is going to be a draw to bring people in to live . . . . Basket weaving itself may not benefit the state significantly, but its presence might be one of the galvanizing elements that animates the whole.

And "quality" isn't an attribute of a specific discipline. There are some pretty bad trig courses -- and some pretty great ice skating coaches. I'm always struck by how easy some people think acting is (compared to trig) until they are put in the position of having to try it.

As one who teaches in one of the disciplines often lumped in with "basket weaving," I'll admit that the stakes aren't as high. If an actor makes a mistake, it is not likely to kill anyone (although the amount of dangerous equipment being handled by undergraduates in the average theatre in the presence -- and often over the exposed heads of -- hundreds of audience members is sobering to those of us who instruct theatre majors.

I can tell you for sure that few people in any profession work more grueling hours, and for less hope of material gain, than artists in most any area of arts endeavor. That alone, and the diversity they bring to the university, and the differences in methods of and kinds of knowlege justify the study of the arts ("basket weaving") in any university.

Three hours of study is three hours of study no matter how you cut it -- trig is no more or less rigorous to some students than painting is to others.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

I did not "take a shot" at Shakespeare.I raised it as an issue of professional concern and only as an example and only because I am in a related field in which the study of Shakespeare is primary.

This is not an act of questioning the academic integrity of a collegue or a department -- I have already indicated my respect for Mary and the greatly beseiged English and Lit Programs.

However, in the present circumstances in which we find ourselves I believe that no program, including my own, should be exempt from the scrutiny of collegues who have been elected to help ensure the integrity of the academic corps as a whole. The intercession represents such a different time frame for teaching in many areas that I do not believe we should simply assume that courses normally taught in a fifteen week semester can be taiught in a five day or 10 day intercession.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

In the end I agree with long in the tooth on this one. We in the main must trust departments to make the right academic call on what can be taught in a mini session and what cannot. We would be very unhappy if levels of administration above the department began to question our ability to judge other things like T&P issues. All departments want to be trusted on that and most agree that they should carry the greatest weight there. Should they not also be trusted on what they can teach in mini sessions? Certainly there are departments out there that do not run perfectly -- but again who chooses which are having trouble functioning? Such assertions could well be a slippery slope. In the end this is an issue best left to departments.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Just as an aside, I took none of those courses in this state. In fact, I took Ice
Skating and Folk Dance as PE courses at Northwestern University. (Ice Skating in MS? That would be interesting.)

And as another aside, basketweaving is a fairly complex and demanding craft, with a history dating to Neolithic times.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

stephen--whether you took a shot or whatever you commented. you singled it out. you have an odd notion of how you express your respect about mary. you claim your comment doesn't question the academic integrity of a colleague, but you did question the ability of the class to be taught.

to your "however" paragraph i say "bull." i trust my colleagues, you clearly do not.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

additionally stephen, i've been elected to one of those bodies to make those decisions.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Me thinks you doth protest too much

Date: Nov 22, 2005

if you think this is much ado about nothing. you may be right. otherwise, buzz off!

Date: Nov 22, 2005

If you think that he who laughs last laughs best you may be right but i don't think that you are amusing.

Date: Nov 23, 2005

While it is true that we already teach a variety of courses in a variety of minisessions, it would not hurt us to review these classes for SACS and other purposes. Like with online courses, course modifications or reviews would simply need to outline HOW one would modify readings, assignments, etc to fit the minisession. I have taught 10 week summer classes - ANT 101, and I have not found it necessary to change any assignments or readings. If I tried to teach ANT 101 in a week, I would, by necessity, have to change the writing assignments and readings, OR almost everyone in the class would fail.

Stephen is correct in stating that not all department chairs followed any procedure before listing classes that individual faculty said they wanted to offer.

I must admit, also, being a very low-paid liberal arts associate professor, that the incentive ($4,500) to teach in the minisession gave me pause! $4,500 would solve several of my problems! And it isn't as though I'll be getting a merit raise anytime soon! For many who may be leaving the university soon, getting ready for retirement, or just low-paid like me and facing financial issues, the temptation may just be too much.

To be the best we (USM) can be, we must raise and maintain academic standards. We can't afford to offer a bunch of classes that don't meet muster.

I'm with LVN in that if we wanted to offer non-credit courses to a variety of people during minisession, that would be great. Everyone would win, from low-paid associate professors to prospective students, and anyone else in lifelong learning.

Amy Young

Date: Nov 23, 2005

long in the tooth wrote:

stephen--whether you took a shot or whatever you commented. you singled it out. you have an odd notion of how you express your respect about mary. you claim your comment doesn't question the academic integrity of a colleague, but you did question the ability of the class to be taught. to your "however" paragraph i say "bull." i trust my colleagues, you clearly do not.

I trust my colleagues in general . . . but faculty members aren't saints and I repeat that under the current corrupt administration the incentives to lower standards and the disincentives to preserve them are very powerful -- particularly in the economic crunch we find ourselves in.

"Trust" doesn't necessarily mean that I give up my right to be skeptical -- or my own perceived need to be skeptical. I also trust myself, but I perform fairly constant and consistent self examinations to at least try to make sure (who can know for sure really?) that my motivations for my actions are generally aboveboard. And I do sometimes find that they are not. The integrity of the academic system depends upon a general consensus and belief that most of us are in this for the right reasons and will take great pains to protect the integrity of our discipline and the university. But there are always a few in any community who abuse the trust of the university. Sometimes that is inadvertant -- sometimes intentional.

It is true that I am concerned that in the pressure to "serve the public" and "to create jobs" and to "supply trained people to business" the deeper philosphical and ethical principles that undergird the trust which you so eloquently defend are rapidly being undermined, and we may be participating in the slow attrition of the kind of principles that make trust possible. I could be wrong . . . I'm open to that. But I am trying to say what I see from the vantage point of a participant in this community.

My perception is that we agree on the need for trust -- that it is a basic premise of our community. Where we differ is my feeling that we are being rushed headlong into adopting new majors, new modes of delivery, and a revised view of what constitutes a university without any discussion at the deepest level of what these chnages are doing to the very system of trust that you speak of. And we are rushing for the wrong reasons -- leaving discussion behind. I believe that these oversight committees are the only place where such discussions have a chance of occuring because they are the gateway through which change must pass.

Clearly we have a history here recently of people exaggerating their credentials, of people being placed in charge of academic of areas in which their background was inappropriate . . . of disciplines being created and approved at the IHL level before they have ever gone through the academic committees for approval. I'd suggest that our academic system is already greatly corrupted and it is more important than ever for us to balance trust with skepticism.

I don't have an answer to your argument of two weeks, three weeks, etc. That doesn't delegitize my concern -- it only indicates that we have not had any discussion.

I want to note that during this exchange you have implied that I am arrogant, that I do not trust my colleagues, that I have attacked a fellow colleague by expressing doubt -- not disbelief) about a course that is in an area not unrelated to my own. Your addresses to me have been sprinkled with some fairly direct attacks on my person.

You and I obviously have disagreements -- but I respect your opinion and weigh your arguments -- and they are good arguments that I actually support with some qualifications. Our disagreement doesn't cause me to question your integrity or motivation.

I'd also like to note that I've put myself out in public under my own name about my concerns -- you have now shared with me that you sit on some of these committees (perhaps some of the same ones I do). It is comforting to know that as I look across the table at the colleagues I work with that someone is looking back with contempt, but I do not have the privilege of knowing who that person is.

Date: Nov 23, 2005

I'm not sure about these mini-courses, however they present some interesting
challenges:

- I do not believe students should have any difficulty in a 4 hour/day
   mini course, however I cannot imagine being able to maintain concentration
   for the entire four hours, and I suspect that breaks and down time
   will mean that the number of contact hours is not equivalent to a
   semester-long course in any mini-course. I saw that on the Coast
   where classes would meet once or twice each week in the evenings.

- I cannot imagine 8 hours of mini-course. That is too much for any person
   unless the course has no content whatsoever. I am not expert in the
   area of human performance, however my sense is that for rote learning,
   8 hours is preferable to 4 is preferable to 2, i.e., immersion is
   the key, and so a long day may make sense for language classes, or other
   classes where the effort is to train the mind, rather than to educate it. For
   subjects with deeper intellectual content, the need to assimilate
   complex logical structures into the organization of the mind means
   that there is a need to think and re-think the ideas that were presented.
   That requires time away from the pressure of facing new material which
   has to be learned.

- From a real world perspective, i.e., in terms of measuring student
    performance, there will not be much difference in how a student learns
    because most students do not. The few who do will manage no matter how
    difficult the process is.

I think there is a need to accommodate students, and I believe this is
an attempt to take into account the difficulties that most of our students
face. I cannot tell you how many students in my classes perform badly because
they are working more hours than anything else, having some students putting
in 40 hours a week, while taking a full load. We pretend that students
can do this, and there are no university guidelines on student time
allocations. The need is to examine these type of issues more broadly.
Education is changing, and it seems to me that educators are not part
of the process of deciding the future shape of the educational system.

Date: Nov 23, 2005

I'm in agreement with you on most of your points math prof.

I'm in huge agreement about the changes in students and how they obtain higher education. This is a major concern for us in theatre, since so many of our students are not only taking classes but constantly involved in production as part of their education. The student who has to work really struggles. And there are an increasing number of them.

I also think the government needs to reaxamine its definition of undergraduate education as a four year program. I think the 12 hour minimum in order to retain loan money needs to be rexamined as well. Too many of our students are stuck between our school requirements, the definition of student and student aid the government has created, and their individual circumstances.

Excellent entry. Very thought provoking.

Date: Nov 24, 2005

Math Prof wrote:

I'm not sure about these mini-courses, however they present some interestingchallenges: - I do not believe students should have any difficulty in a 4 hour/day mini course, however I cannot imagine being able to maintain concentration for the entire four hours, and I suspect that breaks and down time will mean that the number of contact hours is not equivalent to a semester-long course in any mini-course. I saw that on the Coast where classes would meet once or twice each week in the evenings. - I cannot imagine 8 hours of mini-course. That is too much for any person unless the course has no content whatsoever. I am not expert in the area of human performance, however my sense is that for rote learning, 8 hours is preferable to 4 is preferable to 2, i.e., immersion is the key, and so a long day may make sense for language classes, or other classes where the effort is to train the mind, rather than to educate it. For subjects with deeper intellectual content, the need to assimilate complex logical structures into the organization of the mind means that there is a need to think and re-think the ideas that were presented. That requires time away from the pressure of facing new material which has to be learned. - From a real world perspective, i.e., in terms of measuring student performance, there will not be much difference in how a student learns because most students do not. The few who do will manage no matter how difficult the process is.I think there is a need to accommodate students, and I believe this isan attempt to take into account the difficulties that most of our studentsface. I cannot tell you how many students in my classes perform badly becausethey are working more hours than anything else, having some students puttingin 40 hours a week, while taking a full load. We pretend that studentscan do this, and there are no university guidelines on student timeallocations. The need is to examine these type of issues more broadly.Education is changing, and it seems to me that educators are not partof the process of deciding the future shape of the educational system.

I'm an outsider to the issues at USM, but I spent five years teaching at a small liberal arts college that offered students 18-day courses (they only took one at a time). I am here to tell you that I do not recommend teaching courses designed for a full semester in a short period. Mini-courses, focused very specifically, yes, but there is LOTS you cannot do in this sort of format. Concentration does wane. Paper writing (with revision and extensive thought and research) is virtually impossible. Getting materials through ILL in time is difficult. And if the class comes down with the flu, it's all over. Missing a day of class is like missing a week. Where I taught,
faculty who came from other systems often reduced their course content by one third to one half to make it work in the condensed system. The students where I taught learned to crank out work rapidly, but not well. I would not send my child to a school like that or suggest that students should expect to get a good education from mini-courses. It was also very tough on professors, who had to get assignments back in 24 hours and were grading all the time. I've never worked so hard (and done so little research and had so little personal time).

Date: Nov 24, 2005

Look. Let's face facts. The entire mini-course idea is one that was hatched at some level of the administration and is driven solely by the desire to squeeze more tuition dollars from students. Its a pure University of Phoenix/Strayer University scam with no legitimate educational basis.

The manner in which the administration rammed this through without consultation of the duly established committees that oversee curriculum and the way they have sought to bribe faculty with a $4500 (or so) payment for these courses is reprehensible, but all too typical of how USM has been run the last 3 1/2 years.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Been there done that wrote:

The students where I taught learned to crank out work rapidly, but not well. I would not send my child to a school like that

I have noticed that many USM faculty send their children to college elsewhere.

Date: Nov 27, 2005

The continuing debate over the quality of courses in the various formats is interesting and important. Thus, perhaps there could be some evidence presented as to the equality of readings, assignments, projects, etc. between the regular semesters and the minisessions. Grade distributions, as were used in some cases for the SACS reports on distance vs. on-camus courses, are not adequate. In addition, we need some of the same type of evidence concerning the equality of the algebra courses taught at the high schools vs. those taught on campus. We are scholars, are we not? And scholars operate on evidence, not opinions.

Date: Nov 27, 2005

Sadder but Wiser wrote:

I have noticed that many USM faculty send their children to college elsewhere.

You got that one right.

Date: Nov 28, 2005

Sadder but Wiser wrote:

I have noticed that many USM faculty send their children to college elsewhere.

You can add "a lot of USM alumni" to that statement as well!

But I'll offer that the short-term class scheme is getting very common. Whether it's to provide a student the opportunity to knock out required core classes in a hurry or get the easier prereq's out of the way after a major change, it's increasingly popular with students. But it's up to administrators and faculty to draw the line regarding what's acceptable for a major to take in those formats. PRCC is an institution that places some interesting & pedagogically sound restrictions on short-term & online classes, so I am told. It depends on whether administrators truly regard themselves as educators as opposed to managers.

That said, the question of whether SACS places restrictions on short-term formats has come up here. In the "old days," SACS had a requirement that a course span at least "one week per credit hour" as a minimum to permit "reflection" on the subject matter. With the tide of two-week short terms rising faster than a storm surge on the beachfront, I wonder if that rule has been relaxed. I plan to ask around about it in Atlanta next week.

Date: Nov 28, 2005

Invictus said: It depends on whether administrators truly regard themselves as educators as opposed to managers.

You have cut to the heart of everything that is wrong at USM (and probably at a lot of other places.)

Date: Nov 28, 2005

Chances are the simplicity of a discipline's subject matter is positively correlated with its number of online courses: The simpler the discipline, the greater the number of online courses in that discipline.

Date: Nov 28, 2005

r=+.99 wrote:

Chances are the simplicity of a discipline's subject matter is positively correlated with its number of online courses: The simpler the discipline, the greater the number of online courses in that discipline.

Correlary: Chances are the simplicity of a university is positively correlated with the number of online courses it offers.

Date: Nov 28, 2005

Sadder but Wiser wrote:

Been there done that wrote:
The students where I taught learned to crank out work rapidly, but not well. I would not send my child to a school like that
I have noticed that many USM faculty send their children to college elsewhere.

Yep. That is one of the things that gravels SFT. He and his kids have never been anywhere else.