3 ms·

> "Serious students are largely only found in degree programs that have weeder courses". I am unconvinced by that logic. Serious students are there to learn f

> "Serious students are largely only found in degree programs that have weeder courses". I am unconvinced by that logic. Serious students are there to learn from competent teachers- i.e. someone that is proficient in the art of conveying knowledge, not merely possessing knowledge or having successfully brought grant monies to their university. Weed out courses are not for serious students, but are a rite of passage that many times are themselves gamed.

csa 4y ago
> Serious students are there to learn from competent teachers- i.e. someone that is proficient in the art of conveying knowledge, not merely possessing knowledge or having successfully brought grant monies to their university. These two are largely diametrically opposed. - Any professor bringing in significant grant money is at an R1 school. - R1 schools are famous for bad teaching by the tenured faculty, largely because quality teaching doesn’t gain them much. - Quality teaching can be found, often in abundance, at small colleges. Some of these colleges do not have weeder courses. There are some serious students at these colleges. These are the rare exceptions, imho.
bena 4y ago
There's weeder courses and then there's weeder courses. Some courses are just hard because the concepts are hard. If you're not down to clown, you're not going to make it past it. Some courses are deliberate obstacles. The degree program at the university I attended had a single course that essentially pivoted you from the 200 level courses to the 300 level courses. It was always full due to it being a requirement and having a high failure rate necessitating people to retake it multiple times. I never got a chance to take it because I ran out of lower level courses and electives to take to maintain full time status. Without full time status, I couldn't maintain my financial aid. Without my financial aid, I couldn't afford college. A couple of years later, the program was restructured and the "pivot" was removed. As was other bullshit one was forced to take. If I had started the program a year later, I could have actually completed it. Or if I could have just taken the class. I never struggled with the material.
- freedomben 4y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree, but something I didn't consider until later when exposed more to the "sausage making" of academia was the extent to which the course creators are just incompetent at creating material "on level" for those students. Many just assume the material must be hard, when in fact it (often times) moves too fast as well. Also inability to teach complex concepts simply is another huge impediment. This was one of Einstein's pet peeves, and is one of mine as well. Teachers and students alike seem to want to cram/jam as much material into each course as possible, but I think it ultimately does a grave disservice.

csa 4y ago

> Serious students are there to learn from competent teachers- i.e. someone that is proficient in the art of conveying knowledge, not merely possessing knowledge or having successfully brought grant monies to their university. These two are largely diametrically opposed. - Any professor bringing in significant grant money is at an R1 school. - R1 schools are famous for bad teaching by the tenured faculty, largely because quality teaching doesn’t gain them much. - Quality teaching can be found, often in abundance, at small colleges. Some of these colleges do not have weeder courses. There are some serious students at these colleges. These are the rare exceptions, imho.

bena 4y ago

There's weeder courses and then there's weeder courses. Some courses are just hard because the concepts are hard. If you're not down to clown, you're not going to make it past it. Some courses are deliberate obstacles. The degree program at the university I attended had a single course that essentially pivoted you from the 200 level courses to the 300 level courses. It was always full due to it being a requirement and having a high failure rate necessitating people to retake it multiple times. I never got a chance to take it because I ran out of lower level courses and electives to take to maintain full time status. Without full time status, I couldn't maintain my financial aid. Without my financial aid, I couldn't afford college. A couple of years later, the program was restructured and the "pivot" was removed. As was other bullshit one was forced to take. If I had started the program a year later, I could have actually completed it. Or if I could have just taken the class. I never struggled with the material.

freedomben 4y ago
I don't necessarily disagree, but something I didn't consider until later when exposed more to the "sausage making" of academia was the extent to which the course creators are just incompetent at creating material "on level" for those students. Many just assume the material must be hard, when in fact it (often times) moves too fast as well. Also inability to teach complex concepts simply is another huge impediment. This was one of Einstein's pet peeves, and is one of mine as well. Teachers and students alike seem to want to cram/jam as much material into each course as possible, but I think it ultimately does a grave disservice.