3 ms·

My response to everyone saying this must be the professor’s fault: I graduated right before the pandemic, so I don’t know how things changed during the last two

by HEmanZ 4y ago

My response to everyone saying this must be the professor’s fault: I graduated right before the pandemic, so I don’t know how things changed during the last two years, but I do know that US college students at mid-tier universities are very bad at learning. If I saw a professor at my university take the time to think this hard about why students are failing so badly, then I would trust his performance over the students. I would say about 85% of the classmates I had (again, right before the pandemic) were completely unwilling to put in any effort to learn whatsoever. It still makes me mad thinking how many students expected grades to be given for nothing. Most wouldn’t study more than 30 minutes for a test and expect to be given a B for “good job you took it” and then go complain in office hours when they failed. Davidson looks to be about the same quality as my university, so i expect their students are similar. What happens to these 85% students after the pandemic? I suspect they got even more used to doing nothing and expecting a pass. Please note, just like the professor points out, there are always a minority of students who are very good at learning, who are motivated to learn, and who excel in classes where 80% fail. If a class had 100% failure problem then I’d blame the professor.

jterrys 4y ago
College is a few years behind me, but not too far that I've forgotten my general experience. As a graduate from a mid-tier university in the US: -Nobody has ever given a shit about Intro to Econ. Practically every single Freshman is forced to take it so everyone bemoans the experience. -Most schools allow you to take a Community College version of the course and transfer over credits saving you time and money (and effort depending on the school). -In the "Hierarchy of Course Priorities", Intro to Econ is barely above Anthropology and soft sciences. I.e nobody gives a shit. Nobody has ever given a shit. And nobody wants to read through 20 pages of supply and demand and hear about a dude named Keynes because nobody thinks they're going to be an Economist or care or think its important. (Of course they're detrimentally wrong, but we're not here to criticize them, just see things from their perspective) -Mid tier universities can have a mix of really good and really bad professors. So while he's pouring out his heart and soul, his faculty colleagues might be giving even less of a shit than his students. Degrading overall morale and willingness to learn. Especially when its entirely possible now to coast through a class online, do a few multiple choice exams, and move on with your life. -Finally, Freshman classes as a whole filter out students who have poor studying discipline, so the likelihood of encountering failing students will be higher than average.
- fuzzfactor 4y ago
  This didn't happen overnight, it's a slippery slope over the last few decades. It's not just today's students, full grown economists haven't been up to what's needed for some time now.
- thyrsus 4y ago
  I remember econ, and it seems this course is close to the subject matter I had. I thought then and still think that attempting to model highly irregular events (transactions) as a smooth linear system is doomed to failure, so I could never muster the effort required. I'd have been more interested if it had presented itself as a game world instead of supposedly modeling reality.
dc-programmer 4y ago
The standards for ECON101 at Davidson are relatively high. It covers intro micro and macro in the same semester unlike most schools and just finishing the tests in time requires algebraic fluency (same for calculus skills in intermediate micro/macro classes). It’s always been a weed out class (lots of future investment bankers would switch to an easier major). If he has kept the sane bar as previous years, and college kids are struggling as much as it seems, I’m not surprised with the poor results. As an alum, I think Davidson is in a tough spot. It made a name for itself in the past for the rigor and volume of its coursework. Grade deflation was a common topic when I attended. While it is not a household name, it’s built a very solid reputation with graduate schools and key employers for producing graduates with the requisite skills to excel. Obviously it does not hurt a large part of student body comes from upper-middle-class to upper class backgrounds which I argue provides the real value proposition (networking and exposure to upper class ideas and culture) but I digress However, being really really hard with a low name profile is a tough appeal in the current zeitgeist. Schools have become businesses where parents and students want guarantees, especially if they are paying private school tuition. But if Davidson lowers it standards to meet customer demands, then how does it differentiate itself? Especially in the humanities. If you are an English major at Princeton then you are set because of your schools brand. But an English major at Davidson needs that reputation of rigor for their personal brand (and to hone skills of course).
giraffe_lady 4y ago
Well aren't you just a special little boy! Joking aside though, if something is true of 85% of a group then that is the audience, and the truth, we're working with. Lamenting their individual lack of dedication, hard work, whatever virtue will be gratifying but not actually solve any problems. Again if it's truly 85% then that's that. How can professors adapt to the needs of their students is a more useful question, if the problem you want to solve is actually the failure of this mass of students to learn. I suspect it isn't though, either for the author of the article, or you, or most of the commenters here. We want to whine about the vicissitudes of the youth, and congratulate ourselves on our virtue, and this approach works well towaeds that goal.

by HEmanZ 4y ago

jterrys 4y ago

College is a few years behind me, but not too far that I've forgotten my general experience. As a graduate from a mid-tier university in the US: -Nobody has ever given a shit about Intro to Econ. Practically every single Freshman is forced to take it so everyone bemoans the experience. -Most schools allow you to take a Community College version of the course and transfer over credits saving you time and money (and effort depending on the school). -In the "Hierarchy of Course Priorities", Intro to Econ is barely above Anthropology and soft sciences. I.e nobody gives a shit. Nobody has ever given a shit. And nobody wants to read through 20 pages of supply and demand and hear about a dude named Keynes because nobody thinks they're going to be an Economist or care or think its important. (Of course they're detrimentally wrong, but we're not here to criticize them, just see things from their perspective) -Mid tier universities can have a mix of really good and really bad professors. So while he's pouring out his heart and soul, his faculty colleagues might be giving even less of a shit than his students. Degrading overall morale and willingness to learn. Especially when its entirely possible now to coast through a class online, do a few multiple choice exams, and move on with your life. -Finally, Freshman classes as a whole filter out students who have poor studying discipline, so the likelihood of encountering failing students will be higher than average.

fuzzfactor 4y ago
This didn't happen overnight, it's a slippery slope over the last few decades. It's not just today's students, full grown economists haven't been up to what's needed for some time now.
thyrsus 4y ago
I remember econ, and it seems this course is close to the subject matter I had. I thought then and still think that attempting to model highly irregular events (transactions) as a smooth linear system is doomed to failure, so I could never muster the effort required. I'd have been more interested if it had presented itself as a game world instead of supposedly modeling reality.

dc-programmer 4y ago

The standards for ECON101 at Davidson are relatively high. It covers intro micro and macro in the same semester unlike most schools and just finishing the tests in time requires algebraic fluency (same for calculus skills in intermediate micro/macro classes). It’s always been a weed out class (lots of future investment bankers would switch to an easier major). If he has kept the sane bar as previous years, and college kids are struggling as much as it seems, I’m not surprised with the poor results. As an alum, I think Davidson is in a tough spot. It made a name for itself in the past for the rigor and volume of its coursework. Grade deflation was a common topic when I attended. While it is not a household name, it’s built a very solid reputation with graduate schools and key employers for producing graduates with the requisite skills to excel. Obviously it does not hurt a large part of student body comes from upper-middle-class to upper class backgrounds which I argue provides the real value proposition (networking and exposure to upper class ideas and culture) but I digress However, being really really hard with a low name profile is a tough appeal in the current zeitgeist. Schools have become businesses where parents and students want guarantees, especially if they are paying private school tuition. But if Davidson lowers it standards to meet customer demands, then how does it differentiate itself? Especially in the humanities. If you are an English major at Princeton then you are set because of your schools brand. But an English major at Davidson needs that reputation of rigor for their personal brand (and to hone skills of course).

giraffe_lady 4y ago

Well aren't you just a special little boy! Joking aside though, if something is true of 85% of a group then that is the audience, and the truth, we're working with. Lamenting their individual lack of dedication, hard work, whatever virtue will be gratifying but not actually solve any problems. Again if it's truly 85% then that's that. How can professors adapt to the needs of their students is a more useful question, if the problem you want to solve is actually the failure of this mass of students to learn. I suspect it isn't though, either for the author of the article, or you, or most of the commenters here. We want to whine about the vicissitudes of the youth, and congratulate ourselves on our virtue, and this approach works well towaeds that goal.