5 ms·

> For example, we have very poor engagement in some universities I teach at and I've suggested simply paying the students to attend classes. > Of course the ch

by flutas 4y ago

> For example, we have very poor engagement in some universities I teach at and I've suggested simply paying the students to attend classes. > Of course the chancellors, denes and other jumped-up administrators think I'm as mad as a box of frogs. But it's they who are utterly stuck in a tiny world-view, prisoners of preconceptions. Would be an interesting experiment to say the least. Charge $X (tuition), every day they show up to class refund $Y (something like $20?), and then at the end of the semester refund an additional amount based on final grade (a = $Z ($500?), b = $Z-250, etc.) Basically make it so that good students get a discount compared to 'bad' students, but I feel like this would probably go up against some legal issues somewhere.

eloff 4y ago
When the good students are Asians and the bad students are minorities, I can see this being canceled pretty quickly as being a racist policy. It makes sense to my engineer’s brain though. Why wouldn’t you want a meritocracy.
- flutas 4y ago
  > I can see this being canceled pretty quickly as being a racist policy. That's where my first thought went to as well, basically it being nuked from orbit due to racial bias. Second thought was it would probably be really bad PR and spun as "THIS COLLEGE IS BUYING GRADES!"
- bitshiftfaced 4y ago
  Probably just stop at the attendance incentive without going into grades. It would probably be more palatable to the higher-ups if the incentive was low-key, like if it went towards your food-court balance.
  - chucksmash 4y ago
    Also money for grades would give people more incentive to cheat. "I can't afford to get a B this semester."
- saagarjha 4y ago
  Merit, or race, has nothing to do with wanting to attend classes.
  - com2kid 4y ago
    Income and society-economic standing does. Plenty of people work jobs while going to college, a perfect attendance record is not their goal, clawing their way out of poverty is.
    - saagarjha 4y ago
      I went to college in my parent’s dime and skipped well over half the classes I was supposed to attend (some of which because I had intentionally double-booked them). My point is that using attendance as some sort of measure of “merit” is very divorced from the reasons students choose not to attend classes. It can be because they’re lazy and don’t care, but it’s also often (as you mentioned) because they have other things they have to do, or just don’t see the value in attending.
      - nonrandomstring 4y ago
        > My point is that using attendance as some sort of measure of "merit" No, I'm not proposing it be a measure of merit. Or a "measure" of anything. It's an incentive to attend classes, nothing more. > or just don’t see the value in attending. This is the oddest and also most interesting remark. If they don't see value in attending then why are they on the course? And, if they don't see value then they are free to exercise the right not to come and to forgo the financial reward too, and surely nothing is lost? I think buried behind some arguments here (perhaps not yours specifically) is the idea that we ought to simply make degrees something you pay for - by enrolling you get the certificate and the courses are non-assessed. In that case performance, attendance and participation become a different orthogonal quality prospects. It's a proposal that has quite some support amongst my colleagues and which I've argued for here[1] [1] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/fear-zombie-student-apocalypse https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/fear-zombie-stud...
nine_k 4y ago
OTOH stipends based in academic excellence do exist, all the way to balancing off your tuition. They are few and far between though, for rare star performers, not a program that covers every student.
- dhruval 4y ago
  A daily reward would be much more psychologically motivating than a stipend.
etchalon 4y ago
You could paint this as "rewarding good students", but it's also just as likely to punish students in situations beyond their control, or in situations which aren't ideal. As someone who had to juggle a full-time job, in high school, and occasionally overslept and missed classes, I can't imagine the frustration I'd have felt at, despite good faith attempt to make my life work, being punished monetarily for not doing better. One of the reasons I dropped out was that, despite my 3.7 GPA, my attendance record was a constant source of friction with the administration. It was exhausting having to jump through hoops, get lectured, and be treated like a poor performer all because, in my opinion, I didn't have a family that could support me while I focused solely on school.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Thanks (sincerely). you help me make my point here. I hear your emotional argument. That situation sucks. I'm sorry you didn't get that support and I deal with lots of students in the same situation and it grieves me. But I question the "zero sum" reasoning. Is the enemy of my enemy always a friend? Is my loss your gain and vice versa? If we punish some people is that the same as rewarding all the others? Does that mean we ought never reward anyone for anything ever? :) That's what I meant about the "weird taboo". Because I am sure you wouldn't venture the argument that by giving some students higher grades for their performance I am effectively punishing some others for not studying. So, why does money suddenly change everything?
  - samvher 4y ago
    Of course it's a zero sum game - the reward is coming from the tuition people pay. Disadvantaged students end up sponsoring the advantaged ones.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      Sorry I don't follow. Can you elaborate a little please?
      - 4y ago
samvher 4y ago
As a student who used to get good grades with low attendance, I would have found such class refunds very annoying and patronizing. It also gives students who are well-off a lot more flexibility in how they structure their time than those for whom the money matters. Putting a disincentive on resits on the other hand seems reasonable because those come at a cost. I'm not sure that that should go so far as to put a higher reward on higher grades though - trading off high grades for (e.g.) extracurriculars seems entirely reasonable to me and not like something that should be discouraged, and in general a focus on grades rather than learning seems somewhat unhealthy.

by flutas 4y ago

eloff 4y ago

When the good students are Asians and the bad students are minorities, I can see this being canceled pretty quickly as being a racist policy. It makes sense to my engineer’s brain though. Why wouldn’t you want a meritocracy.

flutas 4y ago
> I can see this being canceled pretty quickly as being a racist policy. That's where my first thought went to as well, basically it being nuked from orbit due to racial bias. Second thought was it would probably be really bad PR and spun as "THIS COLLEGE IS BUYING GRADES!"
bitshiftfaced 4y ago
Probably just stop at the attendance incentive without going into grades. It would probably be more palatable to the higher-ups if the incentive was low-key, like if it went towards your food-court balance.
- chucksmash 4y ago
  Also money for grades would give people more incentive to cheat. "I can't afford to get a B this semester."
saagarjha 4y ago
Merit, or race, has nothing to do with wanting to attend classes.
- com2kid 4y ago
  Income and society-economic standing does. Plenty of people work jobs while going to college, a perfect attendance record is not their goal, clawing their way out of poverty is.
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    I went to college in my parent’s dime and skipped well over half the classes I was supposed to attend (some of which because I had intentionally double-booked them). My point is that using attendance as some sort of measure of “merit” is very divorced from the reasons students choose not to attend classes. It can be because they’re lazy and don’t care, but it’s also often (as you mentioned) because they have other things they have to do, or just don’t see the value in attending.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      > My point is that using attendance as some sort of measure of "merit" No, I'm not proposing it be a measure of merit. Or a "measure" of anything. It's an incentive to attend classes, nothing more. > or just don’t see the value in attending. This is the oddest and also most interesting remark. If they don't see value in attending then why are they on the course? And, if they don't see value then they are free to exercise the right not to come and to forgo the financial reward too, and surely nothing is lost? I think buried behind some arguments here (perhaps not yours specifically) is the idea that we ought to simply make degrees something you pay for - by enrolling you get the certificate and the courses are non-assessed. In that case performance, attendance and participation become a different orthogonal quality prospects. It's a proposal that has quite some support amongst my colleagues and which I've argued for here[1] [1] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/fear-zombie-student-apocalypse https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/fear-zombie-stud...

nine_k 4y ago

OTOH stipends based in academic excellence do exist, all the way to balancing off your tuition. They are few and far between though, for rare star performers, not a program that covers every student.

dhruval 4y ago
A daily reward would be much more psychologically motivating than a stipend.

etchalon 4y ago

You could paint this as "rewarding good students", but it's also just as likely to punish students in situations beyond their control, or in situations which aren't ideal. As someone who had to juggle a full-time job, in high school, and occasionally overslept and missed classes, I can't imagine the frustration I'd have felt at, despite good faith attempt to make my life work, being punished monetarily for not doing better. One of the reasons I dropped out was that, despite my 3.7 GPA, my attendance record was a constant source of friction with the administration. It was exhausting having to jump through hoops, get lectured, and be treated like a poor performer all because, in my opinion, I didn't have a family that could support me while I focused solely on school.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
Thanks (sincerely). you help me make my point here. I hear your emotional argument. That situation sucks. I'm sorry you didn't get that support and I deal with lots of students in the same situation and it grieves me. But I question the "zero sum" reasoning. Is the enemy of my enemy always a friend? Is my loss your gain and vice versa? If we punish some people is that the same as rewarding all the others? Does that mean we ought never reward anyone for anything ever? :) That's what I meant about the "weird taboo". Because I am sure you wouldn't venture the argument that by giving some students higher grades for their performance I am effectively punishing some others for not studying. So, why does money suddenly change everything?
- samvher 4y ago
  Of course it's a zero sum game - the reward is coming from the tuition people pay. Disadvantaged students end up sponsoring the advantaged ones.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Sorry I don't follow. Can you elaborate a little please?
    - 4y ago

samvher 4y ago

As a student who used to get good grades with low attendance, I would have found such class refunds very annoying and patronizing. It also gives students who are well-off a lot more flexibility in how they structure their time than those for whom the money matters. Putting a disincentive on resits on the other hand seems reasonable because those come at a cost. I'm not sure that that should go so far as to put a higher reward on higher grades though - trading off high grades for (e.g.) extracurriculars seems entirely reasonable to me and not like something that should be discouraged, and in general a focus on grades rather than learning seems somewhat unhealthy.