5 ms·

Is there any oversight at universities to how much extra-curricular time is to be expected? When I was in school I didn't know of any oversight, but perhaps it

by k3n 13y ago

Is there any oversight at universities to how much extra-curricular time is to be expected? When I was in school I didn't know of any oversight, but perhaps it was behind-the-scenes... > [...] you can expect to spend 20-25 hours each week on the class. IMO you should be getting 20-25 credits then. Why even bother with assigning credits to classes, if it's not at all a realistic reflection of the actual effort required? It makes the credits seem 100% arbitrary.

beambot 13y ago
Credits are based on time in class. I remember many grad classes that expected 2-3 hours per credit hour of weekly independent work. For example, problem sets and course projects were intentionally designed to push your limits. The best classes just assumed: if you're drowning, then you're probably taking in at least some of the water.
- k3n 13y ago
  I just see such a strict requirement, as well as the daily quizzes and attendance grades in the OP's link, as evidence of someone abusing their power in a very destructive way. These are young adults, treat them like such. If they are smart enough to pass the departmental practicums without coming to class once or doing a bit of your silly homework, then who cares? Is a diploma meant to declare mastery in a subject(s), or is it to signify your willingness to jump through figurative arbitrary hoops while wearing a tutu? If it's the former, then attendance and busy-work like daily quizzes, homework, etc. really aren't going to further that objective.
  - beambot 13y ago
    Quick reply... I agree re:daily quizzes and attendance (per a comment elsewhere in the thread). Departmental practicums are meant as a minimum baseline. Diplomas demonstrate a combination of both subject mastery and the ability to slog through things you might not enjoy -- both important skills in any industry job.
cdwhite 13y ago
So I was always told that (as beambot points out) the number of credits was based on lecture time, and moreover that you should expect to spend 2-3 times as much time outside of lectures as you did inside. So your generic 3-credit course (nominally three hours of lecture, actually more like 2 1/2) would require something like 9-12 hours total: 3 in lecture, 6-9 at home. Now in my experience, this was much more accurate for humanities than for math/science classes, where the amount of time the class took depended strongly on one's ability and preparation. I remember in particular one math professor whose problems were tricky: if you had the right insight, the proof was usually very simple, but if you didn't have that insight, you'd struggle and struggle. (And then there were the classes for which I was way under-prepared, and on which I spent way more than 25 hours.) Add on to that the fact the time spent in lecture (on which the number of credits depends) doesn't necessarily track the difficulty of the material, and you have a recipe for wide variation in the amount of time one spends for a certain amount of credits. (Labs are notorious for taking way more time than the number of credits.) And then you get into how some classes are more efficient than others in terms of how much learning you get for the amount of time you spend, and this doesn't match up with the number of credits either...
- k3n 13y ago
  Yes, I know how they're derived...I had both 4h lectures + 0h labs and 3h lectures + 1h labs, and that's a good example of how arbitrary it really is. Even for subjects as closely aligned as biology, chemistry, and physics, there's a disconnect. My point is that the hour/credit system is disingenuous to the point of being counter-productive, and is one of the areas of the educational system that I think we need to revisit if we're ever to progress passed the same old system that our parents (and for some, grandparents) used. It was a good start on objectifying quality and quantity of education, but it hasn't evolved really and we've learned a lot about learning in that time span. I understand that classes are challenging, but they should be so on their own merits -- not because of laborious exercises. I'm not saying "no homework" or anything, but just don't require it. A lazy student will always find a way to fail, the gifted will pass, and the driven will do what's required (homework, attendance, etc.) to pass. At least that's my take on it.

by k3n 13y ago

beambot 13y ago

Credits are based on time in class. I remember many grad classes that expected 2-3 hours per credit hour of weekly independent work. For example, problem sets and course projects were intentionally designed to push your limits. The best classes just assumed: if you're drowning, then you're probably taking in at least some of the water.

k3n 13y ago
I just see such a strict requirement, as well as the daily quizzes and attendance grades in the OP's link, as evidence of someone abusing their power in a very destructive way. These are young adults, treat them like such. If they are smart enough to pass the departmental practicums without coming to class once or doing a bit of your silly homework, then who cares? Is a diploma meant to declare mastery in a subject(s), or is it to signify your willingness to jump through figurative arbitrary hoops while wearing a tutu? If it's the former, then attendance and busy-work like daily quizzes, homework, etc. really aren't going to further that objective.
- beambot 13y ago
  Quick reply... I agree re:daily quizzes and attendance (per a comment elsewhere in the thread). Departmental practicums are meant as a minimum baseline. Diplomas demonstrate a combination of both subject mastery and the ability to slog through things you might not enjoy -- both important skills in any industry job.

cdwhite 13y ago

So I was always told that (as beambot points out) the number of credits was based on lecture time, and moreover that you should expect to spend 2-3 times as much time outside of lectures as you did inside. So your generic 3-credit course (nominally three hours of lecture, actually more like 2 1/2) would require something like 9-12 hours total: 3 in lecture, 6-9 at home. Now in my experience, this was much more accurate for humanities than for math/science classes, where the amount of time the class took depended strongly on one's ability and preparation. I remember in particular one math professor whose problems were tricky: if you had the right insight, the proof was usually very simple, but if you didn't have that insight, you'd struggle and struggle. (And then there were the classes for which I was way under-prepared, and on which I spent way more than 25 hours.) Add on to that the fact the time spent in lecture (on which the number of credits depends) doesn't necessarily track the difficulty of the material, and you have a recipe for wide variation in the amount of time one spends for a certain amount of credits. (Labs are notorious for taking way more time than the number of credits.) And then you get into how some classes are more efficient than others in terms of how much learning you get for the amount of time you spend, and this doesn't match up with the number of credits either...

k3n 13y ago
Yes, I know how they're derived...I had both 4h lectures + 0h labs and 3h lectures + 1h labs, and that's a good example of how arbitrary it really is. Even for subjects as closely aligned as biology, chemistry, and physics, there's a disconnect. My point is that the hour/credit system is disingenuous to the point of being counter-productive, and is one of the areas of the educational system that I think we need to revisit if we're ever to progress passed the same old system that our parents (and for some, grandparents) used. It was a good start on objectifying quality and quantity of education, but it hasn't evolved really and we've learned a lot about learning in that time span. I understand that classes are challenging, but they should be so on their own merits -- not because of laborious exercises. I'm not saying "no homework" or anything, but just don't require it. A lazy student will always find a way to fail, the gifted will pass, and the driven will do what's required (homework, attendance, etc.) to pass. At least that's my take on it.