5 ms·

I understand the spirit of your comment, and the statistical difficulties in doing ratings in a meaningful way as described in TFA, but it is absolute truth tha

I understand the spirit of your comment, and the statistical difficulties in doing ratings in a meaningful way as described in TFA, but it is absolute truth that there are teachers who are absolutely _wretched_ and when I was an undergrad it drove many of us nuts to have no way to identify them. The problem might have been especially severe when I was an undergrad, since I went to one of the most populous schools in the US, before the proliferation of social medial and the like made a lot of this information gathering easier. But it was a real problem. The fact that in the case you mention all the students had the same normal curve (by which I assume you mean they had the same means and also the same shape) is interesting, but there's more to being a good or bad teacher than the numeric outcome of the class, which ought to be a familiar argument by this time. Another problem that you mention, and that was also very real, was that some of the teachers literally could not be understood. I use 'literally' literally -- I took an automata theory class from a guy that seemed to have been speaking his own native tongue and not English. That class was an absolute delight, as you might imagine. Most of my teachers had strong accents, and I could deal with it, but some were incomprehensible and had no business teaching in am American university. Acting like these are problems that don't exist, and that complaints are just small-mindedness or excuse-making, is just as bad as going the other way and throwing a fit when you have to 'endure' an unfamiliar accent. Everything's a matter of degree.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
...there are teachers who are absolutely _wretched_... Are there? We thought the same thing about our "worst" professors/TAs. Yet students ability to differentiate/integrate seemed unaffected. Now this suggests one of two things. First, that there really are no "worst" professors/TAs. Second, that students have the ability to replace a $3-4,000 class with reading a $50-150 book (+ Khan academy, etc). In the former case it suggests teacher quality don't matter much. In the latter case it suggests teachers are completely unnecessary and our usage of them should be reduced. This experiment at MIT is promising: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-online-classes.html http://phys.org/news/2014-09-online-classes.html ...there's more to being a good or bad teacher than the numeric outcome of the class, which ought to be a familiar argument by this time. This is a familiar platitude. I've never seen an actual argument that didn't appeal to invisible dragons. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
- shanusmagnus 12y ago
  Are there? We thought the same thing about our "worst" professors/TAs. Yet students ability to differentiate/integrate seemed unaffected. That's a data point worth paying attention to. However, I'll submit that the intellectual world is larger than integration and differentiation. I'll further suggest that there is a world of difference between understanding enough calculus to integrate and differentiate, and understanding calculus in sufficient depth to apply its principles to problems and in settings that do not afford simple template matching -- I wrote an integration/differentiation package in Scheme my freshman year, but would not claim that it understands calculus. This is one of the ways in which a good teacher and a bad teacher can vary by an order of magnitude. You might counter that your tests were so rigorous that any such differences would fall out in the data. Perhaps you have achieved this apex of testing methodology, but I'm suspicious. Now this suggests one of two things. First, that there really are no "worst" professors/TAs. Second, that students have the ability to replace a $3-4,000 class with reading a $50-150 book (+ Khan academy, etc). Or that your measurements are not sufficiently granular, as described above. This is a familiar platitude. I've never seen an actual argument that didn't appeal to invisible dragons. Many parents produce children who survive long enough to successfully reproduce themselves. By one of the most fundamental biological heuristics that's a rip-roaring success, and yet presumably you would aspire to more with your own children. How's that for an invisible dragon? EDIT: figured out how to make quotes italicized.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    ...good teacher and a bad teacher can vary by an order of magnitude...your measurements are not sufficiently granular... These two claims contradict each other. If you want to argue that the exams couldn't measure anything at all, go ahead. You can find examples here: http://cims.nyu.edu/~stucchio/classes/fall2008/index.html http://cims.nyu.edu/~stucchio/classes/fall2008/index.html I'll submit that the intellectual world is larger than integration and differentiation. Calculus 1 and 2 are not. I don't see a reason why the non-simple problems you describe can't be put on an exam, apart from the fact that it's not part of Calc 1. I've also never observed a group of students from any professor who could reliably do it, so I suspect that your "order of magnitude" better teachers are a rarity. How's that for an invisible dragon? Are you seriously asserting that outcomes beyond reproduction are not measurable?

yummyfajitas 12y ago

...there are teachers who are absolutely _wretched_... Are there? We thought the same thing about our "worst" professors/TAs. Yet students ability to differentiate/integrate seemed unaffected. Now this suggests one of two things. First, that there really are no "worst" professors/TAs. Second, that students have the ability to replace a $3-4,000 class with reading a $50-150 book (+ Khan academy, etc). In the former case it suggests teacher quality don't matter much. In the latter case it suggests teachers are completely unnecessary and our usage of them should be reduced. This experiment at MIT is promising: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-online-classes.html http://phys.org/news/2014-09-online-classes.html ...there's more to being a good or bad teacher than the numeric outcome of the class, which ought to be a familiar argument by this time. This is a familiar platitude. I've never seen an actual argument that didn't appeal to invisible dragons. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

shanusmagnus 12y ago
Are there? We thought the same thing about our "worst" professors/TAs. Yet students ability to differentiate/integrate seemed unaffected. That's a data point worth paying attention to. However, I'll submit that the intellectual world is larger than integration and differentiation. I'll further suggest that there is a world of difference between understanding enough calculus to integrate and differentiate, and understanding calculus in sufficient depth to apply its principles to problems and in settings that do not afford simple template matching -- I wrote an integration/differentiation package in Scheme my freshman year, but would not claim that it understands calculus. This is one of the ways in which a good teacher and a bad teacher can vary by an order of magnitude. You might counter that your tests were so rigorous that any such differences would fall out in the data. Perhaps you have achieved this apex of testing methodology, but I'm suspicious. Now this suggests one of two things. First, that there really are no "worst" professors/TAs. Second, that students have the ability to replace a $3-4,000 class with reading a $50-150 book (+ Khan academy, etc). Or that your measurements are not sufficiently granular, as described above. This is a familiar platitude. I've never seen an actual argument that didn't appeal to invisible dragons. Many parents produce children who survive long enough to successfully reproduce themselves. By one of the most fundamental biological heuristics that's a rip-roaring success, and yet presumably you would aspire to more with your own children. How's that for an invisible dragon? EDIT: figured out how to make quotes italicized.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  ...good teacher and a bad teacher can vary by an order of magnitude...your measurements are not sufficiently granular... These two claims contradict each other. If you want to argue that the exams couldn't measure anything at all, go ahead. You can find examples here: http://cims.nyu.edu/~stucchio/classes/fall2008/index.html http://cims.nyu.edu/~stucchio/classes/fall2008/index.html I'll submit that the intellectual world is larger than integration and differentiation. Calculus 1 and 2 are not. I don't see a reason why the non-simple problems you describe can't be put on an exam, apart from the fact that it's not part of Calc 1. I've also never observed a group of students from any professor who could reliably do it, so I suspect that your "order of magnitude" better teachers are a rarity. How's that for an invisible dragon? Are you seriously asserting that outcomes beyond reproduction are not measurable?