"Parents, Students Fine With Math, Science" [US]

[Edward Yee]

Hmm...:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Science and math have zoomed to the top of the nation's education agenda. Yet Amanda Cook, a parent of two school-age girls, can't quite see the urgency.

``In Maine, there aren't many jobs that scream out 'math and science,''' said Cook, who lives in Etna, in the central part of the state. Yes, both topics are important, but ``most parents are saying you're better off going to school for something there's a big need for.''

Nationwide, a new poll shows, many parents are content with the science and math education their children get - a starkly different view than that held by national leaders.

Fifty-seven percent of parents say ``things are fine'' with the amount of math and science being taught in their child's public school. High school parents seem particularly content - 70 percent say their child gets the right amount of science and math.

Students aren't too worried, either, according to the poll released Tuesday by Public Agenda, a public opinion research group that tracks education trends.


Only half of children in grades six to 12 say that understanding sciences and having strong math skills are essential for them to succeed after high school.


This comes as congressional leaders, governors, corporate executives and top scientists have called for schools to raise the rigor and amount of math and science in school. In his State of the Union address, President Bush made the matter a national priority.


Yet where public officials and employers see slipping production in the sciences as a threat to the nation's economy, parents and students don't share that urgency.


``There's energy and leadership at the top, but there is a task to be done in getting parents and kids to understand some of the ideas,'' said Jean Johnson, executive president of Public Agenda. ``You can do a lot from the top, but you can't do everything. Schools are local. The leadership needs to reach out and help the public understand the challenge.''


This week, Bush said, ``We can't be the leading country in the world in science and technology unless we educate scientists and young mathematicians.'' A panel of top scientists and business leaders has warned ``the scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gaining strength.''


As for parents and students? In theory, they say, more math and science would be good.


For example, 62 percent of parents say it is crucial for most of today's students to learn high-level math, like advanced algebra and calculus.


The story changes, though, when parents talk specifically about their kids' schools, and when the children relay their own experiences.


Students put a lack of science and math near the bottom of problems they see at school. They are much more worried about bad language, cheating or the pressure for good grades.


Most parents, meanwhile, say their kids are getting a better education than they did. Only 32 percent of parents say their child's school should teach more math and science.


If anything, parents are less worried about math and science these days - not more.


In 1994, 52 percent of parents considered a lack of math and science in their local schools to be a serious problem. Now, only 32 percent say the same thing. During that time, states ramped up standards and testing, which seems to have affected parents' views.


The findings are based on telephone interviews with a nationally random sample of 1,342 public school students in grades six to 12, and of 1,379 parents of children in public school. The interviews were done between Oct. 30 and Dec. 29. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for the students and 4 percentage points for the parents.


On The Net:


Public Agenda report: http://www.publicagenda.org/research/pdfs/rc0601.pdf

[Master of Ossus]

God, that's awful. I can only assume the HS figures are because students are allowed to pick their own schedules in HS, and parents whose kids really really don't like math or science see their kids opt out and are fine with that. It's NOT FINE, MORONS! That's what people need in real life.

[Edward Yee]

Got a rebut for Maine?

Note: I did not get to pick my HS classes except for my senior year, by which I had transferred to an alternative HS.

[Soontir C'boath]

Only half of children in grades six to 12 say that understanding sciences and having strong math skills are essential for them to succeed after high school.

Hey, the poll saying fifty percent of Americans are stupid applies right here!

[Wicked Pilot]

When I was a senior in high school I had already fullfilled my three math and three science requirements, yet that year I took another math, and two more sciences. I went to college, got my degree, and now make very good money doing what I love. If those people want to be stupid and have shit jobs then to each his own.

[Alyeska]

I can see a relfection of this today.

When I was preparing to take my ASVAB I knew I had problems with my longhand math. I'd grown so used to using the calculator for Algebra that I forgot how to do longhand math for anything beyond addition and subtraction.

I do a little practice and relearn how to do multiplcation and division. Didn't take long to catch things again.

Durring the testing itself I am slogging my way through the math portion and didn't even finish the first math section before time was called. Everyone else was finishing with the math section well before I was. I was very worried.

Then I get my rough score a few hours later. I have a 90 and some girl a year out of highschool had a 24. She even admits to bombing the math section.

I was taking so long in the math section because I was actualy doing the work and getting most of it right.

It astounded me that she got such a low score. My college education didn't give me that much more knowledge then she had available. But it seems highschool never ingrained things into her.

[Medic]

This is just... this made my weekend. It's obvious students can't be bothered to think of anything but their GPA, I can recall easily the Straight-A Idiots in my school.

The problem is kids for the most part just don't think "I wanna be a chemical engineer!" or such and will choose their classes accordingly.

Greater math and science standards at the high school level will result in students being better equipped to fill some jobs we're worried about losing but also result in those among us not born to do math and science to struggle greatly... I'm having trouble giving a fuck though.

snip

Bomb the ASVAB and you're gauranteed to hold a rifle.

[Alyeska]

I ended up getting a 93 after it was officaly scored. Now if I could drop some weight, the airforce would take me in a heartbeat.

[LongVin]

It's obvious students can't be bothered to think of anything but their GPA

That is also a problem with the teachers and grade advisors. From my experience all they talk about is GPA.

I was talking to my grade advisor once and she was flipping out because my GPA wasn't what it should be and I was completely honest and said "Some subjects I'm just not good in or I don't like them and it shows in the grades. I concentrate on stuff I like and that shows since in those classes I have all As and Bs"

Then she totally flips out on me and goes "If a graduates school sees a C they aren't going to take you! You have to get your GPA up if you want to be succesful!"

Of course she is just a psycho in general. But from my experience alot of teachers they push "The only thing that matters is your GPA."

But luckily there are the teachers who say "Yeah sure grades matter but what really matters is what you can do and your experience."

[Fire Fly]

When I was a senior in high school I had already fullfilled my three math and three science requirements, yet that year I took another math, and two more sciences. I went to college, got my degree, and now make very good money doing what I love. If those people want to be stupid and have shit jobs then to each his own.

I think people don't realize exactly just how important the high school math and sciences are until they hit the university level and want to go into the more rigorious majors. Then they have to work their way from the bottom courses, which are actually much, much more difficult their high school equivalent. College algebra at my school is the most failed math course.

[Alyeska]

The best teacher I ever had designed her circulium around actualy educating you on the subject material. She would even modify it as necessary depending on the student. If she knew a student had potential, she would let them turn in late work if they also did other things to earn back credit. Retake tests to prove knowledge. The point is to teach the kids something. The grades are supposed to reflect the knowledge as much as the effort. Lisa did a lot for me in math class. Ultimately I proved I had the knowledge and she gave me a B for the class even though I didn't actualy "earn" that through her normal grading system. I proved my knowledge in the last quarter and got honest with my work and she gave me a grade to reflect this.

Too many teachers and students get caught up on just the grade and ignore the intent of actualy imparting knowledge.

[Simplicius]

Got a rebut for Maine?

"In Maine, there aren't many jobs that scream out 'math and science,''' said Cook, who lives in Etna, in the central part of the state. Yes, both topics are important, but "most parents are saying you're better off going to school for something there's a big need for.''

I think the primary reason why my high school class suffered the dropout rate that it did is that there was no real reason for them to stay. Some never learned the value of education, some lacked the aptitude or the interest - but some were already making a respectable living fishing, and without many alternatives, saw little reason to give that up.

There's a sort of a circular crisis there - the state desperately needs to attract new industry, preferably the sort that requires a skilled workforce. That would provide strong incentive to strengthen education and, most importantly, provide a reason for the educated and the skilled to stay in-state. But, because education is suffering, and the educated and skilled have to go elsewhere to find jobs, it's really hard to attract those industries.

[LongVin]

Also I think another problem is High Schools these days just push Academia. From my experience they don't try to teach anything practical.

If they wanted people to take more math, science or engineering courses they should be more hands on. 30 years ago the High School I went to offered a bunch of different graduation paths including a few which were technical and mechanical(most of which were hands on.) They had a year long class where the students learned how to repair and assemble cars and the final project was assembling a car.

When I went to High School(I graduated in 03) the only thing left of these hands on classes was the astronomy program and that was only because the original director was still around for it, but of course it was the most underfunded department in the entire school.

Now if they really wanted students to take more science classes they should make them more hands on and practical so everyone can see what they will need them for.

[Glocksman]

I ended up getting a 93 after it was officaly scored. Now if I could drop some weight, the airforce would take me in a heartbeat.

Back in 1983 when I was in HS, the school made every student take the ASVAB whether we wanted to enter the military or not (at the time I was 5'11 and 320 pounds, not exactly the ideal recruit ).
The one question that still stands out in my mind is 'What is a Mauser?'
I don't remember my score, but it was good enough for the local Navy recruiter to insist that I come in and take some kind of qualifying test for the nuclear engineering program.
I took it, passed it (IIRC, the math was mostly basic algebra and geometry) and then the recruiter wouldn't leave me alone until I told him that even if I was normal weight, I couldn't enter the military because of a bad heart valve.

[Medic]

It's obvious students can't be bothered to think of anything but their GPA

That is also a problem with the teachers and grade advisors. From my experience all they talk about is GPA.

I was talking to my grade advisor once and she was flipping out because my GPA wasn't what it should be and I was completely honest and said "Some subjects I'm just not good in or I don't like them and it shows in the grades. I concentrate on stuff I like and that shows since in those classes I have all As and Bs"

Then she totally flips out on me and goes "If a graduates school sees a C they aren't going to take you! You have to get your GPA up if you want to be succesful!"

Of course she is just a psycho in general. But from my experience alot of teachers they push "The only thing that matters is your GPA."

But luckily there are the teachers who say "Yeah sure grades matter but what really matters is what you can do and your experience."

"College prep" does usually mean producing the most attractive "face" to a college as possible, and that is unduly focused on GPA more than anything. I don't know that State Exams are the tell-all measuring stick, but they certainly will point out the lower tier students.

The "Straight A Idiots" I refer to are the honors-taking, 5.0 students that would bomb the state Exams I would excell in. That's an egregious example but grade inflation's no secret in America either.

A good (and long) article on grade inflation and it's causes in America.

8-02-04
Grade Inflation ... Why It's a Nightmare*
By Jonathan Dresner

Mr. Dresner is Assistant Professor of East Asian History at the University of Hawai'i at Hilo, and a member of HNN's group history blog, Cliopatria.

My institution successfully passed through accreditation review, a multi-year process which examines everything from physical plant to institutional identity, missions and standards, goals and how we measure progress towards those goals, governance structures, faculty culture, and every other thing they can think of. Their initial recommendations included strong support and encouragement for student learning assessment, and more effective coordination (i.e. centralization) of governance to speed up the process of improving educational effectiveness. Data driven allocation of resources, as well. It was during their last visit that I realized that there is a connection between grade inflation, accrediting agencies and the drive for standardized curricula and quantitative learning assessment.

"Learning Assessment" is one of the hottest topics in educational administration, under the rubric of the No Child Left Behind legislation mandated testing. It is also making its way into higher education, starting with public institutions' core education courses, but departments are being called upon to monitor and document the progress their majors make at upper levels as well. My department is engaged in setting up assessment for our courses and majors at all levels, not because we believe in it, but because our chair is a savvy and forward-thinking veteran. We developed quantitative learning assessment for our World History surveys. We are working on a system for on-line portfolios for history majors, and we videotape our senior symposium. We've talked about ways of assessing upper-division courses. It may seem odd for us to do this, when we don't see much point, but my chair is right: accrediting agencies and department reviewers consider these exercises "state of the art" and without them we will undoubtedly come in for criticism.

Our forward-thinking approach made us one of the stars of our accreditation reports; we were held up as a model department. Now I do think that my department is a good one: we take teaching and mentoring seriously, we do research which people in our respective fields find interesting, and we work together quite well. Our average grades are well below most humanities departments; even below most social science departments, and compare well to the natural sciences, so grade inflation is not a pressing issue with us. Faculty from other departments, employers in the community and graduate schools, all seem quite satisfied with our majors, and our major numbers and enrollments have been rising for about four years. Still, we're 'assessing' everything, and I'm inclined to think that my chair is right about the need to do this sooner rather than later, on our own schedule and in our own way instead of waiting for mandates and deadlines from above.

Because those mandates and deadlines will come. When is your next departmental review? When is accreditation renewal? Find out now, and plan accordingly. This is a multi-year process: it took us a year's worth of biweekly meetings to work out our World History instrument; it'll take months to get our on-line portfolios up and running; then we have to gather at least four or five years of data before we have enough to take a good look at. Maybe we could have done it more quickly if we borrowed ideas and tests and such from other departments? We did borrow, and read and learn, but our program -- like yours -- has quirks and particularities that required us to tinker with what we borrowed.

What's the connection between grade inflation, accreditation and review, and assessment? Grade inflation (and its primary/secondary equivalent, social promotion) has made grades and advancement difficult to rely on as a measure of academic success. Stakeholders are looking for alternative ways to gauge the quality of our product, and tools to aid and inspire us to more effective teaching. Since the institutions themselves have not committed to a solution, governing bodies, including accreditation agencies and government, are seeking to impose one. For primary and secondary education, this has come in the form of high-stakes testing, including NCLB assessments and Massachusetts-style graduation tests. If we are going to avoid similar 'solutions' being imposed on post-secondary education, we need to develop alternatives which credibly address the problem.

Grade Inflation

First, we have to acknowledge that grade inflation is a reality, and more pronounced in some fields than others. At my own institution, the highest grades seem to come from pre-professional programs (nursing, education, agriculture, management, communications) and artistic fields (drama, dance, music), and cultural studies (women's studies, Hawaiian studies). Other departments with lower averages might still have a grade inflation problem, depending on the average quality and work of their students. History's average over the last decade has been around 2.9 on a 4-point scale, on the B/B- cusp, one of the lowest in Social Sciences; our internal discussions suggest that our survey World History average is on the high C+ side. We don't have a stated standard of grading in the department, but our average and median grades tend to come pretty close, and we rarely disagree seriously on prizes or theses, where multiple readers grade the same work. That doesn't mean that we don't have a grade inflation problem, but it could be worse.

Grade inflation has three primary causes: student culture, pedagogical culture and institutional culture. The expansion of the student body since WWII has brought students with a wider range of abilities to college, and also drew in the best students from previously under-represented groups. It has also widened the gap between the level of colleges themselves: there are now significant differences between the average quality of students at various institutions, differences enshrined in things like the Petersen Guide 'tier' rankings. Because of the view of the bachelor's degree as a baseline credential for professional employment, many of these students are unengaged with their educations, and consider college an extended form of high school, where attendance and endurance matter more than engagement. This is particularly true of pre-professional students, who may take their major courses seriously but who don't engage with general education or distribution courses, but anyone with experience teaching intro-level courses recognizes the phenomenon. Plus, students take grades very personally: the grade is about them, not about their work. So differing standards seem unfair, and students respond poorly to the implicit criticism of low grades, particularly when they get accustomed to unearned high grades at earlier levels or in other courses. The ideology of 'student as consumer' has changed the power relationships within the academy, placing satisfaction higher than intellectual growth as a measure of success.

This is reflected in, and exacerbated by, the abuse of quantitative measures of teaching effectiveness. There is considerable research on these instruments, most of which shows strong influence from appearance, class format, even class time, but the only studies I'm aware of which claim that students are generally good judges of teachers are the ones that assume it as a proposition. Our own instrument is at least honestly titled the Perceived Teaching Effectiveness Form, but it is used in a mindlessly straightforward fashion by tenure/retention committees and administrators: for an untenured faculty member, failure to score above the norm is considered a career-threatening flaw. Technically, PTEF results are confidential, but failure to disclose them in contract dossiers is considered prima facie evidence of poor quality. [/b]Lip service aside, other evidence of teaching effectiveness, including creativity, technology use, syllabus adherence, and high quality content, is not even secondarily important.[/b] So teachers are strongly motivated to produce high scores, and one of the easiest ways to produce high scores is by demanding little and giving easy, high grades. The situation is complicated by the increased demands being placed on teachers: pedagogical innovation and new technology; higher publication standards; higher teaching loads and larger classes. The need to bring in majors and raise enrollments is another factor making raising standards difficult. Unless it is done in a uniform fashion, it will result in students shifting to 'easy' classes, and those faculty and departments who raise standards will face the wrath of administrators and budget committees. Student retention and graduation rates are used as measures of institutional effectiveness, which mitigates against failing (or even discouraging) even the most unprepared students.

Finally, partially as a result of the above-mentioned forces, and partially as a result of intellectual currents usually grouped under the term 'relativism', there has been a shift away from hard-and-fast standards, absolute grades, and critical responses to student work reflected in grades. Some of this is a result of experimental pedagogy: intrinsic rather than extrinsic rewards; self-directed curricula, self-esteem building. Some of this is a result of new ideas about knowledge: post-modernism, feminism, relativism and multiculturalism have added dimensions and reduced certainty. These are not fundamentally bad ideas, but their inconsistent application and misapplication, along with the student and institutional issues above, has degraded the authority of faculty to set standards to which students feel obligated to adhere and the willingness of faculty to use grades as both reward and punishment.

Why is Grade Inflation a Problem?

This is something which is more often assumed than explained, but a clear understanding of the problems associated with grade inflation is essential. The problems go beyond a vague sense of moral or intellectual decline and have practical, long-term implications. Inflated grades interfere with teaching and learning, with hiring and tenure, with the quality of our work environment and with the academy's relationship with the wider community.

The first and most obvious effect of inflated grades is that it becomes harder to use grades as a shorthand form of communication with any nuance. Sure, individual teachers can explain "what grades mean" semester after semester, but when minimally acceptable work is worth a C, or a B or an A, depending on the course, it is hard for students to keep track. Narrative responses to work help, but, unless an assignment involves revision, students tend to ignore anything except the grade; conversely, narrative responses without a grade will tend to be interpreted in the most positive possible light, so the ultimate grade comes as more of a shock if it is not as high as expected.

The disjunction between graduate training institutions and student expectations at the institutions at which most Ph.D.s get hired makes it likely that faculty starting out will have difficulty connecting with their students and will have standards somewhat higher than the norm for their hiring institutions. Harvard's Career Counselors refer to the "H effect", the assumption by interviewers that a Harvard-educated Ph.D. will be disappointed by the quality of local students and have difficulty teaching at their level. To some extent it is justified, particularly since new faculty mentoring is rarely structured or effective, and it results in an elevated rate of dismissal from first hires. These are rarely reflected in official 'tenure rate' figures, as those refer only to faculty who apply for tenure, whereas most institutions will dismiss untenurable or borderline candidates at earlier stages of review, which does not count. If I have one word of advice for newly hired faculty under our current regime, it is: do not admit that you have difficulty with any aspect of teaching, because even an honest attempt to grow and improve will be taken as evidence that you have serious problems. This also distorts our sense of the academic market, as the turnover creates more openings than would exist under a more humane system, thus making it seem like there are more jobs available for the new Ph.D.s.

The corollary to the disjunction is the breakdown of morale and collegiality which comes from struggling against what feels like constantly falling standards. New Ph.D.s trained to high levels of professionalism discover that their efforts to 'raise standards' are met with hostility by students (who don't want to work that hard) and suspicion by fellow faculty (who understand the implicit criticism). The very real differences between departments in grading become factions, and the sense of a threat to academic freedom by standards imposed from outside makes nearly all academics bristle and stiffen. So, instead of addressing the question directly, it becomes a festering issue that won't be discussed, and the only solution is for departments with high standards to grit their teeth and bring them down to the norm in order to effectively compete for students, and therefore resources.

Finally, grade inflation has led to public dissatisfaction with educational results. The same forces that have driven the primary/secondary assessment movement seem to be pushing into higher education as well. Granted, much of the critical reportage about higher education is poor quality, anecdotal, and political. But there remains a steady and credible strain of business and political and social organizations concerned about the process and results of higher education. And it is these groups, through their influence on state and national legislators and, through the US Dept. of Education, their influence on the regional accrediting agencies that is pushing us towards assessment, and will continue to push until we, or they, find a solution to the problem.

Solutions Already Being Tried

There are a few active attempts to solve the problems of grade inflation and educational effectiveness. Some of them are at the level of the individual school; more come from 'suggestions' of accrediting agencies; post-graduation testing is already standard in graduate school admissions and certain professional arenas.

Colleges and universities have tried a variety of techniques to deflate grades. Some have adjusted their grading systems: Princeton instituted a limit to A-level grades. Harvard adjusted its GPA calculation to narrow the A-/B+ gap and that has reportedly been effective in reducing the A-level overload slightly. Most institutions don't go much further than passing around department-level data on grade averages, though a few institutions have followed up with enough pressure and discussion to bring the outliers closer to norm. Some have tried acculturation through discussion, but without hard data there is mostly a chorus of 'it doesn't work that way in our department' and the discussion ends. Tenure, for all its charms, is a serious barrier to making progress at the institutional level: it both insulates its possessors from pressure to change and provides strong motivation for grade leniency to the untenured. Academic freedom, precious though it is, is used to insulate faculty against discussions of content, workload, grading or pedagogy.

The accreditation agencies have their own ideas. They use their accreditation review to promote the scholarship of learning and integration of current 'best practices.' Many of the themes of these best practices are encapsulated in the push for the development of 'Master Syllabi' for both multi-section courses and for departmental curricula, that would clearly lay out learning goals, particularly those learning goals which could be demonstrated, assessed, evaluated in some kind of graded fashion. Interestingly, they do not seem terribly interested in grade inflation. Perhaps they've given that up as a losing battle, but instead they focus on 'learning assessment' using metrics separate from those used to evaluate students for grades. Pre/post-testing, portfolios developed over time, post-graduation interviews and graduate tracking are emphasized. There is little discussion of how 'best practice' applies to different disciplines, or different levels; we're supposed to figure that out ourselves, but without deviating significantly from the 'standards of best practice' that they articulate.

Syllabi seem to be very important to these agencies. Collecting syllabi was an important part of the accreditation review, and they pushed to make syllabi more public and accessible through internet publication. Syllabi have grown, as others have noted, to articulate clear goals and standards for students, contain an outline of the course that goes well beyond a 'reading and assignments schedule' and introduce students to the discipline, where the course fits in the discipline, and to general academic practice through discussion of how to handle reading and writing assignments, labs, discussions, etc. This, in addition to a growing collection of boilerplate text: disability accommodation; advising; civility; academic honesty; offensive material disclaimers. Any ambiguity or reservation about the idea of 'syllabus as contract' seems to be over and done. How this is supposed to be superior to addressing these issues in a course catalog or in class is, honestly, beyond me, but my syllabi have been selected as 'model syllabi' several semesters running, so I must be doing something right.

One consistent strain running through our accreditation, and others I have heard of, is pressure to strengthen centralized institutions of governance. I got to meet with the accreditation team on their last visit, because of my position on the CAS Curriculum Review Committee. They were quite concerned about the way in which general education standards were set and enforced, particularly about the independence of the individual college governance bodies from the University-wide Congress and its committees. Several of their recommendations included weakening or eliminating separate college governance of curriculum. They were also clearly concerned about the Curriculum Review Committee's lack of mandate to review the workload and pedagogical aspects of new or revised courses. While they did not directly address the questions of tenure and academic freedom, it was pretty clear that a more centralized, less 'free for all' approach was preferable. 'Post-tenure review' with an eye toward continued teaching effectiveness is already being put in place or seriously discussed throughout the American academy, and some have argued that tenure is, or will soon be, both obsolete and toothless.

A few institutions have largely abandoned grades as a measure of the success or ability of college graduates, or found ways to supplement those grades with standardized norms. Ironically, the most widespread form of national post-graduate testing is graduate admissions tests. Lip service is paid to grades, recommendations are carefully read for faint praise, and personal statements give admissions officers some way to tell applicants apart. But the existence and ubiquity of the use of these standardized tests is perhaps the most damning form of self-criticism possible: the very academy which grants grades cannot rely on them as a measure of quality or achievement. Professional accreditation in several fields is test based (nursing, teaching and accounting come to mind immediately), recognition that completion of the relevant bachelor's degree may not, in fact, indicate technical mastery of crucial material. The tests, of course, influence the curricula: some departments have gone so far as to include a 'preparation for the test' course as a component of the major.

What's Next?

My suggestions, which most readers will cheerfully ignore in favor of their own, focus largely on the nexus between grade inflation, student evaluation of teachers, and tenure review. In the short term, some form of open grade norming -- perhaps as simple as putting the class or department median on transcripts along with the student's grade -- would reduce the opacity of grades. In the long run, outlier departments must be called to account, and discussion of grades, standards and norms must be ongoing, data-driven and interdisciplinary. Reform of social promotion and grade inflation at the primary and secondary level would help immensely.

The training of Ph.D. students also needs to be shifted in more practical and professional directions, starting with an emphasis on teaching as a skill in graduate school. Not just tossing TAs in sections, but mentoring, review, professionalization; also, graduate coursework should include not just dissertation-related topics but general education in areas which students will most probably have to teach. I, for example, got through graduate school without taking a single course of Chinese or Korean history, though as a modern Japanese historian in a small department I spend a great deal of time teaching China, along with World History (at a previous post I taught East Asian Civ and Western Civ), and only about 1/3 of my teaching time in Japan. General education and teacher training would not be useful only for academia-bound students: the ability to structure a presentation, to impart useful information clearly, to see both the broad sweep and sharp details of an issue, would benefit people in many professional fields.

After hiring, a thorough reform of the institutional culture is necessary, and though that seems daunting, it can be done effectively at a departmental level before being done at an institutional level. One essential component is an environment in which teaching techniques and issues can be discussed without fear that sharing concerns or difficulties will be used against you in retention and tenure. Faculty need some form of confidential mentoring, or some form of mutual discussion which allows everyone to display strengths and be critiqued (instead of creating an artificial division between 'master' and 'student' teachers). Tenure/retention review should include both quantitative and qualitative material, and problems, if noted, must be followed up with mentoring and support. Such review should not stop with tenure, and I am one of those who feels that it would be possible to design post-tenure review that would allow the most egregiously bad faculty to be removed from the classroom without threatening academic freedom. But these reviews and discussions must be sensitive to disciplinary differences and to variation in the student population in order to be meaningful: the techniques which work with upper-division English courses will probably run into problems in world history surveys, and lab techniques don't translate well into philosophy; and sometimes lecture really is the best way to impart information and understanding, though it's terribly old-fashioned.

If these or similar methods are not adopted, if grade inflation continues and no strong articulation of standards is forthcoming, the worst-case scenario is easy to project. National standards for college curricula, enforced by NCLB-style testing in non-professional subjects, have already been discussed by national legislators. Accrediting agencies and federal funding would force schools to address their curriculum to these tests, which would entail the functional loss of academic freedom with regard to syllabi and classroom activity. Faculty who failed to follow institutional guidelines (which would be very closely modeled on national guidelines and adjusted to the tests) would be penalized, probably with dismissal, and tenure would be obsolete. Students would be forced to take more general education courses, but would have fewer choices regarding how to fulfill their requirements. At this point, college really would become an extension of high school.

We are faced with change: things will not simply continue as they are for very long. We must decide what sort of change we prefer. I would prefer that we be accountable to ourselves, individually and as an intellectual and teaching community, and that others respect that system because it produces high quality results. If we cannot demonstrate those results, and that accountability, it will be imposed on us in a form which we may not recognize or appreciate.

*This article is dedicated to the Invisible Adjunct.

[Edward Yee]

Simplicius, regarding the Maine example, I saw "the problem of everyone involved acting rationally on the micro scale leading to macro scale problems." (My Politics of the 3rd World teacher would use this to talk about the early-90s peso crisis.) Is it me, or may I read your example as saying in effect, "respectable living + lack of alternatives = little reason to give up fishing"?

**

Regarding my own experience, I'll admit to slacking off miserably in my freshman year of college -- pathetically so in math to the point that I skidded by on friggin' precalculus and already forgot most of it -- only to finally turn around by taking a more customized curricula for my sophomore year and, to be frank, finally trying to do good. It was been my best semester to date GPA-wise, and my dad brought up as much upon seeing my grades.

Current classes: Logic (p->q, anyone? *snicker*), Ethical Theories, Introduction to International Relations, Micro-Economics, Great Works of Literature II
Major: NOT A DAMN CLUE
Goal in Life: Ditto

I actually would be okay with a reduction in general education classes, allowing specialization earlier...

[Darth Wong]

Parents don't give a fuck about math and science because they've been bombarded for decades with the message that success in life is all about getting the most reward for the least contribution to society.

Think about big-money jobs, and the last thing that comes to mind is "scientist" or "engineer" or even "computer programmer". No, you're going to be thinking of "businessmen": men who don't actually produce anything themselves, but who generally find a way to generate personal profit off the productivity of others. Or maybe you'll think of people in the entertainment or sports industries: both famously rapacious industries which continue to set the bar ever lower in the "value for money" contest. In the case of the former, it is even resorting to tactics that would be considered extortion and racketeering if anyone else used them. Or perhaps you'll think of stockbrokers, rent-takers, politicians, or all of the other Armani-suited gray-haired men who find a way to skim money off the flow of goods and services in society at great profit to themselves and no real benefit to society at all.

If there's a lesson here, it's that Americans have learned all too well that science is a somewhat altruistic pursuit and engineering is far more about duty than privilege. And they want none of them as a result. Why do all that hard work when neither will lead to easy wealth anyway? Add to that decades of propaganda against working hard in school, whether it's people denigrating "book smarts" or negative stereotypes about kids who are enthusiastic about science or "entrepreneur" magazines which generally use practising scientists or engineers as examples of what not to do with your life, and this is no surprise.

[The Grim Squeaker]

No, you're going to be thinking of "businessmen": men who don't actually produce anything themselves, but who generally find a way to generate personal profit off the productivity of others.

With all due respect Wong, good businessmen improve somethings value.

Buying a useless plot of land or building, improving it or building on it then selling it for a higher value does require more understanding of the area than science, but it does produce something (Better homes, entertainment [if a mall] or other useful services).
Are you saying (I'm not saying you are, I may simply be misunderstanding you) that businessmen don't produce anything and that the workers could replace them, or that the work of a talented investor/bussines man is easily replacable?
If I'm misunderstanding you then I apologize, if not then I disagree with that, saying that a manager is a leech is frankly wrong, it does require intelligence and/or skill as well as an understanding of economics (Math) as well as other factors in the area or concerning the bussiness.

services in society at great profit to themselves and no real benefit to society at all.

If they improve something then don't they deserve a profit for that?
Should the man who makes an engineering firm profitable or get it jobs not deserve any reward from that just because he did not design the buildings?

[Darth Wong]

With all due respect Wong, good businessmen improve somethings value.

No, they instruct others to do so, and generate personal profit off that activity. I'm not talking about the self-employed "small businessman"; I'm talking about the multiple layers of upper management that control every large corporation, and particularly the "fat cat" types. And I'm not saying that all managers should be eliminated; just pointing out that we've started to worship the executives who give society the least value for money, which is a bad thing. If you try to distort my position into "let's remove all managers from society" one more time I'll rip your guts out through your asshole, you little shit.

If they improve something then don't they deserve a profit for that?
Should the man who makes an engineering firm profitable or get it jobs not deserve any reward from that just because he did not design the buildings?

Of course he deserves reward; the problem is the absurd ratio of reward to social productivity particularly for the "big money" people, and the perception that other types of employment are not worth shooting for. If you don't agree with that, explain why I'm wrong instead of attempting to strawman my position into "everyone but engineers should be thrown out on the street and made homeless", you stupid lying little asshole.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

With all the grade inflation they are talking about, how can anyone feel confident, in college, that they are actually doing anything of any value or at the grade they are?

Personally, I think my highschool was harder than college, but that doesn't seem rational. I don't get it; doesn't that put you on edge or make you nervous? I mean, there are so many people who don't do well at my college, yet the stuff seems so easy. Now, it IS only a community college, but still, if it's that easy, shouldn't lots of others be doing well too? I don't think the work load or the quality of work is up to snuff, but I don't really know otherwise.

The colleges like to put out a lot of information building themselves up, saying that transfer students do well and that they are rigorous, but that's hard to believe. Anyone else have that feeling once in a while? I gets me so confused. I never know how the situation stacks up to what it ought to be.

[Edi]

Mike, to be fair, I think he was only asking for clarification, not trying to actively make a strawman of your argument.

Edi

[The Grim Squeaker]

I'm not talking about the self-employed "small businessman"; I'm talking about the multiple layers of upper management that control every large corporation, and particularly the "fat cat" types.

Ah, my mistake I thought that you meant managers as a whole, including self employed small bussinesmen or highly productive entrepenuers.

And I'm not saying that all managers should be eliminated; just pointing out that we've started to worship the executives who give society the least value for money, which is a bad thing

True, society today does place a greater value on monetary value rather than actual contribution.

[Side note] The problem is defining the diference, how much does an artist contribute, and does a farmer contribute more than a theoretical physicist. [/Rambling]

Of course he deserves reward; the problem is the absurd ratio of reward to social productivity particularly for the "big money" people, and the perception that other types of employment are not worth shooting for

The problem is that managerial jobs do have an inflated paycheck (Especially in the US), and that someone working in them will get an excessive (relatively) amount of money, so while it is unfair and wrong, people tin those types of jobs will be payed far more than their accomplishments in a different field might merit them.
(Not that it's fair, but they will almost certainly earn more money for a lesser degree of ability and talent).

If you don't agree with that, explain why I'm wrong instead of attempting to strawman my position into "everyone but engineers should be thrown out on the street and made homeless", you stupid lying little asshole.

I agree with you on the inflated earnings point and excess of managers and overinflated team leader positions.

I apologize for what seemed like a strawman, I simply did not understand your argument

If I'm misunderstanding you then I apologize

and thank you for clarifying your position to me.

Mike, to be fair, I think he was only asking for clarification, not trying to actively make a strawman of your argument.

Yup, I misunderstood the argument and my arguemnt was based on a flawed understanding of the argument, not an intentional strawman.
Again my apologies for misunderstanding your claim as bordering on mr.Wong.

If you try to distort my position into "let's remove all managers from society" one more time I'll rip your guts out through your asshole, you little shit.

.

[SVPD]

Another problem is that people don't understand, and schools don't make it clear, how many "every day" jobs require math and/or science.

I'm a cop. Math is useful every day. Aside from basic add/subtract/multiply/divide, using a radar or laser unit requires understanding both the cosine function and the doppler effect, and being able to testify about them in court (granted, not in great detail, but enough to shut up a lawyer who majored in political science as an undergrad.)

If I went to crash school, which I'd like to do, the calculations for determining speed from damage to a vehicle get pretty complex pretty fast.

It's amazing how often some tidbit I got in high school or college science comes in handy.

Oh, and the civil service test, that, in Ohio, is the first step to get a police/fire/etc. job? They have math and science sections on them.

[Spice Runner]

I've been out of highschool for several years now. It always suprised me in and out of highschool how lightly people took the importance of math education.
I am currently an economics/finance major in college. I find that good math knowledge comes handy in my major. I sure as hell glad that I took all the maths up to calculus in highschool. I'm still shocked at how many people lack the ability to do the even simplest of computations in college.

[Spice Runner]

Damned lack of edit button...

Back in highschool the biggest problem was the lack of interest in math. There were alot of people who were interested in math who made it up to the upper level courses. As for the rest I believe there interest was killed in the introductory classes where there was no importance placed on actually knowing the concepts behind the math but instead just getting busy work done.
It was never really pointed out how important math was to students future careers in our early classes. There were always a few assholes who complained about not needing to know trigonometry or algebra outside of math class.