Final Reflection

The class is winding down, so I thought I'd make a final remark. We have discussed many different issues in class from the perspective of many different colleges/departments. What is disappointing, though, is that in many of the discussions we were still speaking very disciplinary specific. For example, someone might bring up an issue and then there would be a follow-up response about how that doesn't work for engineering or literature. I think we need to do more to break that binary thinking (i.e., what works for fine arts will not work for STEM). In fact, I think many ideas are cross-disciplinary but we need to do a better job of expanding our thinking about our given field.

When I have looked at RFPs and successful grant proposals, one thing constantly sticks out: INTERDISCIPLINARY work seems to win the day! No longer is academia a place to work in our individual silos and be successful. It seems the successful academic of the future will learn how to cross pollinate with their colleagues and I'm not just talking an engineer working with a biologist.

Take environmental engineering as an example (yes, this is my field). What we do impacts people (behavioral scientists, social scientists, etc.), government/international policy (political science, social justice, law, history, policy, public planners, etc. etc. etc.), the environment (advocacy groups, industry, mining, science, geography, geology, etc. etc. etc.), public health (biology, medicine, etc.), the economy (business, economists, ethics, etc.), and the list could continue. Why not pull a team of various perspectives and inputs to put together a stellar project like the VT Solar House team did?

I think, looking back on the class, we could have broken through these academic silos. We had so many different disciplines represented I would have liked to see that thinking a little more disrupted. Maybe smaller discussion groups with different disciplines could have been a way to do this. I noticed as I looked around, we were even seated in individual clusters of different silos. Maybe I am idealistic and naive, but I see the breakthroughs of the 21st century being accomplished only when we break down our barriers and start working outside of our comfort zone.

IQ - SchmiQ

When I was 8 years old, I was pulled out of my 2nd grade class (I missed the cut-off with my October 3rd birthday and started kindergarten a month before my 6th birthday) and taken to a special room with a special teacher to take a special test. The following conversation took place:

Teacher: Randi, I am going to tell you some words. I want you to tell me what those words mean.

Me: OK, but wait. What if you say the word "see" (note, this is all spoken, not written). You could mean see with your eyes or sea like the ocean.

Teacher: Ok, we're done.

The next thing I knew, I was being taken out of class 2.5 times a week to go to "gifted" classes. All I knew was that fun things happened in the gifted class. I was excited. I was GIFTED!!!! Or was I? My parents have never told me the IQ number that came out of that test. There was no need to from their point of view. A number is just that, a number. And, as my mom often told me, this number was subjective and one person's view of my intelligence. I should take this opportunity and make the most of it.

Yes, school was always easy for me. I am good at being a student. Some kids can throw a wicked curve ball. Others play violin. I could do a mean conjugation and follow it up with some serious multiplication tables. Don't get me started on History... those dates just stuck in my head like chewing gum sticks to ponytails. But, does this make me gifted? Does this mean I can rest on my "gifted brain" laurels? Or, could it just be that I am highly verbal, a year older than the youngest person in my class and slightly precocious? Has my academic success thus far (and I consider my academic career to be successful) been because of this "gifted" mind or because I had more opportunities than others? In my gifted classes we did technology projects, design competitions, and simulation games (Oregon Trail groups, U.S. Stock Exchange, America Invents, etc.) Is it any surprise, then, that I went into a STEM field? We constantly talk about lack of females and minorities in STEM, but maybe this is due to less exposure to STEM fields in youth.

The same can work in the reverse. My younger brother took a similar test in 2nd grade. He was pulled into the same room with the same teacher, but this time the test was looking for something else. Why was he doing so poorly in school? Why didn't he complete assignments or get the answers in a test all jumbled? So, he took the test. And wouldn't you know, he had the intelligence. So, there had to be something else at play. Long story short, he had a learning disability, so it wasn't that he didn't know the solution, he just mixed it up or got distracted on another question before answering the last. If my parents hadn't pushed for further testing he may have been deemed slow or learning-disabled and maybe he wouldn't have had the same opportunities. Unfortunately, with today's public school system being labeled SLD or LD typically means a separate class with lower expectations, little resources and a "get-by" mentality. Now, that broken system is a whole different conversation. But, once they identified and managed my brother's problems, he was afforded all the same opportunities. Today, my little brother is a graduate student working towards his master's degree in ocean science while working full-time as a state employee for the Bureau of Radiation reviewing and approving/declining state radiation licenses.

Two successful academic stories. Two very different test scores and school experiences. Maybe IQ and intelligence isn't everything. Maybe it is how we, as educators, perceive our students. If we expect them to do well and give them those opportunities they will do well. If we, however, push them aside, lower expectations, and give them no chance to succeed what do we expect? Like our President says, do we expect the students to lift themselves up by their own boot straps? Or, should we rethink how we label and test our students.

Is anyone ethical anymore?

Where have honesty and integrity gone?

I think our conversation on honesty and integrity brought up a lot of astounding issues. Upwards of 75% of students cheat? When looking at this number, it seems appalling. We can all stand with righteous indignation and say that this is unacceptable and these students should feel disgraceful. BUT, when I looked around the room in class and saw everyone shaking their collective heads, I couldn't help but think that more than 3 out of every 4 students (based on this statistic) have CHEATED in our classroom. So, if we have 40 people in the class, this means that only 10 have not. Let's step back a second, then. It is easy to blame the students (accountability, right?), but maybe we should also be looking at the culture that breeds this sort of behavior. Is there something happening in the classroom that can is leading to cheating? After all, there are many different kinds of cheating (i.e., copying a problem on a homework set, not contributing to the group problem solving, copying someone's test, or using an unapproved solution manual). I've been in classes where the professor clearly states that we can use any text, book, reference, etc. we can find. So, if we find a solutions manual online is this OK to use? Who are we cheating here... ourselves? Are the standards unreachable that students feel the pressure or need to cheat just to float? If a student has to resort to cheating just to get by, have we too failed?

OK, so I've posed more questions than answers. I think it's important for the professor and faculty to reflect on what we're doing to aid to a culture of cheating rather than just "blame" the student. Also, it's important to think about how we handle cheating. I am one to give the benefit of the doubt. Fool me once, shame on you sort of mentality, but I can forgive. If someone (or a whole class) appears to be cheating, why not have a class discussion on the problem. Make it a safe zone to for students to talk freely. Maybe an anonymous blog/comment on Scholar (or a similar site). Cheating (the first time) can be a tremendous teaching moment to discuss accountability on all sides. The problem I see with integrity and honesty is not in fact making a mistake, it's justifying it afterward. A person with true integrity may make a mistake, but is willing to accept it, own it, and learn from it.

What I cannot wrap my head around, though, is professors' "cheating" (i.e., false authorship, falsifying data, plagiarism). I mean, come on! Are you serious? At that point in your career you should know better! I think we have a horrible lack of resources for graduate students to navigate these ethical publishing issues. At most Universities you are at the will of your adviser to "teach" you the right way to publish... but by the time you've been published, gone through the peer-review process, navigated the initial murky waters of doing research for the first time, you should know better. This is where I have a hard time seeing both sides of the issue. The time for "teaching moments" has long passed. At this point, you are knowingly compromising your integrity and should be dismissed. I truly believe that harsh punishment for professors who cheat the system is important. There should be a zero-tolerance mentality for this type of behavior. For example, if a medical student cheats, there should be a discussion on what could happen if they do not understand the concept in the real world. Cheating on the test doesn't kill somebody. If, however, a doctor cheats, that could be a life. The time for second-chances has passed in that situation.

Whatever the cause of the problem, we need to have more open and honest conversations about cheating and ethics. It's important in a classroom like ours to be able to speak freely without judgment so we can learn from our past mistakes and understand how to prevent them from happening in the future. I am encouraged that we can change this high rate of cheating by having open and honest dialogues.

One last point, I take issue with what some in the class were saying about preventing cheating. I am not sure the best way to prevent cheating is by force separating students so they cannot sit with friends or randomizing tests. I take a lot of stock in trust. If someone automatically does not trust me, why should I trust them or act trustworthy? I think we can sometimes assume the worst in people and that is what will come out. Maybe if we trusted our students to do the right thing and talked openly about what cheating actually means (and the potential consequences in the "real world") then we would see a decrease in cheating.

Academia vs. Industry?

I attended a conference this week for Engineering Sustainability. I was overall impressed with the nice mix of industry and academic folks presenting as it seems more typical to see predominantly the latter at these types of events. What wasn't impressive is the sibling rivalry mentality of the two groups that underlined the conference. It was as if the two groups felt they needed to be at odds with each other or find fault in the others' work. I wonder, then, where this sort of conflict arises. At the end of the day the goal was the same although the pathways somewhat different. Maybe one group is more cost driven and the other more idealistic, but it seems as though only in working together will any real change occur.

How is it that industry and academia come to butt heads, so to speak? If most of the folks in industry came through the university system, where does this animosity spark? Since I have navigated both worlds, I think I can speak to part of the problem. When I was going through engineering in an ABET accredited university, I had maybe 2 professors who were also licensed professional engineers. All of my other professors were pure academics and never had consulted or practiced in industry (public or private). While I value academic insight (clearly since I am going for a PhD), I also see value in having professors who have worked with industry, or, at least, bring in industry folks to co-teach or lecture occasionally. A common gripe by my peers was that the courses relied too heavily on theory and the professors and syllabus lacked practicality, relevance and the "real world."

While I will sit for the PE when I complete my PhD (and hopefully my students will appreciate my work experience), I still will incorporate partnerships with industry in project development and throughout the course development phase. Maybe, if we, as academics, start partnering with industry, we can help break through the seeming sibling rivalry and take steps forward together.

Right, Wrong or Indifferent?

Morals and ethics. What a sticky conversation. In class, we spoke about many different ethical dilemmas: research ethics, grading ethics, whistle-blowing, and cheating (to name a few). Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't see ethics as a right or wrong, black or white issue. I think mistakes can be made and people can make bad judgment but for the most part doesn't make them bad people. If a student cheats, do you report them, write them off for the entire class and regard them as a waste of space academically for the rest of the tenure at the University? Or, is there a teaching moment to be had. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that there should be consequences to actions. All I'm saying is that in cases where the student is most likely hurting themselves (not physically, but academically) and is not a danger to society, it's better to address the problem, take whatever punitive actions are appropriate, allow the student to do better next time, and use it as a hypothetical (don't embarrass the student in class) teaching moment to the class to discuss actions and consequences. For example, talk about how cheating on a physics test doesn't hurt society, but if you then don't understand the concepts and design a faulty o-ring, you could be responsible for a tragic international space tragedy (i.e., Challenger). I think a zero tolerance stance on cheating is unproductive. Isn't school the place to make those mistakes? Shouldn't we encourage developmental, moral improvement? Now, if a student repetitively takes advantage and continuously cheats, then there needs to be an end game in sight. Repeat chosen failures should not equal a degree.

What about research ethics? Here the waters get a little murky. In most cases, we are now dealing with individual belief structures, personal ethics and gray area moral issues. For example, should animals be experimented on, tortured and sacrificed for the betterment of human advancement? Is it ok to tamper with embryo or fetus DNA in-vitro to prevent future diseases or is this a slippery slope to eugenics?

Clearly, not all ethics issues are black and white or can follow a "check list" of moral academic and research ethics. As educators, I think we have a responsibility to discuss difficult ethical dilemmas and design courses that are not conducive to cheating. We should not impose our moral/ethical research standards on our students. Rather, we should help them define their stance, articulate and defend their position, and be willing to engage in productive discourse with their colleagues. As such, in each course I design, there will be an ethics component where students must take a position, write a paper defending that position, and articulate orally their reasons for the position. They will not be judged on their position, but instead on their ability to take one. I hope this will help our students better prepare for difficult choices and decisions in the working world.

Academic Freedom: An Ethical Burden?

The first amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, religion, the press and the right to assemble. Another right guaranteed in the US in academia is academic freedom. But, what does this mean in the context of the student/faculty relationship? Research freedom aside, I think the student has the academic freedom to pursue their studies without fear that their opinions, biases, culture, etc. will hinder their academic pursuit. But, how do we navigate instances when personal belief and academics come into conflict?

I was raised in a very liberal, non-religious but culturally Jewish, education-forward and scientific household. So, my education normal is to observe the facts and make judgments based on science rather than faith. It has always been easy for me to accept evolution as truth and show compassion, tolerance, acceptance, and friendship to people of different faiths, ethnicity, etc. I believe that hate is hate and cannot be justified by religion. To me, it's obvious: if a person has no tolerance for and is not willing to accept another human being based solely on sexual orientation, then they probably shouldn't pursue a counseling degree at a public university.

Case Study: An Augusta State student will not be granted a degree in psychology unless she takes a remedial course in diversity training. This stems out of her refusal to council LGBT students and stating her neo-conservative view that homosexuality is a choice that should be transitioned out of someone. The American Psychiatric Association (after 1973) disagrees with her religious assessment and affirms that homosexuality is not a choice and is in fact natural and innate and cannot be "taught out of a person." Should she be allowed to pursue her degree of choice and not have to compromise her religious freedoms? On the other hand, if part of her requirements in the curriculum is to learn how to appropriate council the LGBT community, shouldn't she be held to the same standards of every other student despite her radical beliefs?

For me, the answer is simple. If she councils that homosexuality is a sin and choice that should be "trained out" of a person then she is committing malpractice based on APA standards. If the university grants her a degree knowing that she could potential practice this dangerous behavior and does nothing to remedy the situation then they are negligent. I believe the university has the responsibility to provide diversity training and remediation in her case. If she refuses this requirement then she is making the conscious choice to take an incomplete.

However, based on our conversation on Monday, I am conflicted about the situation. Despite the fact that my gut tells me that her intolerance is deplorable and she would make a lousy, dangerous, and despicable counselor since she obviously doesn't understand basic human tolerance, doesn't she have a right to religious freedom? Does this case come into conflict with the student's right to academic freedom? Or, is it not a matter of academic freedom and more a concern of morals/ethics? I am curious to see the legal outcome of this case and it's ramifications on conflicts of religion and academics in the public sector.

A Global Education

As a continuation of our discussion last week, this week we delved further into international education systems. I've already written about how I feel about my American education (re: An American Education) with respect to residential life, but this week, I think I'll comment on the academic side of things: tracking, narrow scope, and government influence.

One of the most stark contrasts between the American primary/secondary school education and those abroad seems to be tracking at an early age. That is, in the tween years when most U.S. students are primarliy concerned with choosing Team Edward or Team Jacob (google "Twilight"), tweens around the world are choosing career paths. Let me clarify. They may not choose specific careers (i.e., heart surgeon, chemical engineer, sociologist), but they choose a broad path (i.e., math, science, humanities). This choice at the ripe age of 12-14 potentially impacts what university you attend, your major and eventually, your career path. In contrast, in the U.S. we have a very broad education up through the 2nd year of college where you finally choose your major and thus path.

My major concern is narrowing education so much. I am an advocate for general education courses and taking requirements outside of your major. In fact, I'd go so far to say that I'd love to see a requirement to do a minor in some other college well outside the scope of your major. For instance, as an engineering major, I would have to also minor in classics, literature, business, etc. I think that having a broad education allows us to explore many different facets of learning. If I just wanted to learn a skill set, I would be better off getting a two-year associates degree or going to a vocational school. The idea of higher education shouldn't just be about developing career professionals... what about developing life long learners? What happens if we have a job market full of engineers who cannot write or writers who cannot manage finances? How do we expect to be the future developers, thinkers, creators, and innovators if we only look at a small niche of the bigger picture?

Yet, on the other hand, is it worth it for parents and students alike to go into massive debt, take out tens if not hundreds of thousands in loans, max out credit cards and start life in a deep financial hole for the U.S. residential college experience? Furthermore, globally, these international systems seem to have better outcomes (i.e., higher test scores, better primary/secondary education). Is this just a problem with assessment? Why is it, then, that so many people seek out an American education? I'm not sure which is a better system, or if one is even better. They are just different.