Glass half full?

As I sat in class this week listening to the debate on the state of the university and who is to blame. I realized that there are many cynics in my generation. I counted at least 4 times that the concept of "do nothing" came up. Let us back up for a second. The point of discussion on Monday night was whether or not students are actually learning during their 4 (+) years at the university. The study suggested that learning was not happening. So, who is to blame? Is it lazy students? A system that only teaches to standardized learning in K-12? Helicopter parents?

All else aside, I say that it doesn't matter what happened before. It is really easy for us to blame our predecessors for the problems at hand, but what does that really accomplish? I highly doubt President Obama stomps his feet in the oval office, blames President Bush for all the economic problems, shrugs his shoulders in defeat and plays solitare on the computer. No, no matter who to blame, the issues are his responsibility (as Truman said: "The buck stops here"). Mr. Obama does the best he can with what he is given and aims for improvement. Well, how are we, as future faculty, any different? I don't think an attitude of defeat or indifference is really appropriate. Nor do I think the "scare off students on the first day" mentality is good either. What is the point of teaching if we write off students day one? Shouldn't we inspire, motivate, encourage and dare-I-say EDUCATE? Isn't that the point?

OK, so how do we interrupt the pattern of laziness, helicopter parenting, and standardization?

Step 1: Talk about the problem!
Step 2: Accept the challenges!
Step 3: Take action!

Easier said than done, right? Maybe not. Maybe we just need to take a step back and look at the problem from a different angle. How are others trying to disrupt the issue? Has anyone asked the students why they are in our classes? What can be done to engage the students?

Maybe I'm a "glass half full" kind of person, but I think we can change the learning environment for the better. No matter who is to blame, the buck stops with us. If we make our courses relevant, engage the students, help bridge connections from the material to the world around us, we can educate and inspire. You can bring them to the well and they still may not drink; however, if we make the well interesting and enticing, I think they will.

Thoughts on a Mountain

I was skiing last week in Wyoming and it occurred to me that my learning how to ski was a bit of a metaphor for some of my views on education. See, you start on the top of the mountain looking down the town seems so far away. First, I would scout downhill to find an "easy" path. Maybe a line that was not so steep or bumpy. This worked fine on the easy, beginner slopes, but as my skiing ability increased, I realized that there were times that I could not even see the bottom of the mountain! To get better, I realized that I had to push myself to forge down the scary, steep, bumpy parts and after a while it would be smooth sailing once again. Isn't this a bit like higher education?

I was thinking back to our discussion in class on how maybe we hand out too many degrees or whether or not we enable too many students to go forward in higher education when they shouldn't. I think this is ridiculous. While not every student may succeed in higher education (like I will probably never be a good enough skier to attempt double black diamond runs*), shouldn't we, as educators, strive to at least help encourage a student to try something a little more difficult. If it is true that we learn more from our failures than successes, what do we have to lose? The community colleges are a great starting place. They are sort of like the green ski runs at the bottom of the mountain. We wouldn't take someone unfamiliar with skiing (education) to the top of the mountain (tier one research university) and just shove them off onto a double black diamond run; however, we often times expect students to do the same. And, if they don't succeed we tell them that maybe "college isn't right for them... I mean, not everybody needs a higher education." Yet, there exists a certain snobbery about the community college at many tier one research universities. Why is this?

Education, like sports, often takes practice. Not everyone is born a good student like not everyone is born athletic. We do not tell kids to stop playing baseball if they strike out the first time on the field. In fact, many professional players get paid millions and still strike out more often than they score a home run. The community colleges offer smaller courses (typically) with more teacher student interaction at a lower cost. In fact, there are many states that will guarantee acceptance to a four year university if a student completes two years at community college. With 1 in 4 freshman dropping out of college (Whitborne, 2002, available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTR/is_4_22/ai_84599442/), the problem is epidemic. Maybe higher education is like those double black diamond ski runs... the only difference is that we expect students to jump from the baby hill up to the top of the mountain without encouraging them to try some blue runs first.

*FYI... in case anyone out there is unfamiliar with skiing... ski runs are labeled according to skill level required to get down:

Green - Easiest
Double Green - Moderate
Blue - Intermediate
Double Blue - Moderately Hard
Black Diamond - Difficult
Double Black Diamond - Expert


Excerpt from Whitborne, 2002:

"A large number of students are ill-equipped for the challenges of college," says Vincent Tinto, chair of the Higher Education Program at Syracuse University in New York, and author of Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (University of Chicago Press). Tinto says students devote so much time to the admissions process, they forget to focus on what lies ahead: challenging academics, living away from home, maintaining their finances, learning time management skills, and taking responsibility for their own lives.