Grade Inflation: Part II
Okay, I have to admit, maybe alot of the problem is my fault. You see, I confuse students. They have been brain-washed to think that that need to crawl inside my brain and answer as they think I would. Doing that with me is virtually impossible, and usually the wrong answer to boot.
Let me elucidate: I am a political scientist, and everyone knows that political scientists are liberal. I went to Brigham Young University, and everyone knows that BYU grads are conservative. I grew up in Washington–>Liberal. I Live in Kansas–>Conservative. I wear shorts and Birkenstocks and a hemp anklet–>liberal. I wear garments–>conservative. I have a lava lamp and a bottle of scotch in my office–>liberal. I have a print of George Washington kneeling in prayer–>conservative. I worked as a campaign advisor to an Oklahoman politician to the right of Ghengis Khan–>conservative. I think that legalizing marijuana is a good idea–>liberal.
Do you see my problem? I am a collection of contradictions! I hurt my student’s brains.
Seriously. The point of this post was to describe a problem that I believe is rife in academia: professors/teachers teaching their point of view and expecting the students to mindlessly parrot that to all exclusivity. Is this the right way to teach? The thing I learned from my graduate school experience was that I knew nothing. I could never hope to master my field. Don’t get me wrong, I passed my comps and finished my degree and reflect well on my alma maters. But I know how much I don’t know. Why do so many feel that the bestowing of a piece of paper with Ph.D. on it entitles them to make everyone else feel like ignoramouses? Why write at a level that only allows other Ph.D.s to understand (or at least state publicly that they understand)? At the most basic level, aren’t we seekers and teackers of knowledge?
I don’t know why these post have hit such a nerve within me, but I am SOOOOO with you on this. Law School was horrible that way, and a lot of the people I work with now couldn’t even be troubled to consider that what you describe isn’t the one and only true and correct way to think.
Makes the commute in the mornings very long. . .
Comment by XON — 4/23/2006 @ 6:38 pm
a bottle of scotch in my office
😉
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — 4/23/2006 @ 9:16 pm
But isn’t the point of having a professor (rather than doing self-directed readings) to be able to crawl inside someone else’s brain for a while and learn to view the topic as they view it–or at least as they present it? As long as students have various professors presenting various aspects of the field to them in various ways, they won’t have permanently or uncritically adopted the view of any one professor.
Comment by Beijing — 4/23/2006 @ 9:40 pm
That may be the case when you are teaching a specific viewpoint in your specialty (i.e. terrorism) but in the upper division classes where mine might be the only viewpoint they are exposed to (I am the security specialist in the department), they might get a skewed perspective.
Comment by Craig — 4/23/2006 @ 10:06 pm
I do as much as I can to clarify that I am simply presenting certain theoretical takes on my topic, and I really don’t penalize students for not agreeing with me. I do, however, ask that students with any take on the issue make a good case for what they are arguing. The problem is that I have real problems arguing convincingly for things I don’t believe in, and students don’t necessarily have the argumentation skills (nor the reasoning skills), in many cases, to make skillful arguments. Some do, but I get papers from students who are either trying to jump on my bandwagon, hoping it will be enough that they agree with me and are disappointed when they don’t make the grade they want, or those who disagree with me and are certain that it is counting against them, when, in reality, they simply don’t provide a solid argument for their case. In both cases, students don’t recognize the warrants their claims rest on, and they don’t realize they’ve given someone with a conflicting view no reason at all to agree with them. I agree, though, that it is easiest for my students, and a lot of my best papers (the ones right below the students who have really learned to think and argue for themselves) come from students who pick up on the kinds of arguments I’m making and do something slightly different with it. It does seem like that perpetuates my view, to some extent, but it also gives the student intellectual experience, and that will hopefully lead them to really think through issues. Besides, I’m not sure that there is any other way to really present ideas in an authentic way.
Comment by Steve H — 4/24/2006 @ 2:28 am
Perhaps the difference is in our respective disciplines. In Political Science, there wide widely divergent viewpoints which are based more on perspective and values than on reasoning. Thus is it easier for me to give the basis for those divergent views.
Comment by Craig — 4/24/2006 @ 8:19 am
…and hence the beauty of chemistry. There really is objectivity 🙂
Comment by J. Stapley — 4/24/2006 @ 10:51 am
I like Rutherford’s quote here. After all isn’t any one who is after objectivity just a physicist in hiding?
Comment by chris g — 5/3/2006 @ 12:59 pm
You sure are a contradiction. Very interesting. I must ask: do you drink the scotch, or is it only there for show?
Comment by Thomas Hobbes — 5/17/2006 @ 12:37 pm
Its just there…my very strictly mormon mother-in-law gave it to me as a remembrance of Scotland.
You know what they say, “if its not Scottish…”
Comment by Craig — 5/17/2006 @ 2:17 pm
In my intermittent blog jumping I have landed on a website full of Stapleys! I was making Crazy Bread the other day (Jennifer’s recipe from some RS activity) and wondering where you ended up teaching. Carl got his PhD from Purdue and we’re now at the Univ. of Nebraska. We have 2 kids now (both adopted). Sorry to use the comments to catch up (but I’m doing it anyway)!
Comment by Christy ( — 6/13/2006 @ 8:14 am
I ended up at Kansas State. Congrats on the second child!
Comment by Craig S. — 6/13/2006 @ 5:47 pm
hrmm, sounds like the beginning of world war three among the social scientists and the natural scientist with the philosophers and socioligists referreeing. Better brush up on your philosophy of ‘science.’ At least that is what I have learned in BYU’s PlSc dept!
Comment by Josh Daniels — 8/9/2006 @ 1:53 am