Seinfeld? "Our parents think that’s funny. We don’t."
Today’s points comes from a former student (UConn, ’09) who wishes to remain anonymous. Now teaching at a middle school in Chicago, she asked me to let CHE readers know that she is attempting to follow her own advice.
Dear Professor:
1. You might not realize it, but we notice when you’re angry, distracted, annoyed, exhausted, frustrated, nervous, and/or feeling too lazy to bother paying attention. We think that you should be able to put those emotions aside for the fairly brief time we have you as our instructor in the classroom. You don’t allow us to sleep or cry during class, so why should you be allowed to rant about subjects that have nothing to do with the course? If it’s an amusing anecdote, that’s something we’ll welcome, but if you’re tempted to tell us on a regular basis how miserable your life is, how corrupt the administration is, how misguided the government is, or how disappointing we are, then we’d be happier if you would resist the temptation.
2. You might not believe it, but most of the time we don’t think you are funny and we don’t even understand most of the references you make in terms of your attempts at humor. Only a few people still watch Monty Python and we’re not going to start just so we can understand what you mean by “silly walks” and we don’t know all the Simpsons episodes as well as you do. Please don’t get us started on Seinfeld. Our parents think that’s funny. We don’t. We laugh when you pause because you clearly expect it and we want to make you happy and/or get a good grade by getting into your good graces.
3. You might not want to hear this (again, since others have mentioned it) but we spend all our time looking at you and therefore wish you would take even more time to groom yourselves. If you are teaching with coffee stains on your tie, we’ll notice them and then spend time inventing stories about what happened to cause the stains. Did you have a tiff with your partner that morning? Did you hear something shocking on the way to work and spill your coffee in the car? Is this a tie you wore last week and are these the same stains? Please check your fly and your bra strap before standing in front of the class because we don’t know whether what you’re doing is deliberate or not.
4. You might be surprised, but you make a lot of mistakes. Your handouts have errors and your PowerPoint presentations, when you can get them to work, often contain mistakes. You omit words, spell terms incorrectly, or supply conflicting pieces of information. Please make it clear to us whether or not you would prefer to hear about these missteps. We hope you do want your mistakes corrected because you spend a lot of time noticing ours.
5. You might be puzzled, but yeah, we talk about you because we see you several times a week. We tell our friends whether or not you are a good teacher and we tell our parents and their friends the same. You are a big part of our lives and so if you see yourself mentioned on those teaching sites or Facebook or wherever, you should not assume we are weird. It would be strange if we didn’t discuss you. This loops back to the first point in this note, which is that we notice whether you give a damn about your teaching and about your students. You can make us feel like we have a chance at grasping a subject or understanding an idea or else make us feel like we’re as ridiculous, pathetic, and useless as we’ve always suspected we might be. It’s easy to make us feel bad and we talk highly of those professors who don’t take the easy way out.
* Bonus note: You probably don’t think it matters, but smiling when you first arrive in the classroom everyday is great.
22 Responses to 5 More Things Your Students Think You Need to Know
jdsalinger - November 19, 2010 at 9:12 pm
I’m sure this student speaks for everyone. No one in his/her generation likes Seinfeld? I don’t doubt that some people dislike it, but everyone? Really?
wbgleason - November 20, 2010 at 11:15 am
Funny,
1. Some of you do yawn in class, apparently. Some of us lose it… See Cornell viral video.
2. Funny references? I once gave a talk that had some musical accompaniment in it. My wife warned me that not a student in the class would recognize the music. I asked the students after the lecture about this. My wife was right.
3. Grooming? Sorry. Although the fly remark is well taken – for men and women. The fashion seems to be to flaunt straps, and sometimes wear what appear to be pajamas to class. I’ve seen good teachers wear everything from full suit and tie to jeans, even shorts. You shouldn’t care what we look like unless we are doing a bad job. Same goes for us. It has taken me some time to learn to tolerate nose rings and other piercings. Blue or purple hair is also kinda hard to tolerate.
4. Yes we make mistakes and most of us would like very much to hear about them. But use a little judgement and be discrete, please. Calling someone out in public over an obvious typo can be obnoxious.
5. Good for you. When I was a college student we talked all the time about the profs, especially the good ones from whom we tried to take classes.
Bonus: Usually engaged students sit toward the front of the class. Not always. If the lecturer arrives a little early, he or she can often engage students in apparently idle conversation. Students like this.
And no, many of us do not think that you are the dumbest generation.
milesmann - November 22, 2010 at 9:47 am
I am also a little surprised that Seinfeld is no longer funny. Really? I thought we’d be at the point by now where Seinfeld is taught as a college course (well, I’m sure it is in some places), but to hear that a professor can’t even crack a Newman joke…I’m at a loss for words.
I’m Class of ’07. We watched Seinfeld. What has happened on television since then?
I’m really upset about this. I just need a moment…
mjk5842 - October 13, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Great piece Eric. Never have understood why the focus is always on what it takes to get into a college or university rather than what a student gets out of it. There are many great schools that do wonders with students who have average to barely above average credentials going in but often outperform their peers from more selective institutions in terms of grad school and job placement rates.
iduhpres - October 13, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Mr. Hoover is right on in his comments. The enrollment and
admission’s worlds have changed as has the academic world itself. It is no
longer the “look to your right, look to your left” world of building a class or
a first class university. Syracuse is just ahead of the curve (or will admit is
at least while others cling to the wreckage of old out-dated notions of
building a class). The world has changed and higher ed needs to change too.
darccity - October 13, 2011 at 5:42 pm
I’ve been enjoying Eric Hoover’s thoughtful and provocative pieces for many years. However, I need to balance this piece (that I’m sure 100.0% of the Chronicle readership will love!) with a couple facts:
1. Within 10 years, many private colleges and perhaps even a university or two will have to fold due to demographic changes. There is no escaping that fact. It is a pipe dream to expect the gap to be made up by non-trads, online streaming video, lower income, and less prepared applicants. Perhaps that is possible for some public universities, but not for high-tuition privates.
2. Syracuse is a wonderful university with a great business model. But it’s based on a deceptively two-tiered acceptance system. Getting in is relatively easy but less than half the battle won. The real acceptance barriers occur when a student attempts to gain admission to one of their many world-renowned prestige colleges or programs. There are limited places available, competition is high, and performance standards unyielding (perhaps as they should be) in journalism, business, urban forestry, etc., etc. I’m not being critical of their operating model, but it makes acceptance rate comparisons with other college invalid!
11890636 - October 13, 2011 at 6:56 pm
So there are articles, and there are headlines, and sub-heads. “Syracuse’s Shift” could have provided an alliterative, yet even-handed, headline for the original article, though it probably wouldn’t have attracted as many readers — and comments. But this particular headline-plus-subhead seem especially unbalanced, as “slide” is repeated, perhaps to reinforce that (allegations of a) downward trend in reputation are synonymous with more intrinsic institutional measures, while “public good” is placed in quotes, implying something snide, or worse about the Chancellor’s vision or priorities or … — Syracuse’s Slide: As chancellor focuses on the ‘Public Good,” Syracuse’s Reputation Slides. What if, instead, the headline had been — Syracuse’s Shift: As chancellor focuses on Public Good, University’s Reputation “Slides.”
jeffgray - October 14, 2011 at 6:48 am
Finally someone writes something that makes sense. Rankings are an inch deep and a mile wide, marketing tools for those who want to grab on to simple and superficial metrics as a measure of success. The previous article left me mystifed. I was not clear how the Chronicle and others could assail them on the one hand, and then use them as a club to critique on the other hand, in a superficial way I might add. Syracuse seems to have figured out something that the vast majority of others have not. Good for them.
juris_prudence - October 14, 2011 at 8:00 am
Fascinating — the article begins with a question, but the question is never answered.
Could someone at the Chronicle please tell us how the Chronicle’s headlines are written, and why those who wrote and approved this particular headline put a negative spin on a development that many people consider to be very positive?
Nicole Nguyen - October 14, 2011 at 8:12 am
Many Syracuse University graduate students proudly recognize the importance and (prestigious) value of work with the community, and support Chancellor Cantor’s bold vision and steadfast commitment to Scholarship in Action. Please see our response to the Wilson article at http://syracuseengagedgrads.wordpress.com/
11191774 - October 14, 2011 at 8:42 am
I have always said that I like faculty members individually, but when they get together, some chemical reaction takes place that makes them, collectively, among the most irrational mob one can ever hope to (not) encounter.
I think it is the “Exiles from Eden” syndrome coupled with Groucho Marx’s pronouncement about not wanting to be in a club that would have him as a member.
Mostly, though, I think Syracuse is getting better by marching to the beat of its own drummer, rather than chasing that which can never be attained. Good for them. Until someone can both quantify and morally rationalize the value of a rejected applicant, I’ll take the side of the good.
jamesm - October 14, 2011 at 9:56 am
Congratulations to Syracuse. It’s decided to take the long view and make commitments that will well-serve the university and society in the years to come, rather than dwell on the metrics of past incoming classes. It seems to me that this is the strategic pursuit of excellence. Thanks to Eric for sharing it with all of us. – Jim Miller
willardmdix - October 14, 2011 at 10:24 am
I read the original piece with growing admiration for Syracuse and thought the headline was sly; perhaps the word “slide” should have been in quotation marks. I didn’t read the article as negative about Syracuse at all. I agree with Ted O’Neill 100% — Syracuse is “walking the walk” not just “talking the talk” about being concerned with serving a broader population and looking to the future instead of trying to hold on to the ragged present. (The origins of the word “prestige” have to do with illusion or trickery, BTW. Think “prestidigitation.”)
I work at Chicago Scholars, an organization that serves talented but underserved students in the city. Syracuse has been an enthusiastic supporter of our program, helping find and encourage bright students from outside the mainstream to apply to and enroll in great colleges, not just Syracuse. Reading about the Chancellor’s forward-thinking policies was a breath of fresh air in a sometimes suffocating world of argument about rankings, ACT sores, and chasing the same tiny goals.The student newspaper’s comment about how the enrollment changes might “devalue” the Syracuse degree are repellent, tinged with classism and racism. The professor’s comment (on the original story) that he is “an intellectual” and supposedly exempt from the real world (my interpretation) reminded me why so many people hate professors. Eric’s comments about status and Nancy Cantor’s outlook as Syracuse’s chancellor are right on the money. Other institutions should be looking to Syracuse as a model for the future.Finally, I recently reviewed (www.funnyhamlet.wordpress.com) Prof. Andrew Roberts’s excellent book “The Thinking Student’s Guide to College: 75 Tips for Getting a Better Education.” A comment early in the book is particularly germane: “The one aim that drives most colleges and universities,…,is a desire to increase their prestige. Universities wish to be viewed as the best in their line of work. They want to achieve the highest esteem among the general public and their peers as they can. To put it bluntly, everyone wants to be Harvard, and Harvard wants to make sure that no one else is Harvard.” In this light, universities look more like a gym full of ninth graders at their new high school.If Chancellor Cantor is trying to get Syracuse off that dreadful and pointless treadmill and doing some social good in the process, I say more power to her.
Evil_Spock - October 14, 2011 at 4:57 pm
When the former admissions officer at a school which admits virtually all very high-SAT score students says that lower SAT scores don’t necessarily indicate less ability to do a college’s work, you’ll pardon me if I think he may not quite believe that. Was he not admitting low-SAT score students for non-academic reasons? Or by “a particular college” do we mean “a particular college that isn’t my college”?
Socratease2 - October 14, 2011 at 7:23 pm
As I remember, the SAT is simply a flawed predictor of what % chance a freshman student has of being still satisfactorily enrolled in school by the end of their freshmen year of college. As such, it should not be conflated with a metric that is actually measuring a student’s potential to grow, learn, mature and contribute to campus academic and social culture. I hate the Princeton Testing Service.
Evil_Spock - October 15, 2011 at 11:15 am
I wasn’t commenting on the utility or lack of utility of the test, I was commenting on the disingenuousness of someone who ran admissions for a school which relies heavily on SAT scores saying this.
alexis_v - October 16, 2011 at 9:48 pm
There is a very easy expedient to raise both the selectivity of a university and the number of low-income applicants:
Abolish the application fee.
stonecash - October 17, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Eric Hoover (“Syracuse, Selectivity, and ‘Old Measures’”–Oct. 13, 2011) writes an interesting but misconceived and misleading column. Hoover would have us believe that all opponents of Nancy Cantor quoted in your front-page story “Syracuse’s Slide” are hopelessly and foolishly opposing her admission policies with old muddled metrics. We were both quoted in the story, and neither one of us refers to anything of the sort. Neither do some others. Nancy Cantor’s critics are asking questions about her fiscal judgment and ranking of priorities.
She has increased the size of the student body (at least 25 %) while decreasing the budget percentage going to the academic mission of the schools and colleges, where these new students must be educated. What has gotten bigger along with the bulging student body is the percentage of the budget going to administrative costs and to carry out her personal priorities outside the academy. For example, just this past Friday, the University announced the creation of yet another Senior Vice President, this one for “Investment in Human Capital.” Money goes here rather than to support teaching students, a legitimate and proper investment in human capital.
While this goes on, the endowment is the same as it was a decade ago, despite the University’s billion dollar fund-raising campaign. Debt has more than doubled. The real issue is academic quality’s slide in University priorities, and that is what we said in the Chronicle story. If we can get off the red herring routine maybe we can focus on how the university is managed.
Don Saleh, Syracuse’s Vice President for Enrollment Managemnt, tells us in Hoover’s column that “we have an imperative to recruit those students and educate those students.” We agree. But by all sorts of metrics, and by our own experience teaching more than 20,000 students over a combined tenure of more than 75 years, today’s students are less and less able to read and write than just a few years ago. Surely, if we have an “imperative to educate” we need to put our money where our mouth is. Unless, of course, graduating literate citizens, not just active citizens, is another out-of-date metric employed by wooly-headed professors who know nothing about the real world. Our nagging fear is that the only metric used to measure all things at Syracuse these days is the degree of fit with a 1960’s liberal ideology, which Chancellor Cantor polices with a vengeance.
Robert McClure, Chapple Family Professor of Citizenship and Democracy Emeritus
Jeff Stonecash, Maxwell Professor
facultydiva - October 17, 2011 at 3:19 pm
That is what some of us refer to as “Veep Creep”. On some campuses it may be “Associate Provost Creep” or some other administrative title variation.
gbjudge - October 17, 2011 at 5:00 pm
During Chancellor Cantor’s tenure at SU, full-time undergraduate enrollment has increased by 14.4% (from 12,128 in 2005 to 13,878 (est.) in 2011), and the growth of full-time faculty has increased by 11.5% (from 973 in 2005 to 1,085 in 2011). Also, Prof. Stonecash and McClure’s claims about a decreasing percentage of university revenues going to the academic mission of the schools and colleges is not accurate. Using most recent data, between fiscal years 2007 and 2011, gross tuition revenue increased by $103.3 million. This was offset by a financial aid increase of $58.7 million, resulting in new net tuition revenue totaling $44.6 million, a 13.3% increase. During this time, school/college operational resources increased by $36.5 million, an 18% increase. The remaining increase of $8.1 million has been available to fund other University expenditures. As a result, 82% of the increase in new net tuition dollars during this time period was dedicated to school and college expenditures.
Also, during the past five years, the reserves of the schools/colleges have increased by $21 million or 50%, to a total of $63.4 million, reflecting the priority the University has placed on the academic mission. In addition, the University has built/constructed a very substantial amount of new academic facilities/space during this time, while keeping debt as a percentage of budget low and improving its already very strong credit rating.
Gwenn Judge, Director, Office of Budget and Planning
Syracuse University
licama - October 18, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Hoover makes an interesting but odd argument. The premise of the piece is that any old metric will do and there is just a substitution of one for another. The traditionalists cling to the old one and the new, enlightened people want a new one. The latter position seems to be that the old metric had no relevance as an indicator of quality or excellence. Everyone is the same so any metric is as good as another. Given that everyone is the same, then let’s just distribute positions on the basis of identity. The essence of the claim is that all students have essentially the same ability so we don’t need and cannot put too much stake in indicators of capability. This means efforts to find such indicators is a futile effort because the measures have no validity. It isn’t said, but if old metrics don’t matter for admission why do they matter beyond admission? I suppose that striving for achievement and differentiation is also over-rated.
This is a comforting set of claims, but I wish there was some evidence (and not just a romantic democratic egalitarian notion) that students don’t vary in capability. If we accept that all students are the same, then the only real goal is to match demographics, and with this logic Syracuse is surging and better because we are playing identity politics. I guess those who buy into the virtues of identity politics will like this article.
dale1 - October 20, 2011 at 11:39 am
Ms. Judge:
Don’t confuse us with the facts; the faculty KNOW that the university administration is sucking up all the resources. They just feel it in their bones that they aren’t getting the funding they want.