• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

At St. John’s College, Bookworms Discover Their ‘Inner Athlete’

June 2, 2011, 6:06 pm

Annapolis, Md.—St. John’s College is a bookish, quirky place. Proud of it, too.

So it’s hardly surprising that the Johnnies, as students at this Great Books institution are known, take an unorthodox approach to sports: As my colleague Brock Read recounts in a lively dispatch this week, the college’s signature sporting event of the year is a colorful croquet match pitting the Johnnies against the Midshipmen of the U.S. Naval Academy, their neighbors just down the street.

Now in its 29th year, the event is an eccentric, extraordinary tailgate. Over the course of a day—this year, a sparkling, sun-dappled spring Saturday—Johnnies and Middies both current and former mingle with natives of this fun-loving waterside capital city, pretending to watch croquet while they parade about in Gatsby-era attire and swill champagne. Plenty of spectators, as we soon found out, lack ties to the college, the Academy, croquet, and, in quite a few cases, Annapolis itself. No matter; this “great, grand picnic,” as the college’s president puts it, has far more to do with camaraderie than croquet.

But the Johnnies don’t turn every sporting event into a cigar-scented lawn party. In fact, St. John’s, which is neither a member of the NCAA nor the NAIA, pretty much lacks a recognizable intercollegiate sports program altogether. Rowing, fencing, sailing, and, of course, croquet, are the varsity sports here. Ultimate Frisbee, volleyball, and soccer are among the club teams that make up its thriving intramural program. The combined athletics budget is around $150,000.

I learned all this from Leo Pickens, the college’s athletic director and a Johnnie himself (class of 1978). We talked while watching the college’s croquet team make quick work of the Midshipmen at this year’s Annapolis Cup. Croquet mallets swung just feet away as we wedged ourselves between picnic blankets littered with plastic champagne flutes, fancy cheeses, and, in one case, a Tupperware container of homemade crab cakes.

Don’t be fooled by the small budget, Pickens cautioned me. The Johnnies may be cerebral—after all, these young scholars learn ancient history from Herodotus and geometry straight from Euclid—but they’re hardly sedentary: Athletics is as much a part of a St. John’s education as the literary canon that so shapes its unique curriculum. “In the classroom,” he said, “they’re encouraged to be involved in learning just for the love of it. We imitate that on the playing field. We play just for the love of playing the sport.”

“It’s an opportunity,” he adds, “for the bookworms to rediscover their inner athlete.”

That’s an idyllic philosophy, for sure, and one that rarely triumphs in a climate that places a premium on ultracompetitive youth and college sports. But Pickens is adamant: College sports shouldn’t be limited to elite athletes. Or even, for that matter, to students who consider themselves athletic.

“They’re learning some valuable lessons that can only be learned on the playing field. So why restrict it to the most skilled?” he asks.

Croquet extravaganzas aside, playing sports just for the love of it doesn’t always make for quite the same fan experience as, say, a fast-paced Division I match-up. Pickens knows this.

“Ninety-nine percent of the time, we don’t have spectators for anything,” he says. No matter. A Johnnie to the core, he offers an erudite response.

“The fewer the spectators,” Pickens says with satisfaction, “the purer the sport.”

Photos courtesy of St. John’s College

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • chuckkle

    Could we have a source for the 3% “bother with the liberal arts at all”?

    What’s this complaint about a “vaporous global citizenship”–haven’t the liberal arts always been aimed at educating students for an international perspective (rather than a narrow national one) and a cosmopolitan view of contemporary issues? Is this a call for intellectual “freedom fries”?

    “…higher education… gives trash culture a veneer of respectability and encourages students to open themselves to many of their worst impulses—and to take pride in the spectacle.” Could Wood’s conclusion have anything to do with Lady Gaga’s camp persona, queer following, and outspoken support for gay rights? Is “worst impulses” a code term for “queer’?

    Chuck Kleinhans

  • bsarchett

    It seems Professor Wood is so smug in his assurances of cultural superiority to the benighted masses that he can’t even appreciate the humor, irony, and joy that Lady Gaga offers her legion of fans–gay and straight, young and old. Too bad; there is a potentially intriguing and suggestive comparison to be made here, but the moralistic bombast with which it is offered is unhelpful. To quote Professor Woods, “it is hard to see much of anything unresolved’ in his view of this matter.

  • eberg

    Say what? “…higher education does bear quite a bit of the blame for this situation. It gives trash culture a veneer of respectability and encourages students to open themselves to many of their worst impulses—and to take pride in the spectacle.”
    OK, I’ll bite, what’s the evidence here? Humanities hitting a rough patch as financial crisis torpedos university budgets even as popular culture rages on? Fewer entering grad students–and enabling TAs– pursuing Victorian literature in favor of STEM or other curricula better able to cope with downturn? Wharton would recognize this for the rant that it is.

  • eebz

    Peter, you bring up a few interesting points — many that I don’t agree with, though still interesting — but I wanted to point out a few facts about Gaga that I think would have been important to address in your post.

    You assert that: “Lady Gaga is pretty much full-blast promotion of promiscuity and using her sexuality for personal advantage.” I assume you’re saying so based on your observations about her “skimpy” wardrobe. I don’t think a skimpy wardrobe alone is enough reason to deem a person promiscuous, but fair enough. Interestingly, she was quoted yesterday (in a celebrity publication surely unheard of among most academics) about her sexuality and virginity (http://www.showbizspy.com/article/227354/lady-gaga-talks-about-losing-her-virginity.html). She slips into her bizarre-o Gaga dribble at one point, but even amid that dribble she says that sex without love “screws up your energy.” Promiscuous? Not exactly.

    One other point: the lyrics you pulled above are from Gaga’s 2008 album, “The Fame,” which you referenced. That album, however, is not at all reflective of her more recent work (“The Fame Monster” album and “Born This Way,” her most recent single). You’re right about Lady Gaga seeing her opportunity and taking it, but I think it’s more than just that. This woman has been in the songwriting business since long before she found her own fame, and I think she knew exactly what she was doing: write a few shallow, pop-y hits for “The Fame” and then — once her star was big enough — start writing and performing the music that she was passionate about (but was too bizarre to introduce at the start of her career). And as others have pointed out, she has become a loud and prominent voice in LGBT activism, which is nothing to sneeze at. She may be pop, but she has principles.

  • jamesebryan

    I agree with and needn’t repeat what others have said in defense of Lady Gaga, but even if she were the Whore of Babylon Wood assumes her to be, that isn’t to say that we have nothing to learn from studying her. It seems as if he’s suggesting the only culture worth studying is high culture, because it inspires, while low culture denigrates. I’m very wary of suggestions that my role as an educator is to inculcate values, and much prefer to teach students about a variety of things, analyze the nature of those many things, and let them draw their own conclusions about merit. Educational systems have a long history of promoting damaging ideologies, elitism among them, so I’m not as confident of our fitness to maintain standards as Wood apparently thinks we used to do, and apparently laments.

  • gsudduth

    As Jerry Seinfeld said ‘ Lady Gag.’ the comparison is OK, I suppose but this popist is nothing more than the same flash that produced, Madonna, Prince, Marilyn Manson( not sure he deserves rating), and earlier if you will artists like the Who, the Stones, David Bowie(as Ziggy Stardust) and even the Beatles. The big difference is that most of the artists I mentioned are comparatively more talented. Opinion? Yes.
    If folks had a bit more education in the arts and art history maybe they would not only see your comparison but go a bit further and see the theatrics done by the Dadaist of the early 20th century……………….or possibly even in films like “Andalusian Dogs” by Dali or “The Couch” by Warhol.

  • barbarapiper

    I assume that every age has its Lady Gaga figures, and they all produce the kind of vapors that Dr. Wood seems to be experiencing. I’ve been reading a good bit of Victorian social history lately, and political and cultural elites in England and the U.S. for the whole of that period felt deeply threatened by similarly transgressive performers, artists, and the occasional figure such as the explorer Richard Burton, who took great pleasure in disrupting straight-laced convention. The trajectory of The End of Civilization As We Know It seems to be a very long one indeed.

    I was waiting for Dr. Wood to get to any point about education in all of this. As he knows, anthropologists since the early 20th century have been pointing out that education is part of the reproduction of culture, including social class. When higher education was part of the reproduction of a particular layer of a Western social class system, the cultivation of “taste” – of fine art, music, literature, etc – was a primary way in which higher education helped to socialize members of that social class, and many of Dr. Wood’s postings here seem to be nostalgic paeans to that era when the riff-raff were sent to trade apprenticeships, and higher education created a barrier between the hoi polloi and a privileged class.

    But when Dr. Wood writes of students that “They study the fields that teach disdain for their civilization and the supposed advantages of a vaporous ‘global citizenship’” I have to ask him to name names here. As I understand it, Business is the most popular college major these days, and I don’t think of it as excessively disdainful of Western civilization. (On the other hand, considering that business is unrelentingly global in these first decades of the 21st century, a little global perspective is probably very useful for business students.) But more importantly, a recently reported study finds that we faculty don’t seem to have much impact on the political views of our students. I keep pounding the drums of anti-Americanism, hatred for our cherished institutions and disrespect for our leaders, but – curse their refusal to pay attention! – my students persist in their political views no matter how hard I try to lure them into my radical socialist Lady Gaga homosexual agenda global warming traps.

  • lilybart1

    A small correction from another fan of The House of Mirth~ Lily stands (doesn’t sit) as Mrs. Lloyd in a portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds, not Gainsborough.

  • quidditas

    I think there is a distinction to be drawn between academic work on popular culture that has scholarly merit like, off the top of my head, a history that traces the emergence of rock n roll out of earlier American musical forms and work that….doesn’t have such merit.

    For example, I am tired of the ubiquitous apologetics produced by pop culture feminists of the over sexualization of women in popular culture, who are all–to a man– mostly just talking off the tops of their heads. Like this one:

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/lady-power/
    Nancy Bauer, “Lady Power”

    Citing Sartre and Beauvoir still leaves me unconvinced that this represents “female empowerment,” and I don’t feel I need yet more versions of this. (Sure, Lady Gaga made a lot of money. Bully for her). I think the ladies protest too much.

    But I don’t necessarily think the distinction between scholarly work that takes some effort and people talking off the tops of their heads to effect some point they want to make is some latter day sign of the fall of the academy. In the genteel good old days you had similar distinctions, such as that between literary history and the new criticism in English Departments.

    Same deal, new “texts,” as they say.

  • peterwwood

    lilybart1, thank you for the correction. I have amended the text. The danger of relying on memory.

    Peter Wood

  • bscmath78

    Dear gsudduth, I am confused by your post. Are you artistically equating Gaga with Dada? Or with “Un Chien Andalou” (“An Andalusian Dog”) by Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali? That film famously has Bunuel using a straight razor to cut open a woman’s eyeball.

    Was your point that some part of what most people today consider shocking, revolting, immoral garbage, will became high art, with academic promoters and museum shows? Or that elevation to high art now can happen immediately, instead of taking some time?

    Did you mean that talent is the ability to take a urinal and proclaim it art, as Marcel Duchamp did? And have it proclaimed: “the most influential artwork of the 20th century” in 2004, by art experts?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm

    Or have a REPLICA, not even the original, priced at around 3 million Euros in 2006?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4587988.stm

    Or was it that the “epater la bourgeoisie” strategy has long been successful? On the otherhand, “Le Salon des Refuses” did seem to work out well.

    Most people are puzzled by whatever modern art, academics choose to proclaim as high art. Sometimes the reaction is: “My kid could do better than that!”

  • nancybentley

    Wharton would have disdained Gaga’s performance-based productions, to be sure; but she also disliked all kinds of high modernist art (Stravinsky, Picasso) that we tend to see as firmly within the unfolding history of civilization.

    On the other hand, despite her deep reverence for rooted civilizations (including, by the way, the art of Islamic North Africa), Wharton also recognized the danger of unthinkingly accepting and transmitting inherited values. As she acknowledged in her notebooks and letters, she was drawn to Nietzsche’s idea of the “transvaluation of all values,” and wrote about wanting to see the “idols knocked down” (albeit by those who understood what they were doing).

    It seems to me a good liberal arts education would give us informed ways to think about how and why a civilization (like ours) has fostered both humanist traditions and a high-octane capitalism that is often only too happy to dissolve or cannibalize those traditions–some of which (like white supremacy) are well worth knocking off their pedestals. Because of Wharton’s own deep reading in anthropology, history, and art, these were questions she kept asking–the answer was never a foregone conclusion for her.

    The point is not that Gaga is the next Stravinsky; it’s that the mere fact that she exists is not proof that our culture is in free-fall or that young people are mindless. A latter-day Wharton would ask what it meant, not dismiss her as a phenomenon without doing the analysis.

  • fisherr

    Congratulations!  Evans Whitaker is accomplishing amazing things with this wonderful university.

  • 22080644

    Ohio State could certainly take a lesson from the Johnnies.

  • disembedded

    I totally agree…A lot of places could take some lessons from St. John’s College!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=703462542 Cindy Lutz

    Great article! I would never have used the word athlete to describe myself before my years at St. John’s. An uncoordinated, bookish kid, I never had a chance in school sports. At SJC I found a love for the sport of rowing from the coxswain’s seat. I treasured those hours on the Severn with Mr. Pickens and my fellow crewmates, and I learned amazing lessons about dedication, loyalty, commitment, and spirit. Great memories! 

  • 22015822

    Obviously:  ”Give Peace a Chance.”

  • Brian Abel Ragen

    Tom Lehrer’s “Fight Fiercely, Harvard”–with “Harvard” changed to the metrically equivalent “Goshen”–seem a natural choice. The injunction, “But don’t hurt them!” should go down particularly well.

  • nsteiger

    I agree with sanamrcos8; besides, The Star Spangled Banner spans octaves out of the range of most people; whether you like the lyrics or not, it’s virtually unsingable. America the Beautiful is – well – beautiful – and highly singable.

  • mkt42

    Yup.  The high notes in “America the Beautiful” are almost as difficult to reach as the ones in “The Star Spangled Banner.”  And the lugubrious melody is more like a dirge than an anthem.  It did sound good when Ray Charles sang it, but not many people can sing like Ray Charles. 

    “This Land is Your Land” however is peppy, inclusive, and easy to sing.  Political yes, but hey it’s an anthem. And it doesn’t have the smug religious overtones of “America the Beautiful” … did God not shed his grace on New Zealand?

  • mnprivate

    I would recommend Edgar Winter’s White Trash “Give It Everything You’ve Got” or J.B.’s “Livin’ in America.” Why everyone has to suffer because some pseudo-patriotic religious nut insists on the painful tradition is beyond me.

  • jkisner

    Their mascot is the “Maple Leafs.”  A faculty member could compose poetry about GC and its unique Mennonite mission of shalom to the tune of “O Canada,” the lyrics of which are “prayerful.”
    22259152 mentioned the “prayerful” fourth verse of the SSB; but the tune is inaccessible.

  • johnadamdrew

    I think this is an easy one — “This Is My Song,” a hymn sung to the tune of Finlandia. Wonderful words and melody, and very singable.

  • kozirice

    I’ll stick with “This Land is Your Land”…to me it sends a great message as well as being very singable by most.

  • 22266017

    Freebird!

  • electronicmuse

    Land O’Goshen! For those who complain about vocal range, try “One Note Samba” by Antonio Carlos Jobim. Very international that-perfect in lieu of an (apparently) vestigial “national anthem.” Exactly where is Goshen, by gosh-en?

    Or, you just might try pitching the “Star Spangled Banner” in a lower key . . . duh.

  • wisensale

    John Lennon’s “All we are saying, is give peace a chance.”

  • whm3113

    How about In–A-Gadda-Da-Vida, the 18 minute version?

  • theblondeassassin

    Better second class than third rate.

  • a_voice

    This is a very interesting article, and I see how it is the same inside organizations. It is even worse when you have new administrations. Everyone fighting for influence and establish controls exacerbates the chaos.

  • 11134078

    I suspect the overriding point is that the Conservative Party, being the stupid party, is out to damage higher education in the UK. Perhaps this is the simple fact behind all these bewildering proposals and, most prominently,  imposition of tuition charges. 

  • burger1376

    True.  Third rate goes to Asian universities where you just have to get in and wait four years and then you graduate. 

  • pgteach

    British higher education is not the only country affected by “Initiative-itis’ as you coined the term. Education is plagued with reforms, new initiatives, and a host of regulatory oversights, but somehow practicality is not one of the considerations. In the United States each states sets their own standards and initiatives and these are forever evolving and changing. Along with new initiatives are cohorts of consultants, universities, and researchers. The money spent to bring each new initiative alive from the conception stage to the implementation stage is mind boggling. Maybe we will wake up one day and realize more does not always mean better, but less may in fact be more.

  • raymond_j_ritchie

    The real problem is that americans should get out more.  When you meet senior academics at a place like Cornell who have no passport and have never been outside the USA you know there is something wrong with American STEM culture.  No-one without an overseas post-doc should ever be considered for a faculty position.  That applies to someone who works on kangaroos as much as anyone else.
    I am Australian (of indefinite racial origin) now working in SE-Asia.  I am a strict monolingual but I have worked in 5 different countries and published with people of about 10 natonalities.  Only a minority of my coauthors use English as their first language.  None speak Spanish and only one thinks he can speak French.
    Much of the article and the correspondence is distracted by the language issue.  In my career I have read thousands of scientifc papers and I have never come across one that needed translating.  The only colleagues of mine that ever use another language in their work are plant taxonomists who have to be able to read old 18th & 19th century works in french and german and be able to use botanical latin.
    Take a close look at modern scientific papers and you will realise that it is a very simplified form of English that does not closely resemble any form of spoken English.  They are not English literature either. There are no complex sentences and it deliberately has no elegance.  It has a limited core vocabulary of only about two thousand words. Over 80% of readers and writers of scientific papers are using English as a second language and you need to understand that fact in your writing.
    The problems with advocating learning a language are always what language and what for.  It is not unusual today for a paper to have 5 authors with no first language in common and none use English as a first language. Which one to choose? My coauthors used as their first language: Urdu, Hindi, Hebrew, German, Russian, Sudanese Arabic, Serbo-Croat, Mandarin and Thai. Who teaches you? In most cases only the literary form is available not the technical form.  A foreign language taught to you by someone with a humanities background is of little value professonally in STEM.  They give you the wrong exercise material and vocabulary.
    The good intentions of learning a foreign language can sometimes backfire. There are some cultures which prefer to interact with outsiders in English and are severely intimidated by outsiders who penetrate their deflection shields by learning their language.  You are shunned as dangerous.

  • dpn33

    Absolutely agree, 11182967. Negatives and positives can co-exist in a single phenomenon. Take, for example, the looooong lines at the coffee shops once the students are back. Negative for me, the waiting coffee hog, positive for the coffee shops — from the national chains to the local independents. Lost my favorite hamburger place in part because they forgot to plan for lost revenue over the summer. The fact that my family went there two or three times a month all year just wasn’t enough for some reason.

    It’s rarely either/or; most often it’s “and.”

  • http://twitter.com/jistudents JOI Students

    Are we making more multicultural society or segregating
    as domestic and foreign students? I guess we should a lead a way of integration
    rather than fragmentation with that old age concept of “melting pot”

  • greenbes66

    Although the mention of “The Kids Are All Right” was only a lead-in, I wanted to point out that it is an inference that the college at which the move-in scene takes place is Stanford, because the college is never named.  And for what it’s worth, the scene was filmed at Occidental College.

  • 609zr

    The truth finally comes to print.  It’s not about diversity it’s about money.  

  • gavin_moodie

    The main reputational effect is on the college’s standing in the region in which it closed its campus.  Presumably colleges establish off shore campuses in places where they expect to attract reasonable numbers of students.  Some students attend the off shore campus, but the off shore campus also draws attention to the home campus and increases student recruitment from the region of the off shore campus to the home campus.  Closing an off shore campus damages the college’s standing in the region considerably and is likely to reduce its recruitment of students from the region to its home campus for a considerable time.    

  • jcmarsh106

    The closing of the campus in Africa is definitely about diversity as well as access to education and missed opportunities. Giving the reason to its closing as not enough interest on the part of the Senegalese students is a poor one. Hardly enough effort on the part of the main stakeholders at the U.S. college was not put in to making sure their overseas college had what was required to succeed from the start.

  • jcmarsh106

    Usually University students reside in large urban type cities where the majority of their activities whether its academic related such as volunteering in various community projects or for leisure activities such as seeing a movie with other university students, culturally these students have alot to offer as international students and in return can learn much about their neighboring community.    

  • 22048164

    Has anyone every considered that, well, maybe these undergrads who are leaving the programs shouldn’t have been there in the first place.  It is my experience that a lot of people sign up for engineering majors, but very few can cut it because, let’s face it, not everyone can be an engineer, no matter how good the pay is or how hard their parents push them.  Programs shouldn’t be changed to accomodate those who really should have been in other majors to begin with.  They should be designed so that only the best and brightest will be building our future bridges and skyscrapers.

  • panhandle

    My experience in the 80′s was that it seemed every third incoming students listed Computer Science as their intended major.  They did so because the media and their families said that’s where “the money is at”. After their first programming class the number of declared majors dropped significantly.  No it wasn’t because I didn’t want them in the department. I worked every hard with the students. It was because the students found they were not suited for CS and CS was not suited for them.

  • ikswodnawel

    Interesting discussion but yes the curriculum for engineering is tougher than most, it is like being a marine not the national guard.  First mom and dad groomed little betty or bobby to be an engineer from day one in may cases.  Now they go to college and want to be electrical engineers but that is a little to difficult. So let’s change in sophmore year and go for mechanical but that still a little to tough.  So let’s stay on the trail and become a civil engineer or a math major in our junior year.  In doing so one takes course credits that do tend to stretch out the time line to at least 5-years for a B.S. ( unless engineering technology).  This has been the case for decades, so buck up and face it.  To become a reasonablity good engineer it cannot be addressed like a business school major or history major to get out in four years. Accept the fact, the more technical, the longer it takes!

  • chemteach

    One of the main reasons that it takes many students so long to get an engineering degree is students enter college without the core classes they needed to take in high school: chemistry, physics, trigonometry, and precalculus.  I was asked to help put together a two year engineering prep program at my community college.  I tried explaining to the administration that it wasn’t chemistry or physics holding students back.  Students must be ready to step into Calculus I in their first semester of college. Without taking Calculus I and II in their freshman year, most engineering majors cannot take their required engineering physics courses in their sophomore year. 

    I also agree that mentoring needs to improve in engineering departments.  My daughter who was ready for her surveying engineering program, changed to geology after a year because she felt the surveying engineering department just wasn’t interested in her as a student.  She took her two semesters of surveying engineering courses and drafting course and was able to use them as electives in the geology program. She now wants to pursue hydrology in grad school, so she is taking another engineering couse, fluid dynamics, which will count as an elective in her geology degree. 

    Engineering curriculum really starts in high school.

  • sciencegrad

     After reading this article, I fail to see any evidence that the proposed solutions would dumb down an engineering curriculum.  Can you please explain what you mean?

  • 11301218

     Absolutely correct!  This is true not only for traditional engineering disciplines but also
    for the physical and natural sciences and computer science — the math requirements
    start with calculus I.  If a student is not ready for calculus, they have to churn through
    a lot of high priced courses in college algebra, trigonometry, and pre-calculus that
    are basically high school courses (for which we give college credit).  This consumes
    money and time.  I am sufficiently enhanced chronologically to recall that when I
    and my classmates began university in the sciences or engineering 50 years ago,
    we were all calculus ready.  We did not even know anyone who planned to major
    in a science or engineering who was not.  Perhaps Sputnik did it.

  • theart

    “Research has identified frustration with spatial-visualization tasks as a primary reason that students drop engineering majors”

    At no point in the admissions process are spatial-visualization skills evaluated. The students who are dropping out were only steered into engineering because they were good at math and science in high school. This usually gets picked up around tenth grade, and the student is advised to focus on math and science almost exclusively. It’s only half way through sophomore design (when they need creativity and more than a vague grasp of the English language) that they realize math is a necessary but not sufficient skill. If you threw out every application that did not have both AP calc and at least one serious studio art class on the transcript, retention would go up dramatically.

  • engtechmatters

    Great article and one which needs brought to national attention and resolved. Unfortunately, many who have replied to this article seemed to have jumped on one issue (engineering rigor) and failed to address the other issues (e.g., “topic creep,” “rigid chains of prerequisite courses,” lack of faculty to student attention, etc.). I certainly do not disagree that many students cannot handle the rigor of engineering courses, many are in engineering for the money, or parental motivation and so on. However, many of us (including myself) absolutely need to be more committed to student success – many you know what I’m addressing here (research). Students who are struggling in any manner with a particular subject or issue need not be hung out to dry. Many students just don’t get it because the subject just isn’t taught well. The professor has a get-in and get-out mentality and leave students on their own to “get it.” Additionally, many schools are pressured to adding more classes to their engineering programs for the sake of generating further dollars for the program and institution. It clearly has nothing to do with preparing the student to become a more successful engineer. Regardless, American universities still produces the best engineers in the world and we will continue to do so.

  • 5768

    “Rigid chains of prerequisite courses…”

    Oh, boo hoo!  A one-semester INTRODUCTORY senior-level biochemistry course in a university chemistry curriculum may require a minimum consecutive chemistry chain of four chemistry courses: general chem I, general chem II, organic chem I, and organic chem II, not to mention mathematics courses required to enter general chem. 

    Over the decades engineering faculty have bemoaned that their engineering students have to wade through prerequisite chemistry, physics, and math courses and that these courses “turn off” their students long before they see an engineering course, blaming the non-engineering course content and faculty for turning their students away. Hence the call over the years for earlier engineering courses in engineering curricula which require no prerequisites.

    The mechanical engineering freshman who thinks s/he will learn how to design next-year’s automobile the freshman year has been misinformed from the start, and not by science and math faculties.

    If good engineering education is built on a solid science foundation perhaps engineering faculties would do better to educate their students as to the necessity and relevance of prerequisites and prerequisite tracking.  They appear unable to rise to this challenge and instead seem more willing to undermine the academic rigor of their own curricula and with it the quality of their own graduates.

  • lbcoleman

    Several years ago we did a study on why 6 years.  We compared the transcripts of Chemical Engineering majors who graduated in 4 years and those who took 5 years.  The 5 year plan students did one of two things — they changed majors from some other engineering curriculum to Chemical or in the majority of cases, simply wandered off the curriculum for unknown reasons.  While curriculum creep is real,  believe the engineering curriculum should and can be a four year degree if students remain focused.  

  • bioemeritus09

    The question that must first be answered is: Are today’s engineering graduates well-trained and competent professionals?  If not, by all means, change the curriculum.  If so, change the students. The inability to complete a rigorous curriculum that produces competent professionals is not the fault of the curriculum.  I don’t want my bridges collapsing after being engineered by a “graduate” who, in today’s curriculum would have been part of the hemorrhage.  You have something that works.  Why change it into something you’ve never tested?.  Changing education methods has ruined K-12 education.  And now the same ideas threaten universities.

  • bioemeritus09

    If a student is not ready for calculus, he should not be thinking of majoring in science or engineering until he is ready.

  • quasihumanist

    You neglect to mention that, nowadays, the worldwide market salary for a mid-level engineer is a good salary in India but barely enough to live on in the US.

    The creative geniuses have priced everyone else out of the American economy.

  • nontraditional001

    My ugrad ME degree took 6 years, but that was because I served in the Army after High School and forgot the basic mechanics of math, and I had to work full-time and take courses like Algebra and Trigonometry at a CC before entering the university.  My doctorate has taken roughly another 6 years.  I think there are many students like I was, working, changing careers, changing majors, etc. that factor in, but my ugrad program was designed to take 5 years or 4 if one was in the honors college.  If an incoming freshman is not a declared engineering major from day one then it could easily take 6 years to finish.  Interdisciplinary majors like biomedical engineering, can lengthen the time scale because biology and medical courses are added.  But overall, engineering always has a high wash out rate because it is rigorous.  The place to start would be better informing students about the rigors of the curriculum prior to allowing them entry.  There should be pre-engineering programs in high school.  Engineering is a curriculum that already has been effectively standardized and quality controlled via ABET.

  • manoflamancha

    This silly and presumptive article by second rate academics is missing the point entirely. Faculty and curriculum have little to do with the survival of spoiled American kids in engineering studies. The problem lies with the qualities of American students. In the fifties, retention was not high, and nearly 50% dropped out of engineering, but this only hardened the survivors who really WANTED to be engineers. I once took a poll in the eighties of freshmen engineering majors as I addressed them in a pep talk on choosing my department. Over ninety percent were doing it for the money, in a show of hands. Moreover, when I asked students I was assigned to mentor, how many hours they studied for each class hour, the answer was astonishing. In my student days, the number was fairly standard and well known to faculty and student alike, namely, three hours per class hour, which  for the traditional  class load of 16 hours of credits amounted to 48 hours per week. The average among the many advisees was an abysmal twelve hours per week of study! American students have a curiosity that is five miles wide and one millimeter deep. If you wonder why we produce some of the world’s crappiest cars, according to Consumer Reports, just take a careful look at your engineering schools. More dumbing down, watering down, hand holding and hand wringing or inflating grades will not change these facts about the state of American kids entering college, which has become an extension of High School. On the other hand, all the real engineering teachers reading this blog know that their best students are foreign and almost always from asia, who complain very little and always graduate on time. We don’t need more coddling and beauty pagents, we need the opposite: a tough curriculum full of fundamentals with a minimum of frill courses. The best ones will finish on track and on time.

  • nontraditional001

    While your nationality is not apparent your disdain for Americans is.  Your car analogy has less to do with engineering than with poor management at the executive level.  I have seen every nationality and ethnicity fail engineering exams.  But Americans do need better secondary education prep for engineering.  Foreign students arrive better prepared in that sense, but in graduate school the playing field is more level.

  • greatexpectations

    Engineering should not be a four year undergraduate degree and engineering programs should be published as such. Engineering is on a island of professional degrees that are awarded at the undergraduate level. Certainly an engineer should be held to a higher standard than say a CPA?

  • engtechmatters

    Yes, many American parents are negligent when it comes to their child’s education. Many work two jobs, dual incomes, and/or just do not care. Parents are one of the significant factors in a child’s academic success and, yes, the high school pre-engineering curriculum does need improved and we are doing something about it by investing more money in STEM education.

  • engtechmatters

    “Second rate academics?” Your age and partiality shows through this ignorant and biased comment.

  • manoflamancha

    What do you mean, Georgia State is first rate? I admit ignorance in some worldly matters, such as the French Renaisance, but I am not the fool you are, and your whole sorry generation! You will bring us all down.

  • greatexpectations

    “Is college education summer camp or hard work”…..I do not want the answer to this! As emphasis on retention for financial solvency is increasingly emphasized, the term college education nears oxymoronic levels. Above article is yet another concern to keep asses in seats rather than bestow degrees on the elite.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Clinton-Staley/6419242 Clinton Staley

    As a professor of Computer Science at a teaching university, I have a couple of reactions to this.

    First, I am sure there are always ways we can improve our teaching, and trying to do so is laudable and constructive.  Several of the approaches mentioned in the article sound promising.

    But…  Second, I am concerned by what sounds like an underlying assumption that high attrition in engineering is exclusively or even largely due to imperfect teaching practices.  The article’s unmentioned elephant-in-the-room (though it is well noted in the comments!) is that engineering is very challenging, and that many students go into it not so much out of sincere interest, but for career opportunities, or, as in my field, because they find its products, e.g. video games, “cool”.  Many such students, faced with the challenges that engineering presents, drop out quickly. 

    Accusing the faculty of causing this attrition risks encouraging even more bright young PhDs to double or triple their income by moving away from teaching into industry.  We need to value the excellent efforts that engineering faculty already put into their teaching, and recognize the unusual challenges presented by their field.  And, we need to place the burden of success in this field on both the teacher *and* the student. 

    I am also concerned by a recent tendency to measure success in engineering programs by throughput alone.  If we increase throughput, but do not maintain quality, then we may be sure that the engineering firms hiring graduates will do our filtering for us, and the result will be large numbers of graduates who have put in years of effort only to find no jobs waiting for them because they don’t meet the bar.  This is surely the case in my field, where a significant number of long term unemployed software developers exist in one of the best job markets in history for software development, one in which bright grads are getting offers well over $100,000/year, and others are getting none at all.  A degree alone, even one with a high GPA, guarantees the student absolutely nothing.  What they *learned* is all that matters in that job interview.

    Oh, and one final point: the reason these degrees are taking 6 years instead of 4 is that engineering has gotten harder over the last several decades.  In my own field, I’d make a gut estimate that becoming a competent software engineer takes 50 to 100% more effort than it did in 1980, when there was no internet, no object-oriented design, no GUI interface, etc.  At some point, we’ll all have to recognize that if other professional areas like medicine or law require graduate education for success, it’s perfectly reasonable that engineering should as well.  Do we seriously think engineering in the 21st century is simpler than those other professions?   If so, then why are we always short on engineers but not on lawyers or (at least yet) on doctors?  If not, then why do we insist on jamming 6 years of necessary education into 4, and then complain about high attrition?

  • 11209892

     I’ve heard this from several employers, that they want more specialized students.  It is also said among the private sector employers, that today’s undergraduates are significantly under trained in critical thinking, mathematics, skills, etc…If we examine things from a historical perspective it seems that those who have built the most are the one’s that are least specialized.

  • polargrid

    Agreed.  Notably, when my research group members work with any type of modeling software, they have a depressing tendency to shirk responsibility for the quality of their work and push it onto “the program.”  The brain turns off and it becomes a matter of pointing and clicking in a GUI while an impenetrable black box does the work.  They constantly write up computational work in terms of clicking on software modules and blindly reporting the output, rather than describing the calculation procedure that THEY executed (and don’t understand).  It’s a never-ending battle.

  • ikswodnawel

    Yes for only engineers are allowed to take basket weaving? As an engineer the perception is that we are not cool ( might be nerdy)but we need some of these soft courses to get outside our comfort levels and just maybe learn to broaden our horizon and sometimes marketability in this world of ours. So dumbdown is rather a dumb statement PERIOD. Most engineers can get a job somewhere as long as “they are willing to think outside the box” and accept that mobility is part of the 21st century too.  Also never met to many lazy engineers in my time – just lazy people!

  • manoflamancha

    I met Eugene Wigner once many years ago. He told me he had to get his first degree in Chemical Enginneering because…”my father thought I could make a living at it, and I was not smart enough to do Physics!” You have shown some wisdom today, rabbit.

  • manoflamancha

    Hey, Lew, but I am cool, nes’t pas? And not lazy, but very strong willed. Perhaps this is the key ingredient that is missing in the current crop of young American folk? I wonder if any in the blog will remember “will” as a national cry? Sad, but true. Some good ideas go bust.

  • bradleyhockey

    Great idea- all students deserve to be engineers if they desire to be engineers. For those who have been held back for whatever reasons let’s level the playing field- math for artists replaces upper level math and physics for poets replaces physics. Trophies and diplomas for all!! ….that ought to increase the numbers of engineers out there. One request keep those students away from bridges, tunnels and high rise buildings LOL

  • sages

    Say where do you get all those statistics? l am not disputing them, just curious.

  • csgirl

    I also teach in computer science and pretty much agree with all your points. I also worked in the software industry for many years, so I have some familiarity with what employers expect and need. The gap between what our students know when they graduate after 4 years, and what is actually *needed* to be a productive software developer is scary.

  • csgirl

    Because the tools are more powerful, the systems we develop are infinitely more complex. It is this complexity that creates the challenge.

  • csgirl

    I teach computer science to lots of students who are the first in their family to attend college, and who come from poor urban high schools. I have come to the conclusion that a rigid chain of prerequisites is *MORE* important for at risk students. They need the structure, because they are less likely to be able to figure out the correct path through the courses on their own. They are also often less able “catch up” in a course for which they lack the preparation because they often are working long hours at menial jobs to pay for school, and they also lack the skills to do independent study. I think that with a well structured program, one in which each student knows exactly what he or she will be taking each year, we would see far less attrition in this student population.

  • bscmath78

    sages, see “Statistics”, 3rd Edition, by Freedman, Pisani and Purves, 1998, an
    introductory statistics textbook for the non-mathematical college
    student.  Their analysis uses the March 1993 “Current Population
    Survey” using 1992 incomes, see pages 126, 202 and 203.  There are more stats relating to education and income in other parts of the book, including the exercises.

  • bscmath78

    Physics Nobel Prize winner Paul Dirac first became an electrical engineer at the University of Bristol, because he couldn’t afford to go to Cambridge.  He couldn’t find a job as an engineer, so started studying Math again at Bristol.  After getting his Math degree he was finally able to get sufficient scholarship money to go to Cambridge.

    Sadly, the STEM life has often been hard, even for the great. 

    “Rabbit”? What is the allusion or reference?

  • bscmath78

    polargrid, thank you for your report.  The SW “plug and chug” approach also is very prevalent in the Social Sciences and the acceptance of this work by the consumers of Social Sciences research is even more depressing. 

    They all ignore “Garbage In, Garbage Out” (GIGO), which we knew in high school.  Of course, in those days we did mental arithmetic until mid-high school, then log tables and slide ruler.  No calculators.  It seems bizarre that students are allowed to use calculators for standardized tests.  I don’t find the ability to use a calculator very impressive, especially if it doesn’t require Reverse Polish Notation. 

  • bscmath78

    sages. the r values are the approximate correlation coefficients reported in “Statistics”, 3rd edition.  I then squared the r value to give the proportion of the income “predicted” by the linear regression model, since this value is more meaningful for most people, as well as illustrating the weakness of the predictive power of education.

  • bscmath78

    manoflamancha, the problem is too many are “very strong willed,” very opinionated and think they are very “cool.”  Many illustrate that “Ignorance is Strength!” and “Ignorance is bliss.”  Many “think with their gut” or lower down. They strongly believe in “truthiness.” 

    When someone marshals some evidence and some logic, they loudly whine and complain at how long and complex the argument is.  They prefer the tweet.  It is hard to differentiate their behavior from laziness, at least intellectual laziness.  Since they fail to provide a counter-argument or counter evidence or counter logic.  They fail to point out errors.

    I remember “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” “as a national cry.”   I remember 2 year-olds as full of will.  I remember the Nazi propaganda film “The Triumph of the Will” and the thousand bomber raids along with much blood and treasure that were needed to deal with the resulting horrors.

  • bscmath78

    Almost 20 years ago, the September 21, 1992 issue of Fortune Magazine had the article,
    “The Care & Feeding of Engineers: Few are nerds wearing pocket protectors; most are sociable and articulate. They’re the front-line troops in the battles for the environment and U.S. global market share.” http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1992/09/21/76879/index.htm

    Which reveals this about the starting pay of engineers:

    “While engineers enjoy relatively good starting salaries — currently in the $35000 to $40000 range — their salary growth afterward is sluggish.”

    Remember, 1992 was after the Savings & Loan boom, bust, bailout, which still in 1992 had many voters discontented about the economy.  It is interesting to what issues were being raised back then.

    In 20 years, engineers have not done especially well when one considers that according to the recent Arum and Roksa report, the average full-time income for Engineering and Computer Science majors in its study was $50,625 vs. $32,200 for Social Sciences/Humanities.  Full-time employment was 63.29% vs. 48.47%, respectively.

  • nontraditional001

    Agreed.  I personally don’t trust FEA or turbulent CFD.  But there are many publications validating simulations with other simulations, layer upon layer.  The conundrum is as the simulations become more complex, validation becomes more complex to the point that in some cases it can’t be done.  I also agree that working closely with a skilled machinist greatly enhances the engineer’s design skills, but its not feasible for one to be both nowadays.

  • bscmath78

    sages, plus “1992 median family income for a family of four of $40,763″ comes from a September 21, 1992 article in Fortune Magazine “The Truth About the Rich and the Poor:  Are the wealthy gaining at the expense of the poor and the middle class? Conservatives and liberals can’t agree. Rhetoric aside, here are the facts.”
    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1992/09/21/76872/index.htm
    “(defined as at least two times the national median, which for a family of four is $40,763)”

    Almost 20 years later there are similar debates.

  • bscmath78

    sages, page 192 of the same Statistics 3rd Edition points out that the scatter diagram for income vs. education is heteroscedastic, which in this case means that the diagram spreads out as education increasing, which means the errors in the linear model increase as education increases.

    Unfortunately the textbook does not discuss how the correlation coefficient would change if the data was restricted to those with 12 or more years of education.  It also doesn’t discuss the impact of removing outliers, say removing the top and bottom 10% of income earners.  It doesn’t discuss making both those changes.  When you look at the scatter diagrams you see that there are a few people at various education levels that do very, very well, which suggests that this is because of the attributes of the individual combined with luck, and not strongly attributable to education.

  • manoflamancha

    John Updike.

  • manoflamancha

    All these thoughts in your first two paragraphs came to mind as I composed my first math book. It is highly regarded by students, and a best seller, but a bit of a sell-out on my part, to my eternal regret. You should compile your thousands of post, use heavy surgery, and publish as a book. Of course, what I think is very good, you’d probably cut out! I could be Boswell to your Johnson, or vice versa? 
    I was thinking of “Triumph of the Will” directed in 1934 by popular German actress Leni Riefenstahl as you surmised. It was given many major awards at the time for its original cinematography, but who knew the future to come?

  • bscmath78

     manoflamancha, the retrospective path of a young artist, “in my heart an indomitable will, I journeyed to Vienna.” I think Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” would have been hint enough (quoted above).  If not that, then how about “The Night of the Long Knives” which occurred before the Nazi Party congress. The film itself  with its regimentation, militarism, fanaticism, swastikas etc. would also seem hint enough.

  • Tony Oran

    I think one of the major issues is the isolation that students feel in such programs. There is a great deal of material to be covered, yet the interactions are limited – including student to student, student to professor, and professor to professor. Therefore, the last point in the article is one of the keys – improve interactions, but more importantly embrace social and collaborative learning. There are tools available that allows institutions to connect like never before and can foster co-teaching with multiple professors, social media type collaboration for students and more….

  • manoflamancha

    See bradleyhockey two days ago. Engineering degrees are not awarded to teams!

  • manoflamancha

    By the way, Clinton, Computer Science is NOT Engineering. So, confine your generalizations to that somewhat easier college program :)