next »

[der_gadfly]

My commentary on the homeless person was a metaphor for how some people act when they can be reasonably assured of anonymity: it is easy to take a pot-shot and then run. I personally do this on occasion, just for fun, except that when done here, it is called being a troll... (sigh)

Now, if I could only draw.....

[anthroid]

My commentary on the homeless person was a metaphor for how some people act when they can be reasonably assured of anonymity: it is easy to take a pot-shot and then run. I personally do this on occasion, just for fun, except that when done here, it is called being a troll... (sigh)

Now, if I could only draw.....

Yes, particularly when they send venomous, pathetic PMs.

[grasshopper]

Yes, particularly when they send venomous, pathetic PMs.

Maybe it was PMS.

Ha! Ba da bum.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

What an unnecessary train wreck.

Here's what should have happened at OP's department.  Chair should have come to talk to OP about the number of students doing badly.  OP should have asked how her curve compared to department averages for the same courses.  Then: (1) If no such averages exist, chair shuld have thought about compiling them, and waited to continue the discussion until there was evidence that OP was genuinely out of line.  (2) If such averages exist, and OP was not out of line, chair should have shifted the discussion of excessive Ds and Fs to the department level.  (3) If such averages exist, and OP was out of line, chair and OP should have looked over OP's exams and assignments together (along with grading rubrics) to see if OP was setting standards too high (as young faculty often do), perhaps with a recommendation that OP and some more senior faculty get together to calibrate themselves.

Meanwhile: OP should understand that a department chair - even if 'just' another department member elected to the position by everyone else for a limited term - is their boss for this kind of situation; if you didn't occasionally need a clear hierarchy in a department, then you'd never need a chair position.  Not all chairs have good management or people skills, as most people who choose to become professors do not do so in order to become managers (or managees, for that matter).  If yours came to you to discuss this as a problem, it is likely that they are under some sort of pressure from elsewhere as well.  Rather than dig in your heels and assume a petty dictatorial motive, it is far better to find out what the larger problem is that they are trying to solve, and offer to work with them on that problem.  In my experience, in both temporary and permanent positions with over 10+ chairs in several departments, life is much easier when you offer support to your chair rather than fight him/her, even if your inclination is to resist them.

Anthroid, I am curious as to what being at a SLAC has to do with the nature of grade distributions: I was a student at a SLAC, at least half the students in my freshman physics course had Ds or Fs.  On the other hand, I know of at least two departments in my current RU/VH who never give a grade below a 'B'.  It seems to me that a department can choose to be tough or choose not to be, regardless of the size category of institution, though of course the target population of the institution (as well as field norms) should inform that decision.  - DvF

[embitteredhistorian]

What an unnecessary train wreck.

Here's what should have happened at OP's department.  Chair should have come to talk to OP about the number of students doing badly.  OP should have asked how her curve compared to department averages for the same courses.  Then: (1) If no such averages exist, chair shuld have thought about compiling them, and waited to continue the discussion until there was evidence that OP was genuinely out of line.  (2) If such averages exist, and OP was not out of line, chair should have shifted the discussion of excessive Ds and Fs to the department level.  (3) If such averages exist, and OP was out of line, chair and OP should have looked over OP's exams and assignments together (along with grading rubrics) to see if OP was setting standards too high (as young faculty often do), perhaps with a recommendation that OP and some more senior faculty get together to calibrate themselves.

Meanwhile: OP should understand that a department chair - even if 'just' another department member elected to the position by everyone else for a limited term - is their boss for this kind of situation; if you didn't occasionally need a clear hierarchy in a department, then you'd never need a chair position.  Not all chairs have good management or people skills, as most people who choose to become professors do not do so in order to become managers (or managees, for that matter).  If yours came to you to discuss this as a problem, it is likely that they are under some sort of pressure from elsewhere as well.  Rather than dig in your heels and assume a petty dictatorial motive, it is far better to find out what the larger problem is that they are trying to solve, and offer to work with them on that problem.  In my experience, in both temporary and permanent positions with over 10+ chairs in several departments, life is much easier when you offer support to your chair rather than fight him/her, even if your inclination is to resist them.

Anthroid, I am curious as to what being at a SLAC has to do with the nature of grade distributions: I was a student at a SLAC, at least half the students in my freshman physics course had Ds or Fs.  On the other hand, I know of at least two departments in my current RU/VH who never give a grade below a 'B'.  It seems to me that a department can choose to be tough or choose not to be, regardless of the size category of institution, though of course the target population of the institution (as well as field norms) should inform that decision.  - DvF

Apparently the internet makes even distinguished professors act like venomous trolls; there's a book in that, methinks.

Anyhow, I've had the odd career of teaching at extremely distinguished and extremely bad universities in 6 countries, and I would honestly say that the quality of my students and the quality of the university are tangentially linked, at best. I have also gotten in trouble for giving too low grades at every institution I've been at, including the most prestigious ones. My current university has a insititutionally mandated curve by which a certain percentage get A's, a certain percentage get B's, etc. It stifles creativity and academic freedom to say the least, but it also makes the grading process much more objective and makes grade inflation impossible. I hated the system at first, but I've grown to love it.

[kedves]

I was a student at a SLAC, at least half the students in my freshman physics course had Ds or Fs.

Do you think that is true today?  I don't know; I'm wondering what you guess about it.  I know the grade distributions at many schools have changed over the years, more at higher-level schools than other ones.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Anyhow, I've had the odd career of teaching at extremely distinguished and extremely bad universities in 6 countries, and I would honestly say that the quality of my students and the quality of the university are tangentially linked, at best. I have also gotten in trouble for giving too low grades at every institution I've been at, including the most prestigious ones.

This is (I think) a major difference between European and Asian universities, and those in the US.

Do you think that is true today?  I don't know; I'm wondering what you guess about it.  I know the grade distributions at many schools have changed over the years, more at higher-level schools than other ones.

I don't know for sure specifically for my alma mater, but high rates of sub-C grades remain common for intro courses at most serious departments in Physics/Math/Chemistry/Engineering.  The reason is not to be a hardass, but rather that 'C' is usually the grade required to go on to the next course in a sequence, and it does a would-be Engineering major no good to let them move on when they haven't mastered the material.  If you fail Calc II and have to retake it as a sophomore, you have a better chance of eventually getting your BS in engineering than if you are socially passed up and only fail when you are a junior. - DvF

[kedves]

I don't know for sure specifically for my alma mater, but high rates of sub-C grades remain common for intro courses at most serious departments in Physics/Math/Chemistry/Engineering.  The reason is not to be a hardass, but rather that 'C' is usually the grade required to go on to the next course in a sequence, and it does a would-be Engineering major no good to let them move on when they haven't mastered the material.  If you fail Calc II and have to retake it as a sophomore, you have a better chance of eventually getting your BS in engineering than if you are socially passed up and only fail when you are a junior. - DvF

That makes sense.  I was thinking of the "Physics for Poets" course my friend the Kenyon alumna took rather than the calculus course my boyfriend the engineer took and re-took.  At our state u., engineering was called "pre-business" based on that course.

In my intro course, sociology, a C is the best some students can do while trying hard, but a student almost has to make an effort to get a D.

[polly_mer]

I don't know for sure specifically for my alma mater, but high rates of sub-C grades remain common for intro courses at most serious departments in Physics/Math/Chemistry/Engineering.  The reason is not to be a hardass, but rather that 'C' is usually the grade required to go on to the next course in a sequence, and it does a would-be Engineering major no good to let them move on when they haven't mastered the material.  If you fail Calc II and have to retake it as a sophomore, you have a better chance of eventually getting your BS in engineering than if you are socially passed up and only fail when you are a junior. - DvF

That makes sense.  I was thinking of the "Physics for Poets" course my friend the Kenyon alumna took rather than the calculus course my boyfriend the engineer took and re-took.  At our state u., engineering was called "pre-business" based on that course.

In my intro course, sociology, a C is the best some students can do while trying hard, but a student almost has to make an effort to get a D.

Yes.  Physics for poets should be set so that a C can be earned by any diligent student in the general population.  However, physics for people who need physics has to have the C set at the minimal competent level that will allow for success in the next course in the sequence.  Often that means a lot of people fail because they refuse to put in the effort required to learn the material outside of class even though most serious science and engineering programs put in place a lot of outside support to help people through the introductory classes.


One of the main purposes of the gate-keeper courses is to indicate the level of effort needed to be successful in the major and the profession.  People who are unwilling or unable to put in that effort when tutoring and help sessions are readily available will be sunk junior year when they have to put together their own study groups for the twenty to thirty hours a week of effort outside of class that they will need to be successful.

[kedves]

Based on the chair's response, it sounds as if the OP's intro anthropology course is not intended by the school to be a gate-keeping strategy.

[francie_]

Based on the chair's response, it sounds as if the OP's intro anthropology course is not intended by the school to be a gate-keeping strategy.

Right, the OP's courses seem to be key components of a tuition-retention strategy.

I agree with DvF; this thread became an unnecessary trainwreck.  Was it even established that the OP was a) young and idealistic, and b) ABD and on the job market (hence the threat of determining her ID in order to blacklist her app to a certain institution)?  None of Polenta's posts tell me these things for certain.  Did I miss something?

Oh, and what is so wrong about wanting to hold students to certain standards in the face of tuition-retention pressures?  This topic is cause for endless complaints on the forum.  Has something changed?  Did miss a memo?

[grasshopper]

I can't speak for others, but I'm reminded of VP's mantra that we have to teach the students we have, not the students we wish we had.

Whether or not the chair is concerned with retention above and beyond actual learning is, for me anyway, somewhat secondary. The OP has a class with a 30% failure or near-failure rate. That sounds high to me.

Simply moving everyone up one grade scale isn't the only way to address this problem. A more practical and effective tactic would be to examine why the students are getting such low grades. Why aren't they learning?

Well, maybe they're used to just being handed grades, and are lazy bums. That's certainly a possibility. And if so, then changing that mentality in one class would be an uphill battle, and one that probably isn't worth it for an adjunct.

But maybe the professor's expectations are out of whack with the actual abilities of the students. When we teach, we have to balance what we consider to be reasonable expectations in the field with the ability levels of the students we're teaching. I think that a first year Religious Studies course should teach students the difference between a confessional and a piece of scholarly research on religion. This means that when students hit my second, third, and fourth year courses, they should be able to distinguish between a confessional or apologetic piece and a social-scientific study of religion. But if they can't (or won't), then it's my job to reinforce this distinction. Even though they should be able to do it, I can't just leave it at that and fail the whole lot of them. I have to teach them what I want them to know. Otherwise, everything else I do in my course will be wasted.

Polenta's story makes me wonder if she is trying to teach the students she thinks she should have, rather than the ones who are actually enrolled in her course.  

[bread_pirate_naan]

Did I miss something?

OP insults DC.  Pile on. OP mentions area of specialization.  DC with same specialization enlightens/bullies OP with allusion to pseudonymity and disciplinary conference interviews.

Irony ensues.

[francie_]

Did I miss something?

OP insults DC.  Pile on. OP mentions area of specialization.  DC with same specialization enlightens/bullies OP with allusion to pseudonymity and disciplinary conference interviews.

Irony ensues.

Yes, I got all that.  I meant, did I miss some "facts in evidence" about the OP's age, relative teaching experience, and ABD/job search status?

Grasshopper, I agree with you in general that one must make adjustments/allowances for the students one has.  All teaching is local.  Still, there is not enough information about this entire situation to justify the snap judgment that Polenta is a bad fit/unfit to be teaching where she is.

[grasshopper]

Grasshopper, I agree with you in general that one must make adjustments/allowances for the students one has.  All teaching is local.  Still, there is not enough information about this entire situation to justify the snap judgment that Polenta is a bad fit/unfit to be teaching where she is.

Well, you know how bad I am at judging character on these fora. But I do think that there is evidence of bad fit here.

If the chair is all about retention, and Polenta refuses to lower her academic standards, then that's bad fit.

If the problem lies in not teaching to the abilities of her students, and she refuses to acknowledge that possibility, then any institution without an "ideal" student base will be a bad fit.

Either way, I'm seeing bad fit.


That said, the issue of "fit" isn't really that important if you're just adjuncting there until moving into a tt position somewhere else. If Polenta were a full faculty member, it would be an entirely different story. As it stands, though, my advice would be to either a) do some scrutiny of teaching methods; or b) suck it up. Or both, actually. This is just a temporary gig. Suck it up AND improve. Win-win.