In article <ki2lc0ppgvs9e35rdal73s0ni8t88aq7gf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"J. H. Johnson" <jhj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>In the past 15 years I have noticed a steady decline of my students'
>>quality and attitudes. They are less prepared and getting lazier. Their
>>interests have ****fted from learning and curiosity to simply getting
"good
>>grades" without willing to put out the effort. To my dismay, I learned
that
>>my observations were shared by my colleagues in their cl*****.
>The change is in you, and not the kids. Back in the 60s when I was in
>school, people said precisely the same thing about my generation, and
>for the most part it was true: the majority of kids did what they HAD
>to do to get by, and not a bit more. The same was true of my
>daughter, who just graduated, and my son, who flunked one class
>because he guessed wrong on the minimum needed to get by.
It WAS the case in the 60s. The 50s had the best college
cl***** of all time; the returned veterans had the drive,
and the colleges did not lower their standards for them
(they did not have to), but even raised standards. The
decline in undergraduate students became noticeable in the
60s, but this was not a major problem, as there were still
enough good students to provide good courses.
One of the major factors was the decline in the quality
of high school courses, and also in such items even in
elementary school as grammar and good history. The change
from geography and history to social studies took place
about this time, and the teaching of languages moved from
grammar-oriented to the memorization of phrases with no
use made of structure. This was also the time that the
full impact of the look-say illiteracy was finally noticed.
It was well recognized in the "old days" that the one real
mathematics course below the upper division college level
was the "Euclid" geometry course, teaching axioms, theorems,
and proofs, NOT memorizing facts and computational methods.
This got perverted, and the algebra course got lowered, by
the aim to have everyone take the same programs. Also, the
previously mentioned changes made memorization, routine, and
regurgitation the process, and getting grades the only goal
which anyone could see.
>The primary difference these days is that kids have many times the
>number of alternatives to doing homework than they did when I was a
>kid. Many high school kids then had a part time weekend job.
>Nowadays they have cars to sup****t and work 20 or 30 hours a week, or
>even full time. Money and being able to get around is more im****tant
>to most of them than grades. But that was equally true then.
It can be, if the adults instill it. Push understanding and
learning early, before the educationists knock it out of the
children. Give those who want to learn and can the chance to
do it without sitting in class bored. Before WWII, and this
still had some effect in the 50s, there was a separation at
the high school level between those going to high school and
those not, and while those not could take the college preparatory
cl***** if they were willing and able, there was no bowing to
the "lowest common denominator", which started in the elementary
schools in the 30s.
The rot set in, and the colleges fell for it, and made no attempt
to keep standards up. Thinking is out of fa****on now, and the
professor who makes them think is not going to be promoted or to
get raises. Mandatory student evaluation of teachers, taken as
dogma by administrators, is the rating by those who do not care
what they learn as long as they get grades, and at a time when
they have no good idea of how much they have learned.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
|
