Thursday, April 2, 2009
Class Reaction - April 1
Our discussion last night about whether a student is a failure if they don't achieve passing grades in their non-major classes still leaves me a little uncertain about where a person who could be genius level in one area would fall if they can't be successful in other areas. Where do these students find a niche to study and encourage their intellectual gifts? Bill Gates was able to leave Harvard when a sophomore to start his own company. Although this was his own decision and not a result of failing, he still was so gifted that he didn't need all the extra curriculum Harvard would have required of him in 2 more years of college. Not many 20 year olds today would be financially able to do that if they can't make it at a prestigious university. I had classmates at Virginia Tech who had to drop out of their forestry/wildlife degree programs because they could not pass required classes like economics or accounting. These were people who had excellent grades in science-related subjects and would have made terrific natural resource professionals. Two of them left college and went to work as loggers and one returned home to a community college. I understand the need for universities to produce well-rounded graduates and that they cannot keep enrolled students who cannot pass basic requirements. I just wonder if there is a better "grade" system that would have room for students who have been failed by their weaknesses instead of passed for their strengths.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Janet, I agree with you. I think that we need to encourage people to pursue and embrace their strengths. We do not all excel at the same things, which is what makes us individuals. Why should someone be denied the opportunity to study forestry, or any other subject, just because they are not great mathematicians. There is a place for general education at the University level, but maybe we should reconsider its importance in terms of assessment.
I agree with Janet and Jennifer. Very few students are great at every subject. I remember being in college for my undergraduate degree, and my entire math class struggling to pass the class. It was obvious that the teacher did not care if we passed or failed. We had a professor that we could not understand. Math has always been one of my weaker subjects. As we have all discussed before, when I found out I had to take a math class for this program I thought oh no. We ended up with a great professor. This just goes to show that the teacher does make a big difference. Students who are struggling with general classes at the University level should be encouraged. I am not saying be babied because they know they are in college. If a student is truly trying and struggling, then I believe the professor should be willing to work with that student.
I agree with you all. If you think back several hundred years ago, people weren't required to learn all of these "extras". They learned their trade and that was their specialty. These extras have now become part of our grammar of schooling. It seems unconventional for someone to just focus on one thing, maybe this is part of the reason why we couldn't accept passing someone if he failed some of his "extras".
Think of people who are journalists, do they need to be able to do math in order to be able to write well? As Janet said, I understand the need to create well-rounded individuals but it seems unfair to prevent someone from pursuing their passion because they can not master something that has nothing to do with what they will eventually do.
Even within disciplines this may still be the case. Take science for example. A person may not be very good at biology, but he may be excellent at chemistry. Well since a form of biology is part of the curriculum to receive a degree in chemistry; it is necessary. A talented chemist may fall through the cracks for lack of mastery of a subject he may never use.
My opinion somewhat differs although I do understand and see the other views positively. I am an advocate of a well-rounded college education that will require taking a gamut of subjects that are not in one particular field of expertise. Colleges, at the undergraduate level, are not designed to hone in on a particular field and teach to only that field. Technical schools are designed in this way and are readily available for students that desire this type of an education. There are also prestigious subject oriented schools such as The Julliard School in New York City that offer intense training in a particular field. I entered Penn State as a provisional student and kept that status until I could successfully pass whatever math class it was that was required for my major (I have long since forgotten what that needed math class was as I don’t care for math and retention was not necessary). In order to do that, I had to find a way to accomplish the school’s required goal. It threw me off track and made it necessary for me to take a summer class, but I played the game and accomplished the goal. Grades were an essential requirement. Therefore, to meet the grade requirement, I started with a remedial high school level math class to build a knowledge base to ensure I would pass the required math class. It worked. It is easy to drop out of college, but the determined don’t. It is my hope that an employer and/or graduate school would take into consideration that if the lower grades on the transcript are in subjects not directly related to the need that less attention would be paid to them. However, as an employer or graduate school advisor I would hope that the totality of fulfilling the requirements for the degree was looked at as favorable. A goal was started and completed. Grading is a necessary evil applying it is subjective.
Post a Comment