Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba
nmap--
With respect, I disagree with a couple of points in your post.
|
I'm not sure we particularly disagree; perhaps, it's more different perspectives.
From one view, universities are certainly not monolithic. Disputes certainly exist between scholars, universities, colleges within universities, and even within departments. Such issues as core curriculum, whether there should be one, and what should be included within the core curriculum all result in heated arguments and hurt feelings. That said, the lifeblood of academia is the literature, and the ideas and mindset within the literature tends to flow throughout the system, thus maintaining a certain orthodoxy, with a few exceptions duly noted.
On the subject of the dissertation, it's absolutely true that the stated purpose of the dissertation is to add to the knowledge within the field. And it's also true that the departmental reputation is affected by the quality of the scholarship exhibited a graduate students. And of course, a committee of four faculty members must all be satisfied with the ultimate product. I would note that our school functions under the strong chair model, so perhaps I place more emphasis on the role of the chair than would be appropriate in every instance. In any event, I think we must ask ourselves what comes next. After the doctoral student successfully defends her dissertation, and their small nugget of additional knowledge is added to the total store, what are they to do? If they choose to enter academia, the had better expect to publish. And the papers they produce will, just like the dissertation, seek to provide some small incremental increase in knowledge within the field. So I must contend that although the immediate purpose of the dissertation is as you say, there is also an element of training for future research productivity within the academic system.
Grade inflation is an interesting problem. Perhaps you will permit me a few anecdotes. One of the classes I taught was a large survey course with no academic pretensions. It had hundreds of students, no prerequisites, and the goal was to get the students through with as little angst as possible. I had designed the course so that it had several assignments, all rather simple, a few online quizzes, open book, and with three tries each, and an end of semester project that required three pages of double-spaced writing and three references. Brutal, right? However, lest I be accused of excessive cruelty, I also made a point of telling the students that if they wanted an A but didn't feel like doing the assignments, all they had to do was come to class and participate in our class discussions. I encouraged them to argue with me. So all they had to do was sit in class and occasionally argue. How easy is that?
So one student had failed to turn in several assignments, hadn't bothered to come to class, and didn't want to come to class. She had a B. So she complained to one of my many superiors, who urged me to give her an A. I have enshrined his exact quote into memory. "Oh, just give her an A. She's stacked." Of course, with justification such as that, what else could I do? I gladly gave her an A. And people wonder why I comment: "Once you lose your integrity, the rest is easy!"
All, but that's not the worst. There was a student who had done so few assignments that he was wrapping up the semester with an average in the 30s. In addition, he did not want to come to class. So I, once again exhibiting a brutal personality, informed him that he would get a C. His helicopter mom ranted and raved, and the same gentleman who noted the important academic attributes of the student I mentioned earlier urged a higher grade. I held my ground; I only upped the grade to a B.
This becomes even more pathetic when we consider that this is a public state university which is embarked on an effort to be designated as a research one University. We are not talking some backwater private college.
And lest anyone think that this represents merely an individual or department out of control, some years ago another class that I taught experienced about a 20% failure rate, with the vast majority of the 80% who passed receiving A's. I only gave out F's when students literally did nothing at all in the class - and by that I mean, they did not even hand in a piece of paper with their name on it. They simply disappeared. They had averages less than 5%. So, what happened? A highly paid consultant, brought in from Austin, called me and my department chairman in to find a way to reduce the number of failures. Since the course had ceased to be core curriculum some years ago, the consultants concluded that no action was needed. But think about this - how can you get the student to pass when they won't even bother to come to class?
But I do not think we will see an end to grade inflation anytime soon. By and large, there is a mindset that everyone should go to college and everyone should have a degree. There is a distribution of talents, skills, and motivation among people that suggest to me that if we are committed to getting everyone through college successfully, then we must set standards to a very low level. Since we as a society have concluded that a college degree is the necessary minimum credential for most employment, then we can predict that everyone will want a college degree, even if they despise the very concept of scholarship.
We also have to consider that if the end goal is to get a degree, then it is entirely rational to minimize the cost of getting the degree, in terms of both money, time, and effort. Lowered standards makes it possible to reduce the amount of time and effort invested in the credential. In addition, as the costs continue to increase, hence forcing students to work more during their college years, time constraints indicate that students will shift effort from their studies to work.
As if the foregoing were not enough, we have to keep in mind that the colleges and universities are creatures of politics. High standards will tend to exclude some portion of the population; however, in the case of public institutions, the political realities are such that mindless inclusion trumps rigor every time. With private institutions, the realities of costs and budgets, along with the not necessarily monolithic (
) mindset of academia, urges inclusion. Furthermore, any institution that uses exceptionally high standards places itself at a potential competitive disadvantage to other institutions with less demanding standards.
In essence, if one wants high standards, then one must focus college education on those with the background, ability, and motivation to produce excellent scholarship. I simply do not detect any such trend today. Rather, there seems to be a tendency to define standards downward more each year.