Too much input?

The September 21st issue of the New York Times Sunday Magazine is entitled: Teaching. The articles discuss everything from tenure, to academics at the Naval Academy, and to the dual-life as a novelist and professor.

The benefits and burden of Academia
I will first summarize the articles and then discuss how life in academia can be too comfortable for students and professors alike. What are the drawbacks to the increased freedom and stability that come from life on a college campus? On the opposite end of the spectrum, what is life like without enough choice at college?

For this post I will discuss tenure. Next, the dual life of the writer-professor. And the thrid post in this series will discuss the academic life at the Naval Academy.

Tenure: Decided by students?
This past week I received a memo requesting a written evaluation of one of my professors. The letter reads (I will refer to the Professor as DR. P):

"Dear Evan,
During the present academic year, Dr. P is being considered for reappointment and promotion to Associate Professor. Your comments on Professor P as a teacher and as a faculty member outside the classroom will be of great help to those involved in making the reappointment and promotion decisions."

Wow! My comments, my thoughts on my professor decide whether or not he/she will have a job. Tenure decisions are extremely serious. At Swarthmore, when a professor is up for reappointment, a wide range of students receive a letter just like mine. Students with high grades, medium grades, low grades; majors, minors, non-majors and non-minors. Class evaluations are also give out, but these letters are the serious ammo to be used in favor for or against a certain professor. For the most part I feel the letter request at Swarthmore is pretty good. There is a wide range of input and the content of the letter is left up to the writer, and not predermined by a stock set of questions. However, Swarthmore tenure decisions are not perfect. Just last year, after a professor was denied tenure, students started a campaign to reevaluate the tenure decision. This was a professor they loved. It just goes to show how complicated the tenure process is. And though Swarthmore's process is not perfect, I do feel it is more just than the tenure process at Wesleyan College, as dicussed in the NY Times magazine.

Author of the article "Judgment Day," Mark Oppenhiemer details the tenure process of Annemarie Bean. She was hired at her almamater Wesleyan, and was told that on her course evaluations 85% of her students must rate her course as Outstading or Good, for her to cotinue as an member of the college. Dr. Bean teaches unique classes, such as the history of minstrelsy, and is rather quirky person. But as Oppenheimer describes, Bean only receive 76% Outstanding or Good and her job was in trouble, and she was ultimately denied reappointment. She was also denied reappointment at Williams. But, what Oppenheimer finds, by looking through her course evaluations, is that most students really loved or hated her. Some found the quirks endearing, others grating. Some liked the loose structure of the class, others despised it.

(Digression: there is much research on whether studets evaluations are accurate or not. It seems to be largely dependent on the context, (marks may not be as high if given out before the final exam, or may be high if studets are given a treat while they rate the courses. For more see NY Times: Judgment Day, by Mark Oppeheimer.)

So I ask, are we losing some of the character at our colleges because some students don't rate the course outstanding, but others do?. Don't many of us choose colleges where we can learn for the sake of learning? Aren't professors like Dr. Bean the ones we go to college for?; the ones who open our minds to think about a topic in a way we didn't think could be possible.

My good friend took a course on the band the Beatles, which he loved. He did all the reading knows the stories behind the songs, some might say useless others might say fascinating. Currently, Swarthmore has a class called "Battling Against Voldemort," that was recetly featured on MTV News. http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1595623/story.jhtml

Read the article and watch the video. Should quirky classes such as these be cut out fo colleges.

One must remember that college is a business, no matter how lowly of lofty the institution, colleges must make money. And who are the college catering to? The students.

Some might say this is great. The students must have more say, after all it is they who must take the course and they (and or their parents) who are paying for it. But college should be about more than what a student wants. After all, I am sure when I am 50 years old I will have a different perspective on my college experience that I do now. After all how much do 18 and 20 year old college students know? Quite a bit, I am one of them. But I haven't finished college yet, so I am not going to pretend like I know how I will remember the impact of my various courses. The President and Deans of the college must seek to mke colleges uique. They must provide niches of thought and understanding that cannot be found elsewhere.

Do we really want all our youth learning the same things in college, having the same experiences, and getting the same jobs? We are close enough to that if not there already. I hope to meet college graduates who can teach me something, I want to find people from whom I can learn. Let it be the role of the institutions, the institutions must take responsibility to provide the world with diversity of thought, creativity in ideas, and an overall way more fascinating existence.