On more than one occasion, I have had students ask for help with their math homework. I’ve always found math very easy, but I haven’t taken a math course in a while, so I am usually only able to help in half of the situations. That made me start questioning some of the content that students are learning (or supposed to be learning) in high school, and I don’t just mean math.

If I were to redesign the course load of high schools, I’d make it student-focused. Currently, the emphasis seems to be on the core subjects with some opportunities to take vocational courses. Essentially, right now it’s theory before application (that is, if application ever happens). Let me give some examples:

A physical education course should be required every term, but it should actually include education. In my experience, PE courses were basically “go out there and use up your energy.” Students should have the opportunity to take the PE courses they want (basketball, yoga, weightlifting, etc.), but the education needs to be built in. I don’t understand how you can have a weightlifting class without teaching students about calories, protein, etc. Usually many of the students who would benefit from a health class are instead bored out of their minds because they see no application to what they’re learning.

If students had the opportunity to build robots, the math and technology skills required to do so would be much more interesting and worthwhile. If they were to learn how to fill out applications, create resumes, and write cover letters, writing skills and knowledge would be a lot more valuable. Imagine if students in a world language course (e.g., Spanish, French, etc.) actually had to interact with people who spoke that language exclusively (whether in person, via phone or email, or whatever method would work), even if it were only once every couple of weeks.

A side benefit to all this is that students would have a varied experience that could help them decide where they want to go with their lives. The hands-on activities would make for a much more interesting day for students, and they’d probably be much happier. Teachers wouldn’t have to deal with the common “Why do we have to learn this?” question; the answer would be obvious. All of the courses should be designed to give the students skills that are valuable in the “real world,” while attempting to pique their interests and encourage them to continue their education.

The biggest problem with this comes down to funding and logistics. In other words, a school of two hundred students isn’t going to be able to offer the variety that a school of two thousand would be able to. Of course, that’s no different than the current situation.

Anyway, that’s enough rambling for now; don’t let my idealism catch you.

Happy holidays everyone!

A common approach is to have three categories that essentially equate to excellent, good, and poor. Each is worth a given set of points. On one particular rubric that my presentation was based on recently, they were worth six points, three points, and one point respectively. That means someone scoring a “good” earns three out of six points, 50%! In every class I have ever been in, 50% was failing and far from good. Even a score of four is 67%, which is lower than required for credit in most college courses. Of course, many educators don’t want to hand out “perfect” scores too often, so excellent work is frequently given just under the maximum number of points. In this case, that would be five points out of six, or a whopping 83%, a low B for near perfection.

Telling a student that he or she did well and then handing him/her a failing grade doesn’t send the right message.

2. Testing for Knowledge
Have you ever had a test that was all about identifying terms? Given this word, can you find the canned definition? These types of tests don’t test the understanding that students have; they only test ability to memorize points. College should be about thinking deeply and connecting complex thoughts, not about rote memorization.

3. Few Tests / Easy-to-Grade Tests
Sometimes classes are filled with far too many people and simple fill-in-the-bubble tests become necessary, but that’s not always the case and a professor shouldn’t rely on that type of test just because it is easy to grade. Having only multiple choice tests does not give a professor a real understanding of a student’s level, because the student can provide no feedback (“I thought X because of Y.”). Similarly, having a course where the only grades are a mid-term test and a final is stupid. Doing poorly on the first test ruins the course for that student. After that point, the focus is on the final and how much one has to score to still pass. The student learning and improving a remarkable amount is then reflected only in an “okay” grade due to the averaging of the tests. Furthermore, minimal tests means that students will be more stressed, making them less likely to perform to their ability levels.

4. The Doctor Complex
“You must address me as Doctor Blah. I have 47 degrees in blahblah.” Yeah? So what? All my other professors are in the same boat, but they are cool enough to put titles away and get to know their students on a human level. Admit your mistakes and limitations; be human. The paper degree isn’t what makes a person worthy of respect….

5. Not Relating Ideas
Students learn so much more when they can have concrete examples, especially if those examples are relevant. For example, in a previous Educational Psychology course, the professor always used examples of children under 10. For those of us in that class pursuing secondary education, there was nothing to relate to. The professors can typically see students’ majors on the roster and that’s a good starting point. If all of your students are math majors, they probably aren’t interested in the Shakespeare analogy. A good professor will actually learn a little about the students (e.g., hobbies) and tie that in.

6. Hypocritical
There is little in the world more irritating that hypocrisy. One of my professors made a very big deal about having perfect papers with no spelling, grammar, or other errors. Then we received the assignment that we were supposed to respond to and there were several spelling, grammar, and other errors on it. I found it extremely hard to concentrate on the assignment when all the errors were calling out to me. “Look this professor can’t even meet his/her own requirements!”

7. PowerPoint Reading
Do not read your PowerPoint or other presentation to us. That does not make you technologically savvy; it makes you an amateur. The electronic presentation should be an outline, a supplement to your class. If you are just going to read it to students, email them the slides so they don’t have to waste their time coming to your class. Similarly, the course textbook should not be the sole point of learning.

8. No Inter-Student Connection
Typically you go to a new college and find that your first classes are filled with pretty much everyone on the entire planet, you can’t hear or understand what the professor (or assistant in many cases) is saying, and you don’t know anyone. This is a great opportunity for the professor to get you to connect with other students. They don’t even have to use group work, but it can be extremely useful (especially if it is low-stakes and in-class group work). Simply giving the students time to meet the person to their left and to their right is a nice start. If the overall goal is for the students to learn the material, then having someone to study with would help and the time taken from class is minimal.

9. “.DOC” Format
When many professors share their syllabus through the hideous abomination known as Blackboard, they do so in .DOC format. Without getting into it too much, this is a Microsoft format. That means if someone isn’t using Microsoft software, what they are using might not display the document in the same way (especially with tables, in my experience). Fonts can also be different from one computer to the next, which affects the layout of the document. Forcing students to use specific software (that is not provided by the university) is limiting and monopolistic. College is about broadening your perspective, not narrowing it.

10. Lecture, Lecture, and More Lecture
If there is one thing that can make you a terrible professor, it is the excessive use of lecturing. Talking for hours without stop, without interaction, kills the audience. Ask questions and give the students time to respond. Encourage student input. Break it up with a joke, even a bad one helps. Professors don’t need to be extremely entertaining, but they should be better than an audio book.

There is nothing inherently untrustworthy as far as the Internet goes. Wikipedia is one of the most commonly untrusted sites. Why? Because anyone can add to it. Therefore, many teachers assume that means it is invalid. Their assumption must be something like people don’t know anything about X subject but know enough about technology and have enough free time to make up inaccurate information to put online, or maybe people are inherently evil and want to give false info, or maybe that the Internet is solely a propaganda machine (much like any political campaign), or…? The only valid argument to not using Wikipedia is that encyclopedias are traditionally supposed to be “common” knowledge and not in-depth (but that has obviously changed). Plus, you can always go to Wikipedia and look at what articles are cited on a particular topic and pursue those. A printed encyclopedia can have inaccurate information (what happens when we disprove a theory?) and so can a web-based encyclopedia. The difference is that one can be updated in minutes and the other will take a year and a lot of money.

One might try to go with the “but the Internet doesn’t have editors” argument. Rather than pointing out that everyone who uses Wikipedia is a potential editor (or that they actually do have people and bots who solely act as editors), I think it’s more valuable to note that books have had editors and still had inaccuracies. Plus, you wouldn’t reference an X-men comic book for a biology paper on genetics (“Well, Professor X said it was a genetic mutation caused by…”), because we all know that is ridiculous. We learn from a young age which printed resources are valid and which are not. Many of us also learn which electronic resources are valid and which are not. Those who have not learned to make that distinction should be taught the skill of identifying the credibility of an online resource. We shouldn’t allow blanket statements about the Internet being inaccurate or unreliable.

Perhaps the comic book is too obvious of an example. What if a student quotes the bible for his/her geology paper? It’s a printed book, so it must be more reliable than any Geologists’ Association online!

Prior to the “Web 2.0″ shift, a good counter to teachers claiming “Anyone can put something online” was to ask, “Really? Do you know HTML and how to use SFTP?” Of course their claim of the Internet having no credibility stems from fear of the unfamiliar, so the teacher is highly unlikely to know anything concrete about the Internet, let alone HTML. If you were talking to someone particularly… stuffy, s/he might say, “No, but I can learn it.” Then you just ask the teacher what resource s/he is going to use to learn HTML. What resource will s/he use to find a web host? I sure hope it isn’t the Internet, because that thing is not reliable!

Some teachers might say that they don’t allow Internet resources to be referenced because some students can’t determine a site’s credibility. Why don’t these teachers teach their students this valuable skill? “That’s not my area. I’m a ____ teacher, not a technology teacher!” When they drive their cars away from the mechanic shop and get into an accident because their brake lines had a leak, I hope they try to sue the mechanic who did the oil change so he could say, “Well yeah, I saw that your car was dripping brake fluid, but that’s not my area. I just change the oil.”

Essentially, someone completing the program does the coursework of two majors. First, you have to complete the coursework for an endorsement (such as the English/Language Arts endorsement, which requires a minimum of 60 upper-level credits). Then, you have to complete the coursework on the education side, which is another 40 upper-level credits. After that, you have to complete a semester of student teaching (24 internship credits), which is 7 hours a day, five days a week for 18 weeks (plus any outside work, obviously… and don’t ask me how the rough equivalent of 50 quarter-hours only counts as 24 credits). Add in the 60+ GUR credits and you have at least 184 credits (180 is the minimum required number of credits required for a BA/BS). That’s about the equivalent of the Electronic Engineering program (in terms of classes required and no extra room for electives, though the EE may actually give you the chance to take some electives since many EE courses are also GUR’s and the EE degree requires less upper-level courses).

Those are just the required college courses, though. You still have to take the WEST-B tests (three of them), take the WEST-E test(s), and do the fingerprinting, sexual harassment training, etc. All of those things can also cost money.

Finish all of that and you’ll be ready to start hunting for your $30,000-a-year job!

Let’s take a wild scenario… Person 1 is a white 18-year-old who is supporting himself at a minimum-wage job. Neither of his parents are around to help him. He’s a lower-class guy who really enjoyed high school, so he wants to be a teacher. He worked hard in high school and made good grades, hoping that would help him with scholarships so that he could better his life and become a teacher.

Person 2 is a black businessman. He’s only 22, but he already owns his own business because his parents make millions from their businesses. His regular income is easily in the six-figure range and he drives a Ferrari. He too enjoyed the high school atmosphere and wants to become a teacher, but he didn’t try hard in high school and earned a 2.0 from his private school.

If these two people want the scholarship, only person 2 can earn it. That’s right, race is more important than need or merit. Yes, this is an unlikely and extreme example, but what difference does it make? If person 1 made $20,000 a year and person 2 made $30,000, the situation would be the same. The second person would earn the scholarship based entirely on skin color.

I decided to do a little research to figure out why it’s okay to be openly racist on a government site and I found Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech. Here is the part that is relevant:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Oh yeah, if my kids can get a leg-up on those damn white kids just by having non-white skin, then ignore my first sentence!”

After that the crowd started chanting “Black Power!” and lynched a bunch of whities. After all, they deserved it!

Yes, I can be a bit extreme, and I mean no respect to MLK Jr. His speech (and the work he did) was incredible. I also mean no disrespect to non-white people (or white people for that matter). My point is that scholarships should be based on only two things: need and merit. There’s no reason to pay attention to race or sex or hair color or anything else besides need and merit. If the black child is living in poverty, he has need for the scholarship, just as if he was white or female. If he earns a 4.0, then he has merit and could potentially earn a “continuing excellent” type of scholarship. If race is any part of the determination (or part of the eligibility requirements), then that is racism, period.