university introduces electronic monitoring of student attendance

[Analog]

Sadly, bignateyk proves WhoBeDaPlaya's point. Bachelors degree programs are getting easier and easier. But, it's sort of the point I was going to make about compulsory attendance: if a professor has to make attendance mandatory because most of the students can get good grades without coming to class, then you're wasting your money & that professor isn't doing his job. (Or, he has the miracle textbook that's completely up to date with zero errors in it.)

I still remember my college US History classes - 50% of the test questions came from very interesting material the professor presented in class to enhance what we read in the textbooks. He had an expectation that students read everything that was assigned. If you didn't, you were destined to get a lot of test questions wrong. His class was my hardest class & lowest grade I received that semester (B+, so not bad), but I enjoyed it so much that I took US History 2 from the same prof. I only recall a couple of classes where the professor taught from a textbook. When I was in engineering school, we were learning a lot of things that had never been published in a textbook before because they were so cutting edge; so having a book to learn from was pretty much out of the question.

But to repeat - there should be no way to get an A in most college level courses without attending class. If you can, then all you're paying for is a piece of paper, not an education.

well said. I never take attendance in any of my classes. I test on materials put forth in class, which is not in any text. I usually have pretty good attendance regardless.

 

[TheVrolok]

But to repeat - there should be no way to get an A in most college level courses without attending class. If you can, then all you're paying for is a piece of paper, not an education.

I disagree. There are a lot of upper level classes where lecture material is presented to help understand material from the text. If a student can understand, by nature or with effort, the text material on his/her own, then what is the purpose of lecture? I rarely attended (read: never) lecture for a good number of 400 level Microbio/Bio/Physics/Biochem/Immuno/etc. courses and achieved A's (albeit most were A-'s). This was at a public university ranked top 15 nationally for public schools, and top 50 overall for universities. I know of many similar students.

 

[clamum]

I'm not referring to his anecdote you kiwi-brained twat! The part I'm referring to is the part you didn't read and/or get.

If you can get a good grade in a class that is supposed to be attended without actually attending it, the class is not worth attending, and you are not learning anything/getting your money's worth. This was his point. You challenging ONLY the anecdote of a larger position is silly.

Seemingly obvious is an oxymoron.

Why do I always have to spell it out for you?

Don't feed the trolls man.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I disagree. There are a lot of upper level classes where lecture material is presented to help understand material from the text. If a student can understand, by nature or with effort, the text material on his/her own, then what is the purpose of lecture? I rarely attended (read: never) lecture for a good number of 400 level Microbio/Bio/Physics/Biochem/Immuno/etc. courses and achieved A's (albeit most were A-'s). This was at a public university ranked top 15 nationally for public schools, and top 50 overall for universities. I know of many similar students.

Now you're proving the anecdote. You have the purpose of the books and lectures backwards, or more correctly, those professors did. The books are the supplemental material. If all you had to do to get a real education is read books classes would be irrelevant. The purpose of the lecture is to provide more in depth material, and promote discussion. Discussion is where real learning takes place (critical thinking), the rest is just memorization. You were tested and graded more on your memory than your ability to organize thoughts, compare various reports, distill information, come to conclusions, and add insight.

The multiple choice test is the enemy of education.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Don't feed the trolls man.

I'm not. The crickets you hear bear witness. Besides, me are the trolls.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It certainly isn't at my school!

Neither is it where my wife teaches, but they sure come in complaining about how hard the course is and she needs to drop everything to help them.

That doesn't go too far with her

 

[TheVrolok]

Now you're proving the anecdote. You have the purpose of the books and lectures backwards, or more correctly, those professors did. The books are the supplemental material. If all you had to do to get a real education is read books classes would be irrelevant. The purpose of the lecture is to provide more in depth material, and promote discussion. Discussion is where real learning takes place (critical thinking), the rest is just memorization. You were tested and graded more on your memory than your ability to organize thoughts, compare various reports, distill information, come to conclusions, and add insight.

The multiple choice test is the enemy of education.

While I agree with your thoughts on the multiple choice exam as I much prefer essay, I have to disagree, in part with your thoughts on the purpose of lecture. It really depends on the type of class. In the arts; philosophy, art, music, English, lit, etc. etc. I agree completely. In some of the sciences (especially those that are precursors to graduate school) the information is supposed to be strictly memorized. That's just part of the deal - to prepare for the type of lecture you prefer, you need to get through the hours and hours of classes that are nothing more than fact memorization.

 

[TridenT]

The same can be said of many/most subjects. There's very little a professor can lecture on about algebra that isn't thoroughly covered in the text or various references.

I have never read a single math textbook that could explain anything properly. Math classes usually require that you go to class so the professor can explain wtf the text is saying, because usually... it's gibberish and just a few equations with no explanations of what the hell is happening.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

While I agree with your thoughts on the multiple choice exam as I much prefer essay, I have to disagree, in part with your thoughts on the purpose of lecture. It really depends on the type of class. In the arts; philosophy, art, music, English, lit, etc. etc. I agree completely. In some of the sciences (especially those that are precursors to graduate school) the information is supposed to be strictly memorized. That's just part of the deal - to prepare for the type of lecture you prefer, you need to get through the hours and hours of classes that are nothing more than fact memorization.

Haha, I never took a science class. I just read the books.

Some of the classes the lecture is really just about finding a way to get students to understand stuff. However, the better science and math classes I had included professors that were engaging. You didn't want to miss class.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I have never read a single math textbook that could explain anything properly. Math classes usually require that you go to class so the professor can explain wtf the text is saying, because usually... it's gibberish and just a few equations with no explanations of what the hell is happening.

You've had some really poor texts then. I had trouble with proofs in geometry, and needed 1 on 1 help. Then I was fine until calculus. Although, to be fair, when I went back years later and took Trig again the teacher was about the best EVER and did a far better job than the books I'd had, so I did learn more. Still, was completely possible to pick up most everything from just careful study of a few texts and some other resources.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I have never read a single math textbook that could explain anything properly. Math classes usually require that you go to class so the professor can explain wtf the text is saying, because usually... it's gibberish and just a few equations with no explanations of what the hell is happening.

I disagree with PoW. I agree with you to some extent.

Math classes that do not include a HEALTHY dose of the history of math are fucking worthless.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Now you're proving the anecdote. You have the purpose of the books and lectures backwards, or more correctly, those professors did. The books are the supplemental material. If all you had to do to get a real education is read books classes would be irrelevant. The purpose of the lecture is to provide more in depth material, and promote discussion. Discussion is where real learning takes place (critical thinking), the rest is just memorization. You were tested and graded more on your memory than your ability to organize thoughts, compare various reports, distill information, come to conclusions, and add insight.

The multiple choice test is the enemy of education.

Knowledge is knowledge whether it comes from a professor or a text book. In well defined courses like Algebra or Calculus, it's entirely possible to learn the material outside of the course. I'm not really sure what discussions would be possible through Algebra or Calculus. There's a function, solve/integrate/differentiate it. Here's an application of that function/process, now figure out how to solve it and similar applications.

Do keep in mind not every field is a liberal art, and is not always open to wide ranging discussions. Some are very straight forward and fixed. Either you understand it (not just memorize) or you don't.

You asked what's the point in attending college then; well it's to acquire a degree for a career and hopefully through acquiring that degree you will have enriched yourself with knowledge. A person could very well learn everything taught in college through only text books, however they won't have a degree like someone who went to college did.

I honestly have not had one multiple choice test in my college career (Senior in EE) so far...

Mostly every test I have taken has required some level of critical thinking, far beyond just memorization. Most classes are not all exams too, some require extensive writing.

I have not received all A's for the classes I've ditched, like some here are claiming. But I've certainly received B's and A-'s.

 

[EarthwormJim]

I have never read a single math textbook that could explain anything properly. Math classes usually require that you go to class so the professor can explain wtf the text is saying, because usually... it's gibberish and just a few equations with no explanations of what the hell is happening.

My Stewart Calculus books I thought did an AMAZING job. I have not seen a better math book yet.

To learn on your own you do need a strong foundation in the basics though. For Calc, if you are weak in proofs (from Geometry/Trig), or weak in any application of Algebra; then it's quite possible for everything to seem like gibberish to you.

 

[Hacp]

Knowledge is knowledge whether it comes from a professor or a text book. In well defined courses like Algebra or Calculus, it's entirely possible to learn the material outside of the course. I'm not really sure what discussions would be possible through Algebra or Calculus. There's a function, solve/integrate/differentiate it. Here's an application of that function/process, now figure out how to solve it and similar applications.

Do keep in mind not every field is a liberal art, and is not always open to wide ranging discussions. Some are very straight forward and fixed. Either you understand it (not just memorize) or you don't.

You asked what's the point in attending college then; well it's to acquire a degree for a career and hopefully through acquiring that degree you will have enriched yourself with knowledge. A person could very well learn everything taught in college through only text books, however they won't have a degree like someone who went to college did.

I honestly have not had one multiple choice test in my college career (Senior in EE) so far...

Mostly every test I have taken has required some level of critical thinking, far beyond just memorization. Most classes are not all exams too, some require extensive writing.

I have not received all A's for the classes I've ditched, like some here are claiming. But I've certainly received B's and A-'s.

It is almost impossible to study every detail in the textbooks, You go to class so you can see what you're supposed to concentrate on.

 

[PrinceofWands]

It is almost impossible to study every detail in the textbooks, You go to class so you can see what you're supposed to concentrate on.

Why? What I mean is, why concentrate on those particular things? Who says they're important, for anything other than scoring high on the test? The professor? He/she has a bias. The point of education is to be exposed to the mass of facts and data and formulate our own understanding of them.

 

[sdifox]

so I guess I should go to arizona and just be the rfid carrier for all the kids in class. I'll charge 1 dollar per lecture. and get a free education while I am at it.

 

[Hacp]

Why? What I mean is, why concentrate on those particular things? Who says they're important, for anything other than scoring high on the test? The professor? He/she has a bias. The point of education is to be exposed to the mass of facts and data and formulate our own understanding of them.

You literally can't understand everything in some book. It will take a long long time to understand some things. Plus, some books are written in a way that their proofs are vague. How are you going to understand material in books with proofs that skip multiple steps? How many hours will you spend a day on one course? 8? 9?

 

[gaidensensei]

Regarding the lecture/no show dilemma:
Some people are better at figuring out the schematics on their own, like exploration into unknown territory. Others need a walkthrough, like a FAQ which is what the instructor is there for.

To imply that students must all be the same is just plain silly.

I have never read a single math textbook that could explain anything properly. Math classes usually require that you go to class so the professor can explain wtf the text is saying, because usually... it's gibberish and just a few equations with no explanations of what the hell is happening.

That's half the challenge to understanding math, chem and physics. You got to see the "arithmetic" behind it until you can finally do it on your own. I used to struggle with this when I was younger, despite even being "asian" - not all asians are uber at math.

 

[EarthwormJim]

You literally can't understand everything in some book. It will take a long long time to understand some things. Plus, some books are written in a way that their proofs are vague. How are you going to understand material in books with proofs that skip multiple steps? How many hours will you spend a day on one course? 8? 9?

Which is why you adapt and choose to attend based on how well written the text book(s) you are using. The choice should be mine, this is not compulsory education, it is MY education.

What's next, are they going to require mandatory study time in the library?

Not everyone is the same. Some people do just fine at independent study. I'm not some college freshmen who thinks I'll breeze through this like High School. I've been going for 5 years now.

I know from my own experience, and from several of my fellow electrical engineering majors, that for some classes (mainly General Education), you don't have to attend to learn the material and score well. Quite a few of my professors were the actual authors of the textbooks, which actually helped immensely for learning outside of the class (everything they teach is there in the book).

 

[DrPizza]

I see your point, and can somewhat agree in general...but it's pretty easy to imagine a scenario that disproves it. Case in point: Roman history. It's been done to death. There are a RIDICULOUS amount of resources out there...not only texts and primary documents, but critical analysis, critiquing, and subsequent counter-arguments. It's ENTIRELY possible for someone to get an undergraduate (and possibly even graduate) level understanding of Roman history if they know how to learn (which every person should by the end of high school).

Now, you could counter that a professor could inject ridiculously arcane facts and then test on them, forcing someone who studies on their own to fail...but in point of fact that professor has done a disservice by focusing on what are probably irrelevant points just to make you show up.

The same can be said of many/most subjects. There's very little a professor can lecture on about algebra that isn't thoroughly covered in the text or various references.

What it comes down to for me is two things: learning styles and professor bias. Some people learn in class or from others, while others learn alone from books. You can't force people to learn outside of their style, they're largely incapable of it no matter what. As for bias, every professor has one. Going to class doesn't mean you learn the subject, it means you learn what the professor wants you to know about the subject. You can generally get a broader picture by studying on your own from multiple sources and avoiding the singular bias.

I guess I agree that in some instances where the curriculum is very well defined, i.e. calculus, it's entirely possible to get an A+ without ever attending class. (I also disagree with trident on the issue of math texts - I've read a great number of math texts that did an excellent job of explaining the material, although I should also point out that it would only be understood by someone who has mastered any pre-requisite mathematics.)

However, your example of Roman history actually lends support to what I said, rather than provides for a counter-argument. There are TONS of resources on Roman history - while a history textbook may only have 1 chapter on it. A professor can easily go into great detail about some aspects of Roman civilization that he finds fascinating (and not arcane facts.)

There definitely are two types of classes though - those taught by professors who were assigned to teach those classes, and those taught by professors who love the material that they're teaching. The former group - often from the text. The latter group - grades suffer if you miss class - not that you'd want to miss their classes anyway since they're generally the best classes.

 

[TridenT]

I guess I agree that in some instances where the curriculum is very well defined, i.e. calculus, it's entirely possible to get an A+ without ever attending class. (I also disagree with trident on the issue of math texts - I've read a great number of math texts that did an excellent job of explaining the material, although I should also point out that it would only be understood by someone who has mastered any pre-requisite mathematics.)

However, your example of Roman history actually lends support to what I said, rather than provides for a counter-argument. There are TONS of resources on Roman history - while a history textbook may only have 1 chapter on it. A professor can easily go into great detail about some aspects of Roman civilization that he finds fascinating (and not arcane facts.)

There definitely are two types of classes though - those taught by professors who were assigned to teach those classes, and those taught by professors who love the material that they're teaching. The former group - often from the text. The latter group - grades suffer if you miss class - not that you'd want to miss their classes anyway since they're generally the best classes.

Well, any class I have EVER taken in math has had SHIT for writing in the textbook. It could be because maybe I went to poor school districts where maybe the textbooks with actual goodness to them maybe required more money. Who knows.

But so far, it seems that even for many college textbooks in math, science, and engineering... They're all for the most part, shit with a high price tag.

My Stewart Calculus books I thought did an AMAZING job. I have not seen a better math book yet.

To learn on your own you do need a strong foundation in the basics though. For Calc, if you are weak in proofs (from Geometry/Trig), or weak in any application of Algebra; then it's quite possible for everything to seem like gibberish to you.

It was only gibberish because they didn't explain anything. Seriously, my math teachers considered all the textbooks they used as jokes. They were atrociously horrible.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Well, any class I have EVER taken in math has had SHIT for writing in the textbook. It could be because maybe I went to poor school districts where maybe the textbooks with actual goodness to them maybe required more money. Who knows.

But so far, it seems that even for many college textbooks in math, science, and engineering... They're all for the most part, shit with a high price tag.



It was only gibberish because they didn't explain anything. Seriously, my math teachers considered all the textbooks they used as jokes. They were atrociously horrible.

Professors should be given the flexibility to pick their own text books

 

[DrPizza]

1. Generally the math teachers are the ones who pick out the textbooks (except in a handful of states.) Who did you think picked out the math textbooks, the psychology department?
2. As I pointed out - the majority of math textbooks I've encountered are just fine for anyone who has mastered the prerequisite material. If you require more explanations than they give, or can't follow along when they skip blatantly obvious steps, it's probably more of an indication of your preparation, rather than the quality of the textbooks.

 

[gaidensensei]

Professors should be given the flexibility to pick their own text books

It's all a plan by the publishers and schools to get extra pocket cash from the oblivious students.
We got the PATRIOTS and LALILULELO behind this.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

1. Generally the math teachers are the ones who pick out the textbooks (except in a handful of states.) Who did you think picked out the math textbooks, the psychology department?
2. As I pointed out - the majority of math textbooks I've encountered are just fine for anyone who has mastered the prerequisite material. If you require more explanations than they give, or can't follow along when they skip blatantly obvious steps, it's probably more of an indication of your preparation, rather than the quality of the textbooks.

To be fair, he is or was recently in high school. I don't think he has reached college yet. The textbooks used in primary and secondary schools are in the domain of government-run education and are more often than not picked by committee for a variety of reasons, many of which must satisfy political aims.

As for cut and dry classes, a good professor can make all the difference in the world. A good one can find a way to make even the least natural student understand the material. A great one can make a subject perceived as boring by the majority, fun.