working hard, or hardly working?
Among academics and others, there has been a lot of talk in the past week or so about this New York Times story on the expectations college students have for grades. The story features some faculty claiming that students believe that they are entitled to good grades if they work hard, and at least some students agreeing with them. Consider one Jason Greenwood of the University of Maryland, who is probably now wishing that his fifteen minutes of fame were over:
“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”
“If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” he added. “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.
This comment received a sweet reply from Michelle Cottle at TNR:
No, Jason. What would be wrong is if a university trained its students to believe that they were excellent simply for getting up off their futons and doing what was expected of them. Did the reading? Attended class? Stayed up late working on a paper? Good for you, puppy! Sure, you did a craptastic job on that paper — not to mention the final — suggesting that you have no more than a fourth-grader's grasp of the material. But what the hell!? You worked hard. You showed up — even when you had that reallllly bad hangover. You may not have learned much, but you sure did try. Have a nice fat A. And here's hoping it comes in handy when your first employer fires you for not being able to tell your ass from your elbow when it comes to doing your job.
Couldn't have said it better myself. But I haven't yet come across anyone making the point that I like to make when this topic comes up — I’m sure someone else has made it, I just haven't come across them — which is that I have no way of knowing how hard someone works on an assignment. How would that be determined? Monitoring students on webcams to see how much time they spend writing, or with their noses in books? Even that wouldn't let me know how much of the time they’re really concentrating and how much daydreaming. Have then hooked up, then, to constant brain-scanning devices, so that I can see what parts of their brain are active, and how often? That would help a lot, but short of that, I think the only option — and as far as I can tell this is the one that many students want — is for the students themselves to decide how hard they worked. But if we’re supposed to give them grades based on how hard they worked, and they’re the ones who determine how hard they worked, then they’re basically grading themselves. Now that would be a dream come true for me as well as for them, but it’s not really a workable solution. Especially since most students I know have one real criterion for determining how hard they work on an assignment: how late they stay up the night before the assignment is due.
I wish I could take down every “If you believe it, you can achieve it!”-style poster from every high school and middle school. I understand the idea, and I dont want us to be overly discouraging to young people. But it just is not true that all it takes to succeed at something is dedication. That’s an idea that people have seared into their brains by the time they reach adulthood in this country, and I think it has really unfortunate consequences.
— Freddie · Feb 23, 09:08 PM · #
I recall classes where effort, or at least the appearance of effort was counted as part of the grade. Ostensibly this was to give hardworking students some credit for putting in the time, and I suppose encouraging effort isn’t the worst idea. Sooner or later we all reach the point where 90% of the job is showing up (and the last 10% doesn’t matter that much.)
Overturn Griggs and none of us, not AJ nor my daughters will have to be bothered with grades, or even school for that matter…
Freddie, I understand your sentiment, but wouldn’t sweat the posters. Reality sets in soon enough, and the next thing you know you’re the assistant branch manager, living for the weekend and wondering if your wife is going to catch up to the fact you’re banging the red haired teller; or worse, wondering if she even cares.
One of my favorite art professors only gave Bs and Fs. “I’ve seen too many terrible art students turn into wonderful artists and too many wonderful art students turn into lousy truck drivers,” was his justification. He was tenured, and no one could make him budge.
— Tony Comstock · Feb 23, 09:25 PM · #
But — you DO have a way of knowing how hard they worked, don’t you?
Namely: the quality of the assignments they turn in. Someone who thought and worked hard turns in a more-than-adequate response.
You assign, for example, an an essay.
Someone who returns a bare-minimum-quality essay means either a) the student devoted minimum effort; or b) the student’s brain power isn’t capable of more than average/minimum work.
A superb essay means either a) the person devoted considerable effort to the assignement; or b) has a natural talent for constructing and writing essays.
Obviously, you still don’t know for CERTAIN how hard the student worked, but at least you know enough to assign a grade. (And you get the depressing pleasure of once again realizing that students want one thing from college and the professors, who were all “good” students when they were students, want something else from it.)
In any case, thanks for the link to Cottle’s response, which I had not read and thoroughly enjoyed.
— Maureen Ogle · Feb 23, 11:56 PM · #
Maureen, note the options you provide, (a) and (b) in each case. The (b) options, which are real ones, make it impossible for me to know anything about the intensity and quality of work put in. Not only am I not certain, I am not even informed. But I don’t have to be. I grade according to the quality of what’s turned in to me, without trying to guess how much labor (and of what quality) produced that achievement.
— Alan Jacobs · Feb 24, 12:12 AM · #
I’m going to stand in AJ’s corner on this one, Maureen. I had plenty of classes (or at least one or two) in which I was able to pull strong marks with virtually no effort at all. I would have been rather upset if my grade had been assigned on the basis of effort. Conversely, the hardest I ever worked (save my studio art classes) was for a C in physics.
I take Freddie’s point about inspirational “All You Have to Do Is Want It Bad Enough!” posters maybe not giving full preparation for the confrontation with no being able to hack it (whatever it might be.) On the other hand, over and over again I am reminded just how much perseverance counts for. Yes, it’s better to be lucky than good, but tenacity may trump both of them.
Cold comfort to the student who’s used to getting As having AJ hand her a B…
— Tony Comstock · Feb 24, 12:55 AM · #
Am amending my previous comment, because of course Alan’s right.
But to what he wrote, I’ll add this: What is “excellent” may depend less on effort than on biology.
And if that’s true, well, that’s a different issue. (And I suspect it’s the real issue, but one that neither the Times reporter nor anyone else wants to talk about. Eg — what’s the point of a “university” education, and who should partake of it?)
I’m reminded of a course I took when I finally went to college (I was in my 30s and therefore more studious than most.)
Skipping details, I’ll just say that the subject matter was one for which my brain is not suited.
I struggled. I spent HOURS on the assignments. Slaved, struggled, wept, stayed up all night.
I managed a “C” and was thrilled to get it.
It was also what I deserved, given my (genetic?) inability to “get” what the subject matter.
So, we’re left with the essential conflict between the subject matter — philosophy, chemistry, physics, history, whatever — and the student’s brain power. If a student ain’t got the goods, well . . . hardly seems fair to hand out an “A” for effort.
So, to get back to the Times article: Students may believe they deserve an “A” for showing up — but only because no one’s ever bothered to clue them in to the fact that not every student can, should, or will excel at every task. Because we live in a society where we’re all “entitled” to a certain standard, one that, frankly, can’t possibly apply to all.
So — the problem’s deeper than “expectations.”
I think…….. But what the heck do I know?
— Maureen Ogle · Feb 24, 03:03 AM · #
Okay, this is going to sound incredibly stupid, but here it goes:
If you don’t go on to grad school or med school or law school, what do grades actually do? Do employers ask you for your GPA? I’m serious. I’ve only ever showed my book/reel to get work; or just shouted at people until they gave me money. (That’s how we rolled back in the dot com boom.)
— Tony Comstock · Feb 24, 03:53 AM · #
As an engineering college student, I think my GPA keeps employers reading farther down my resume. It’s the foot in the door that makes them think you’re worth talking to or interviewing.
I’ve also noticed some employers who won’t consider you unless your GPA is above a certain value, but that isn’t overly common.
— DKH · Feb 24, 05:08 AM · #
It’s funny. I like systems and processes, and I when was in school, the idea of a place like UCSC (no grades back then) seemed like an unsustainable utopia. Sooner or later everyone grows weary of the heightened level of personal responsibility a no-grades system requires. Grades, for all their failings, are a generally easier and more effective manner to document a student’s achievement.
But as I was having this thought I realized that concern over grades played almost no role in my own eduction, and I think I was better educated and certainly more intellectually curious as a result. Maybe they were on to something at UCSC…
Longer, less informed thoughts on Maureen’s “brain is not suited”, but I’ll save them for another day.
— Tony Comstock · Feb 24, 03:09 PM · #
A few things jump out at me. First of all, this is systemic. This is a symptom of what might be described as the “college for everybody” syndrome; or socialized higher education. Not everybody is cut out for college, either intellectually or in terms of motivation. Sometimes it’s just a matter of timing.
But ever since we’ve adopted this reverse stigma – that it is somehow wrong not to fail a class, but to be failed by a professor, where the transference of stigma has been placed on the one doing the grading – we’ve started shifting into this very objective, perception-based “A-for-effort” grading. I can see where a professor or instructor makes an extra effort to meet someone half-way who is obviously trying very hard, making the time to meet with the instructor, asking lots of questions, staying after class etc.
You still can’t know how much time they put into it after they leave, but at least then one can see that they are to some degree taking the extra steps. This shouldn’t effect grading, of course, but can certainly help communication, and should help the student achieve at a higher level – sort of a “professors help those who help themselves” mentality.
The reverse action, giving out higher grades then the work merits, actually has the reverse effect. People needn’t try so hard if they can get a grade for merely giving off the impression of trying hard.
— E.D. Kain · Feb 24, 04:32 PM · #
Oh, the “college is for everyone” idea is definitely part of the problem.
When I was still a professor, it was painful, and I mean literally painful, to watch kids floundering and drowning, kids who didn’t want to be there, who had no idea what they were doing. But who believed that if they didn’t “go to college,” they were failures.
We seriously need to rejuvenate, and honor, what used to be called “vocational training.” Ain’t nuthin’ wrong with being an airplane mechanic.
— Maureen Ogle · Feb 24, 08:49 PM · #
Kain, it has nothing to do with “socialism” and everything to do with capitalism. I recently read that 60% of students on athletic scholarships are communications majors, for instance. Because, obviously, you can’t play college football or hoops unless you’re in college, and that means you need a major and classes that are easy enough for 300-lb lunkheads to pass without really trying (to be fair, they have to practice so much they don’t have a ton of time to study.)
It’s all about athletic departments and schools maximizing their profits from sponsorships, advertising, and ticket sales. It has nothing to do with leftist professors practicing grading socialism and everything to do with the modern college sports business subverting the teaching mission of higher education.
— Chet · Feb 25, 05:33 AM · #
That’s true at some colleges, Chet, and I couldn’t agree more. And this is not about “leftist” professors. The fact is, the culture we live in glorifies college, and pushes kids who might otherwise be doing good work in carpentry or as auto-mechanics into academic situations they shouldn’t be in…
— E.D. Kain · Feb 26, 10:56 PM · #
“ Ain’t nuthin’ wrong with being an airplane mechanic.”
My name is Alan. I’m EFL teacher in Mexico, and have been one since I was 17 (i’m 27 by the way). However, it wasn’t until I finished college that schools started taking me serious. There’s nothing wrong with being “an airplane mechanic” in a country where higher education is a luxury, not a must. Over here, the minimun wage is $3.5 per 8 hrs!!!!
— Alan Casanova · Feb 27, 09:11 PM · #
I couldn’t agree more. I teach high school students who are convinced that they’re cut out for college, even though they can’t write a competent sentence, show up for class, or even act right in class. How do you tell a kid that their dream is impossible? Is this a dead spot in our cultural dialogue?
— Nate · Mar 5, 08:07 PM · #