"The biology professor at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge gives brief quizzes at the beginning of every class, to assure attendance and to make sure students are doing the reading. On her tests, she doesn't use a curve, as she believes that students must achieve mastery of the subject matter, not just achieve more mastery than the worst students in the course. For multiple choice questions, she gives 10 possible answers, not the expected 4, as she doesn't want students to get very far with guessing."
So, the response by LSU?
LSU removed her from teaching, mid-semester, without prior notice or discussion, and raised the grades of students in the class. Inside higher Ed notes, with some understatement, that LSU's administration has set off a debate about grade inflation, due process and a professor's right to set standards in her own course. Read the article, and see what each side has to say.
My response? This is exactly why large portions, very possibly even majorities, of the students in critical science-related subjects that will define America's future, are from other countries. And why aerosapce firms locate in Mississippi, and Louisiana's naval shipyard might well vanish (to the benefit of the US Navy).
University administrators can often be a waste of skin - but some of them abuse the privilege. The answers from her Test #2 bonus question say more about why these guys are HUYA than I could.
This is a full professor who has taught at LSU for 30 years, and co-authored several books on anatomy.
She was teaching a freshman intro class on biology for non-science majors - i.e., a day-care center for football players.
So maybe Prof. Homberger is too much heavy artillery for spoiled kids whose primary education comes from hiphop and video games. But how many professors get scrutinized for giving A's to 90% of their class?
I never graded on a curve, either. My rule of thumb was that if the student was intelligent and worked hard but had no particular talent for the subject they should be able to earn a B. Getting that result depended on selecting the right questions for the tests and choosing the proper goal for the course.
Glen,
The test #2 comments, and results, suggest she wasn't too much heavy artillery for many them - but was a wake-up call.
I'm of divided mind of this story, and so are the profs on the chronicle of higher eduction forum
Basically there seem to be 2 possibilities here:
1)The dean was trying to coddle students, and in doing so replaced the teacher.
or
2)The teacher was too hard.
(It's worth noting that both could be true)
Although 99% of the time, I would side with (1), this case has some data that leans towards (2). These facts are:
a) This is an "survey" course for non-science majors.
b) She had not taught such a course in 15 years.
I had never seen a survey class until moving to a CC, which is now half my load. It's not just "dumbing the course down" it's also trying to give a basic understanding of the course to students who will not be dependent on this information in the future (and do not have the basic principles expected). Difficulty is less important than developing an understanding. So if students really struggle with something, streamline the process so they can get used to working with their understanding.
Students who can use that understanding should get an A. Students who are adequate C, and less is an F. If none of the students are passing, that's either:
a)The quality of the students
b)Exam difficulty
c)Teaching to a base-level understanding that does not exist
(or a combination of all three).
Without looking at the tests (or class material) I can't tell. But a teacher used to majors and graduates (or their own RA's) is not usually the best choice for a survey class. In my experience, these people have a lot of problems with ©.
Now, in a majors class (or class needed for pre-nursing, pre-med, pre-engineering) the gloves should come off. You should get battered continuously, until you either shape up to the students we want, or ship off somewhere else.
I was waiting for Alchemist's thoughts on this one. Does it make any difference that much more weight was going to be put on later tests, and the students were improving?
Yeah, that makes a difference, it's really common in biology classes that I've seen.... but it's also highly publicized. (X of your points will come from Test 3, so your grade can withstand....) Basically, a way for students to determine if their on a course to succeed or fail. (BTW chemistry courses don't do this... your exam grade is pretty much your course grade)
Again, without seeing what she actually assigned, it's really hard to tell. I'm basically reacting to my memories of R1 faculty more than this specific situation.
Oh, and I should clear up that she should never have been "just removed". The best thing to do would have been sit down with current/former profs and looked at the expectations. Does this year have the same/similar expectations? Similar level of difficulty? Or did Prof go way over the deep end?
Actually, there is an easier explanation; The professor was removed as such an attitude might endanger the income of the administrators by encouraging ill-prepared students to leave. The dirty secret of Big Education is that if the dropout rate in high schools are high, it is worse in colleges because most students lack the preparation and attitude to attend college.
In one regard, I attribute my success in college to Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic party. Since they involved us in the Viet-Nam war, I had the choice of attending college or the Greater Southeast Asian War Games. This does wonders for keeping your mind on your studies.
IHE's article comments made important points. Thought I'd repost my own reactions here:
"My POV in this comes entirely from outside the process. I am no longer a student, and though I have taught courses, that's not my profession. My thoughts:
The point [made by some commenters] about the same cohort of students in an institution getting dramatically different grades for the same level of knowledge, from different instructors, is valid. It has to be addressed somehow. This is a lousy way to do it, but it can't be ignored.
These kinds of objections are a good demonstration of why and how the "Rate Your Professor" culture can be a good thing for academic standards, and is not just negative as some here see it.
Overall, I see a professor with very high standards, in a subject where those standards are integral to the discipline, who made an honest effort to communicate its real essence to her students. I applaud that unreservedly. I cannot say if there were also real problems at work here. But I can say that the way the administration went about this is dead wrong, is itself a problem, and is evidence of a deeper problem. Or three."
The final thought I left them with was this:
"The imperatives described in many comments (process over product, lack of independent standards) are not so much corporate as they are political. And can be traced, in many different ways and at many levels, back to political decisions. Corporations aren't always good, and the business mentality isn't appropriate for all spheres. Having acknowledged that, using a "corporate mentality" straw man can be an intellectually lazy or even automated response. I'd respectfully request that some here [at Inside Higher Ed] think a bit harder..."
Ironically, the professor in question's ahead fo the curve. There's a LOT of discussion going round about how students react, and react positively, to "raising the bar" and going away form the make-it-easy "extra credit culture" in so many of the high schools. Texas is completely revamping its school system P-16 based on this idea (though the results won't be in for a while, as it's a big ship to steer)