1 Yes! Give IN to your anger! Don't be a pussy like Obi-Wan . . .

2 Is it wrong to check your blog in between advising students?

3 If any of your students are, say, 18, female, and cute, I could be persuaded to help you counsel them. Just drop me a note. I'm good like that.

4 Don't complain - you're the one who wanted to be a teacher!! hee hee ~C

5 All I have to say is my sex life is great. The picture of Princess Leia in the golden bikini never gets old. Thank god I didn't lose my right hand in the Clone Wars.

1 Two points: [1] You weren't harsh enough. [2] Unfortunately, we live in an age when students can pretty much sue for good grades and get them whether deserved or not, so, even if a college gets a good administrator, the college is still fucked (pardon my language) since said good administrator wouldn't be allowed to implement policies that make real-world sense.

2 Yeah, I define academic freedom narrowly. Some professors seem to think it's a license to do whatever they want, which it was never intended to be. The basis of academic freedom is to protect professors who have unpopular ideas from censure by the Powers that Be. If a professor decided that he wanted to call his black students "niggers," for example, he would not be covered by academic freedom. If he wanted to argue that affirmative action is a policy harmful to blacks, it would. The AAUP agrees: ACADEMIC FREEDOM 1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution. 2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.[2] Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.[3] 3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution

3 Continue reading "Efforts Based Grading" No thanks, I've seen enough. Daily I'm bombarded with bullshit like this which is gradually eroding every ounce of desire I ever had to become a teacher.

4 This is a ridiculous policy, but in fact I and most professors follow it anyway. If a student shows up every day and does all the required work, but is just a dumbass, odds are that with the participation percentage of their grade will result in a D grade for the term. These professors should have just kept their mouths shut and done what they'd always done.

5 Before anyone jumps all over me, I should add that I don't use multiple choice testing, so in grading essays and papers there is a subjective aspect to it. Thus I never have situations where the student has a 40 percent average, and I've never had to give an F on an essay or paper (I've given my share of Ds though).

6 Man, I had sections where half the class failed. And have given more "F"s on papers--including some very low "F"s--than I can recall. Of course, I wasn't at an exclusive private school, either.

7 One of the ciitical things missed by this policy is the timing and function of the weed-out classes. In fields such as the natural sciences and engineering, the weed-out classes area vital part of the curriculum. It's a way of separating those who have the innate ability and seriousness to succeed in very difficult fields and those who simply have a passing fancy or who are channeled into these disciplines for the wrong reasons. The deal is that the vast majority of attrition, especially in these fields occurs during the freshman and sophomore years. By mucking with that, you'll set up horrific attrition rates in the junior and senior years, which are typically the times that students who have survived the winnowing can now count on smaller class sizes to recieve individual attention, as well as enough guidance to start developing rudimentary interests of the sort that lead to functional specialization in post-baccalaureate education. This is such a bad policy on so damn many levels, I am appalled.

8 Rusty, The logical extension of your argument is that, once hired, a professor can do whatever he wants without repurcussion. Indeed, I don't honestly see how one could be denied tenure or promotion since any negative job action--or even potential for such--has a potential chilling effect under your conception of "academic freedom." There is no job of which I'm aware that operates under such a concept. It's bad enough you bastards get summers off!

9 Hmmmm. Granted. But under your definition since all exceptions to the rule are left to the discretion of some individual or committee, then they are purely arbitrary. So, is there a way to assure that faculty are not fired for not towing the party line without gauranteeing tenure for the assanine? It seems that no primae facia rule could be constructed that could not be abused one way or another. Either by granting so much flexibility that even the absurd would be covered by 'academic freedom' or the other way by stifling speech for fear of offending someone. BTW-the latter is not an hypothetical. Last summer I recall hearing about a tenured prof. at a community college in Orange County, CA who was fired because he questioned whether or not Islam was truly 'peaceful'. His student filed a hate speech claim against him and he was fired.

10 Actually the main reason I'm opposed to effort grading is that I'm lazy as all get-out. I rarely work at more than 30% effort for the sake of profit or status. Unless it's a matter of principle, capable of inspiring me me beyond getting my timecard punched, why the heck ought I bother? If my grading were based on effort the one thing that would be cast into high relief is the fact that most of what's demanded of me as a member of this society isn't really worth doing... or could easily be accomplished by someone else more inspired by baser motives. Of course I can always manage to perform fairly well for the sake of a decent bribe. We all can, I imagine. It's just that my highest effort is rarely launched by the mundane. I wonder if there's a school of policy based on this insight? Well, there's Public Choice, which is oriented toward producing the greatest creativity by refusing to scale return to equality, and which leaves people free to make and receive the consequences for bad choices. Apparently this notion is anathema to modern education. The lazy are the backbone of a capitalistic society and economy, because it's they who inspire innovation.