Why do students not make use of professor's office hours? (kindergarten, masters degree)

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

I'd call it a profession.

I agree, but there are at least 2 posters who consider it to be a trade.

The more interesting discussion, given this is part of the education forum is whether teaching is a profession or a trade? I've heard teachers themselves arguing which it is.

It seems that teachers have somehow been able to get both the perks of a profession and the perks of a trade.

Not sure what you're getting at with these statements. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your meaning, but it seems like you're implying that paying tuition means paying for a good grade. College isn't high school. Students self select to attend college. Doesn't mean they have the ability to learn/perform at that level.

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if students are the ones paying tuition, then professors (or TA’s, or whoever) need to actually teach the material, and not try to weed students out, and not have ways of working against students. Students who do not have the ability to learn/perform at that level should not be accepted into college.

It's not that uncommon for students to go through high school as top performers. Then get slugged in the face so to speak by the difficulty of college.

Is it at all possible that the college professors are the ones not doing their jobs in that case?

Did you really have a professor schedule an exam at 10PM on Wednesday night before Thanksgiving break?

I was able to AP out of that class, but everybody else in my major had to take that class. In my case, I had at least 2 cases with labs that ended after the dorms closed. In one case, I avoided signing up for the Wednesday lab (I was in the Monday lab, which had its own problems). In the other case, my lab partner lived locally (as did all other civil engineering majors), so we came up with the agreement that he would do all of the lab work that week, but I would do all of the lab report. We discussed that with the TA, who agreed to that deal, and he agreed not to penalize me for missing the lab.

From some of the things you've said over the years, I wonder if that scholarship you fought so hard for was actually worth it? You seem to have paid an awfully high price in terms of bad professors for it.

It is worth is because employers only care about the piece of paper, and since I will be spending the rest of my life paying for my wife’s useless degrees, it’s a very good thing I graduated without any student loan debt.

One of the best professors I had (Dr G) was also a weed-out professor. He was excellent as an instructor, but his standards were HIGH, and his exams were TOUGH.

Assuming that’s the same professor that you mentioned a few times in the past, it sounds like he taught the material and tried to work with rather than against the students. Did you ever go to his office hours?

I had bad professors who didn't teach weed out and some who did. The professor who had the most adversarial relationship, was just bad at all aspects.

Colleges tend to assign such professors to the weed-out classes. They rarely assign them to elective classes, since nobody would ever sign up for them. Another trick was to list “Staff” in the course directory for classes taught by professors that nobody liked. I always wondered what would have happened if there was a professor whose last name was Staff.

Coming from that environment, and looking back over my career, I'd say that process prepared me well for working in the professional environment right from my very first job.
I think you had some uniquely poor experiences in college, and it's influenced how you view it.

I don’t think my experience was unique at all.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if students are the ones paying tuition, then professors (or TA’s, or whoever) need to actually teach the material, and not try to weed students out, and not have ways of working against students. Students who do not have the ability to learn/perform at that level should not be accepted into college.

The question is, how do you know what work they can do until challenged by it? Talents differ and someone who gets weeded out of physics for example, may do well in, let's say, textiles. There were a lot of folks weeded out of my physics program for example, but that didn't mean they couldn't succeed in college. They simply changed programs to something that better fit them.

There are some who shouldn't be in college at all, but that's a different issue from weeding out those who can't do the material in a particular program.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Is it at all possible that the college professors are the ones not doing their jobs in that case?
l.

I've never said there weren't bad professors. We've all had some. But that doesn't change the fact that some students fly through high school because it's too easy and then suddenly have to work when they hit college. The homework and self-initiated learning in college is vastly different from most high schools. I blew through high school easily. Valedictorian. Then suddenly you're in college where everyone was top 10 in their high school. Most of whom already had two years of classes that my high school didn't offer. I had to learn to study all over again. Then I learned that most of my friends in college felt the same way -- high school had not prepared us for college level work. Some dug in, learned to do college work. Some didn't.

I have a relative who got a degree in chemistry from a classic LAC. Later on, he wanted some refresher courses, so he took individual classes at a nearby R2. He was stunned at the difference in level of work between the LAC and the R2. Fortunately, he also had 20 years of professional work under his belt by then, but he admitted that if he'd come from the high school environment into that, he'd have been overwhelmed.

The point being student level expectations are a lot higher and professors aren't going to spoon feed students. A big lesson of college is how to teach yourself.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

I was able to AP out of that class, but everybody else in my major had to take that class. In my case, I had at least 2 cases with labs that ended after the dorms closed. In one case, I avoided signing up for the Wednesday lab (I was in the Monday lab, which had its own problems). In the other case, my lab partner lived locally (as did all other civil engineering majors), so we came up with the agreement that he would do all of the lab work that week, but I would do all of the lab report. We discussed that with the TA, who agreed to that deal, and he agreed not to penalize me for missing the lab.
.

Wait, you lost me here. So your big issue is one you weren't even in the class for, didn't have that professor, and didn't have an exam after the dorms closed on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving?

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

It is worth is because employers only care about the piece of paper, and since I will be spending the rest of my life paying for my wife’s useless degrees, it’s a very good thing I graduated without any student loan debt.

It might be that HR only cares about a piece of paper, but every supervisor I've known cared about the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the employee. That college degree doesn't say someone is an expert; it's a license for them to learn.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Assuming that’s the same professor that you mentioned a few times in the past, it sounds like he taught the material and tried to work with rather than against the students. Did you ever go to his office hours?

Yep, I've mentioned him before. Best professor I ever had. And toughest. Only professor I've even seen who, if a student asked a question about homework, could recite the problem from memory and work it on the board without looking up in the textbook. Very polite, he referred to students as Mr and Ms. I noticed he didn't refer to us by first name until after we had become juniors and essentially gotten past the weed outs. Like at that point we were now colleagues and not just students. Can't recall that I ever specifically went to his office hours but held many conversations with him over my four years. He was one of the ones who'd drop in on study groups.

But not the only one. Quiet a few professors would drop by.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Colleges tend to assign such professors to the weed-out classes. They rarely assign them to elective classes, since nobody would ever sign up for them. Another trick was to list “Staff” in the course directory for classes taught by professors that nobody liked. I always wondered what would have happened if there was a professor whose last name was Staff.

Can't say that I ever saw those kind of shenanigans. Had plenty of poor professors. Also some good ones.
But I can't see any pattern of good vs bad and how courses were assigned.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

The question is, how do you know what work they can do until challenged by it? Talents differ and someone who gets weeded out of physics for example, may do well in, let's say, textiles. There were a lot of folks weeded out of my physics program for example, but that didn't mean they couldn't succeed in college. They simply changed programs to something that better fit them.

If a student struggles with basic biology and chemistry in high school, then he/she will likely struggle with organic chemistry in college, and likely does not belong on a pre-med track. Also, since organic chem is mostly memorization, an otherwise good student who is weak at memorization will not do well in organic chemistry. That should all be determined in high school, before the colleges basically steal their money just to weed them out.

There are some who shouldn't be in college at all, but that's a different issue from weeding out those who can't do the material in a particular program.

Again, those students should be weeded out back in high school, before they pay college tuition.

I've never said there weren't bad professors. We've all had some. But that doesn't change the fact that some students fly through high school because it's too easy and then suddenly have to work when they hit college. The homework and self-initiated learning in college is vastly different from most high schools. I blew through high school easily. Valedictorian. Then suddenly you're in college where everyone was top 10 in their high school.

I was likely the only person in my program at my college who was in the top 10% of my high school.

Most of whom already had two years of classes that my high school didn't offer. I had to learn to study all over again. Then I learned that most of my friends in college felt the same way -- high school had not prepared us for college level work. Some dug in, learned to do college work. Some didn't.

Depends on your high school, depends on your college.

I have a relative who got a degree in chemistry from a classic LAC. Later on, he wanted some refresher courses, so he took individual classes at a nearby R2. He was stunned at the difference in level of work between the LAC and the R2. Fortunately, he also had 20 years of professional work under his belt by then, but he admitted that if he'd come from the high school environment into that, he'd have been overwhelmed.

The point being student level expectations are a lot higher and professors aren't going to spoon feed students. A big lesson of college is how to teach yourself.

Then why not teach yourself on the internet? Because you don’t get the piece of paper, which is all that employers care about.

Wait, you lost me here. So your big issue is one you weren't even in the class for, didn't have that professor, and didn't have an exam after the dorms closed on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving?

But the only reason I didn’t have to take that class, with that professor, was because I APed out of it. But my professors, my classmates, and other posters on this forum (including you, if I remember right) all seem resentful that I was able to AP out of weed out classes.

It might be that HR only cares about a piece of paper, but every supervisor I've known cared about the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the employee. That college degree doesn't say someone is an expert; it's a license for them to learn.

I think we just have different experiences. My boss and colleagues make it very clear that nobody cares what your GPA is, nobody cares what college you graduated from, and nobody cares if you have a Masters. Keep in mind that you are doing high level government research, so you are different from the run of the mill employee working for a run of the mill employer.

Yep, I've mentioned him before. Best professor I ever had. And toughest. Only professor I've even seen who, if a student asked a question about homework, could recite the problem from memory and work it on the board without looking up in the textbook. Very polite, he referred to students as Mr and Ms. I noticed he didn't refer to us by first name until after we had become juniors and essentially gotten past the weed outs. Like at that point we were now colleagues and not just students. Can't recall that I ever specifically went to his office hours but held many conversations with him over my four years. He was one of the ones who'd drop in on study groups.

But not the only one. Quiet a few professors would drop by.


Can't say that I ever saw those kind of shenanigans. Had plenty of poor professors. Also some good ones.
But I can't see any pattern of good vs bad and how courses were assigned.

I guess we just had different experiences.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

If a student struggles with basic biology and chemistry in high school, then he/she will likely struggle with organic chemistry in college, and likely does not belong on a pre-med track. Also, since organic chem is mostly memorization, an otherwise good student who is weak at memorization will not do well in organic chemistry. That should all be determined in high school, before the colleges basically steal their money just to weed them out.

Again, those students should be weeded out back in high school, before they pay college tuition.
.

It would not be difficult for a student to do decently well in high school bio and chem, yet not be able to handle college level material. Again, this isn't about the bottom students in high school. This is about the better students who can easily do high school but not specific college level material. But could get a degree in history for example. How do you want the high school to weed them out at that point?

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

I was likely the only person in my program at my college who was in the top 10% of my high school.
.

If that's the case, perhaps consider the level your college was teaching toward and the caliber of professors who would be teaching those classes. How much did the material get watered down to carry those students through? I understand that's the reality of some colleges. We saw that difference during college tours and researching colleges. That's why we made the decision that the college that would be basically free to attend due to scholarship offerings would be too expensive in the long run because the education quality wasn't there. There's no such thing as a free puppy.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Then why not teach yourself on the internet? Because you don’t get the piece of paper, which is all that employers care about.
.

Because you have to learn how to learn. That's one of the biggest things you learn in college. If you expect college to just spoon feed information to students, then what do they do after college? They kind of stay stuck at the same level of knowledge.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But the only reason I didn’t have to take that class, with that professor, was because I APed out of it. But my professors, my classmates, and other posters on this forum (including you, if I remember right) all seem resentful that I was able to AP out of weed out classes.
.

I don't resent AP. But I do recognize that AP may not provide the foundation for the follow-on courses and that fewer top colleges allow AP credits in core courses. My kids took AP as well, but knowing what I know now, I'd recommend dual enrollment if available as a better option than AP.

And, like with the Thanksgiving class you weren't in, if AP'd out of weed out classes, you didn't experience weed out.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

I think we just have different experiences. My boss and colleagues make it very clear that nobody cares what your GPA is, nobody cares what college you graduated from, and nobody cares if you have a Masters. Keep in mind that you are doing high level government research, so you are different from the run of the mill employee working for a run of the mill employer.
.

When you first got your degree in CE, what was your goal? What did you want to do -- build giant bridges or tall buildings or huge damns? If your boss and colleagues don't really care about what you learned, but only a piece of paper, have you considered that it's them who have the problem? If I recall you have made the decision to not move. But recognize that limits career options to those within a reasonable commute. You mentioned multiple times that my job isn't like a real job. Perhaps. That our experiences are different. Very true. In that time, I've served in the military, and lived in multiple states, and held multiple jobs. I've worked with executives, engineers, scientists, and craft workers from Lockheed Martin, Ford Aerospace, SAC, SAIC, SDC, Unisys, IBM, Northrop Grumman, KBR, Jacobs Engineering, TRW, GE, GTE, GD, and a host of other large and small businesses I can't recall. I've seen a lot of different corporate cultures and everything from managers who emphasize innovation to those who emphasize yes-men and corporate drones. The most successful programs got top performers and got out of their way. The least successful and hardest to work with just wanted yes-men and drones.

So yes, I do have a big of experience behind me.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

It would not be difficult for a student to do decently well in high school bio and chem, yet not be able to handle college level material. Again, this isn't about the bottom students in high school. This is about the better students who can easily do high school but not specific college level material. But could get a degree in history for example. How do you want the high school to weed them out at that point?

Maybe the high school needs to be tougher? I don’t know. I’m not familiar with this demographic that you are speaking of.

If that's the case, perhaps consider the level your college was teaching toward and the caliber of professors who would be teaching those classes. How much did the material get watered down to carry those students through? I understand that's the reality of some colleges. We saw that difference during college tours and researching colleges. That's why we made the decision that the college that would be basically free to attend due to scholarship offerings would be too expensive in the long run because the education quality wasn't there. There's no such thing as a free puppy.

Given my career goals, I feel I was right to take the full scholarship to a mediocre college, rather than taking out student loans for a more expensive college. Especially since l’m paying off my wife’s student loans.

Because you have to learn how to learn. That's one of the biggest things you learn in college. If you expect college to just spoon feed information to students, then what do they do after college? They kind of stay stuck at the same level of knowledge.



I don't resent AP. But I do recognize that AP may not provide the foundation for the follow-on courses and that fewer top colleges allow AP credits in core courses.

And that I were I don’t agree. The material in college vs AP is basically the same. The difference is that the college professors are trying to weed you out and work against you, whereas the high school AP teachers tend do want students to do well.

My kids took AP as well, but knowing what I know now, I'd recommend dual enrollment if available as a better option than AP.

What is dual enrollment? My high school offered, as an alternative to AP Chem, a college chem class taught at the high school by a high school teacher (just like AP chem) but rather than the AP exam, the students would take the exams given to Syracuse University students (Syracuse University isn’t anywhere near my high school), and it would count as if you took the class at Syracuse University. The material was absolutely the same as AP Chemistry. No difference at all. I was told that colleges were more likely to accept AP Chem than the Syracuse class. The tuition for the Syracuse class was more than the AP exam (but less than tuition would be for a college student). It avoided the one-time, all or nothing AP Exam, but it also gave your teacher power over whether or not you’d get the credit. Since I did not like the teacher who taught the Syracuse class (I had him in 9th grade), and I tended to do well on standardized exams, I opted for AP Chem. Even though the teacher I had for AP Chem was even worse, it was still a smart decision, since I got a 5 on the AP exam.

And, like with the Thanksgiving class you weren't in, if AP'd out of weed out classes, you didn't experience weed out.

I did experience some later weed out classes that had no AP equivalent, and I’ve posted about my experience in those classes in the past.

When you first got your degree in CE, what was your goal? What did you want to do -- build giant bridges or tall buildings or huge damns?

I’m a transportation / traffic engineer, and that was always my goal. I had expected to do more with ITS (hence my username) but my career went more in the direction of traffic. Electrical engineers seem more suited for ITS.

When I worked for an engineering firm during the summer, I realized that working sucked. That was why I went to grad school. I was hoping I could avoid the real world by getting a Masters and then a PhD and then a professorship, and just get paid to do nothing, like my professors were doing after they got tenure. But at orientation, I learned that very few students in our program got into a PhD program. Of those that did even fewer earned a PhD. And those who earned a PhD, even fewer got professorships, and that a PhD works against you in getting any other job. Later on, they openly admitted that the program we were in existed only to weed people out of the PhD program, and that the degree we would earn was worthless. And I learned that grad school was even worse than working. I did not get into the PhD program, and I didn’t even apply anywhere else.

If your boss and colleagues don't really care about what you learned, but only a piece of paper, have you considered that it's them who have the problem?

No, they do not have the problem, since they realize that literally nothing at all that I learned in school is used in the real world. And they know that the people who succeed in academia are not the people who succeed in the real world.

If I recall you have made the decision to not move. But recognize that limits career options to those within a reasonable commute. You mentioned multiple times that my job isn't like a real job.

I was probably harsh, and I apologize for that. But your jobs is extremely different from private industry.

Perhaps. That our experiences are different. Very true. In that time, I've served in the military, and lived in multiple states, and held multiple jobs. I've worked with executives, engineers, scientists, and craft workers from Lockheed Martin, Ford Aerospace, SAC, SAIC, SDC, Unisys, IBM, Northrop Grumman, KBR, Jacobs Engineering, TRW, GE, GTE, GD, and a host of other large and small businesses I can't recall. I've seen a lot of different corporate cultures and everything from managers who emphasize innovation to those who emphasize yes-men and corporate drones. The most successful programs got top performers and got out of their way. The least successful and hardest to work with just wanted yes-men and drones.

So yes, I do have a big of experience behind me.

But I think that the vast majority of employers just want the yes-men and corporate drones, which was what the college program I was in trained us to be. I guess I’m sort of stuck in that I’m too academic for the real world, but too real-world for academia.

[tnff]

Sorry not to respond sooner. Our son was finally able to get home on leave so today was his Christmas. He left to head back this afternoon.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Maybe the high school needs to be tougher? I don’t know. I’m not familiar with this demographic that you are speaking of.
.

I'd agree that high school should get back to tracking but event that doesn't address those who pick the wrong major. You've said that your college was mediocre so you may not have seen as much of the demographic I'm talking about; the ones who are college level material and can do well in college but not necessarily in specific majors.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Given my career goals, I feel I was right to take the full scholarship to a mediocre college, rather than taking out student loans for a more expensive college. Especially since l’m paying off my wife’s student loans.

That's a legitimate decision and reasoning. But perhaps what I was trying to say didn't come through. Which leads into...

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

And that I were I don’t agree. The material in college vs AP is basically the same. The difference is that the college professors are trying to weed you out and work against you, whereas the high school AP teachers tend do want students to do well.

Is the material in AP and college the same? Or do more rigorous colleges teach to a higher level. You keep mentioning professors working against you. Now I readily admit there are bad professors and have stated so often. But doesn't imply that any professor is actively working against you. That would imply they cared enough about you to expend the effort to work against you. However that doesn't mean the coursework and performance expectations won't be used to weed out those who don't meet them.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

What is dual enrollment? My high school offered, as an alternative to AP Chem, a college chem class taught at the high school by a high school teacher (just like AP chem) but rather than the AP exam, the students would take the exams given to Syracuse University students (Syracuse University isn’t anywhere near my high school), and it would count as if you took the class at Syracuse University. The material was absolutely the same as AP Chemistry. No difference at all. I was told that colleges were more likely to accept AP Chem than the Syracuse class. The tuition for the Syracuse class was more than the AP exam (but less than tuition would be for a college student). It avoided the one-time, all or nothing AP Exam, but it also gave your teacher power over whether or not you’d get the credit. Since I did not like the teacher who taught the Syracuse class (I had him in 9th grade), and I tended to do well on standardized exams, I opted for AP Chem. Even though the teacher I had for AP Chem was even worse, it was still a smart decision, since I got a 5 on the AP exam.
.

Dual enrollment, at least as we've seen it, allows students in high school to enroll in a local college and attend classes through the college, taught by the college's faculty. They transfer in as college credit rather than AP credit. The courses count as both high school and college credit so it's possible to graduate high school with a year of college already completed (depends on how they are able to schedule classes). The thing that's limited it the most where I live is the high school course schedule doesn't always align well with the local college class schedule and there are some mandatory high school classes that don't have equivalent college courses. Specifics differ with different locations. Best part around here is dual enrollment is free to high school students because it becomes part of their high school education, and the law requires high school to be provided. High school Credit. College Credit. And no AP exam or bill.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

I’m a transportation / traffic engineer, and that was always my goal. I had expected to do more with ITS (hence my username) but my career went more in the direction of traffic. Electrical engineers seem more suited for ITS.
.

Cool. I love learning about other fields. What do you do as a traffic engineer? I always thought the mits in your username was for MIT Student.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

When I worked for an engineering firm during the summer, I realized that working sucked. That was why I went to grad school. I was hoping I could avoid the real world by getting a Masters and then a PhD and then a professorship, and just get paid to do nothing, like my professors were doing after they got tenure. (Note 1) But at orientation, I learned that very few students in our program got into a PhD program. Of those that did even fewer earned a PhD. And those who earned a PhD, even fewer got professorships, and that a PhD works against you in getting any other job (Note 2). Later on, they openly admitted that the program we were in existed only to weed people out of the PhD program, and that the degree we would earn was worthless. (Note 3) And I learned that grad school was even worse than working. I did not get into the PhD program, and I didn’t even apply anywhere else.

Note 1. I think you had a bad assumption there. I don't know any professors who do nothing. I know a few that tried, but tenure didn't protect them.

Note 2. I'm not sure that follows from getting a PhD. It may at some places, but many others hire them easily. It may not help but haven't seen it hurt anyone.

Note 3. That's pretty much normal. You have to pass a set of exams to become eligible for the PhD in the technical programs I'm aware of. I learned those rules even while still in undergrad. No different than any career out there. The pyramid gets smaller as you move up and more weed outs occur.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

No, they do not have the problem, since they realize that literally nothing at all that I learned in school is used in the real world. And they know that the people who succeed in academia are not the people who succeed in the real world.
.

I'm curious now what they taught in the college you attended. I've used things I learned in college right from my very first job. In fact, that job was my first experience where people could not be trained to do the job even though they had a college degree if they didn't have specific academic learning before starting the job.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

I was probably harsh, and I apologize for that. But your jobs is extremely different from private industry.
.

It's not something I take offense over. Rather it's more a sense of frustration that people make assumptions that simply aren't correct, and those assumptions make communication harder. Yes there are differences. But a lot of similarities as well. If you laid everything out, you'd find there are more differences across industry in general than there are between private sector and public sector. Probably the biggest one is how far down politics and its impact reaches into daily operations. We must remain apolitical, yet politicians and media use us (sometime in the general sense and sometimes specifically) as pawn and punching bag to score points against one another. Sometimes if feels like the middle guy in a Three Stooges gag where both sides threaten each other by hitting us.

But that comes with the job so no big deal. What I'd really like folks to understand is day to day ops is pretty much like anywhere else. Staffing issues, budget issues, incomes and outlays, technical challenges, scheduling, people issues. Oh boy, people issues. Hiring and firing.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But I think that the vast majority of employers just want the yes-men and corporate drones, which was what the college program I was in trained us to be. I guess I’m sort of stuck in that I’m too academic for the real world, but too real-world for academia.

I know you have your reasons for not looking elsewhere for jobs. But I think you'd find not every job is that way.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by tnff

Those are both interesting comments that we could explore. To me I was never embarrassed to see the professor, nor was I worried that seeking help would lower my grade. I thought seeking help would help me get a better grade. As I mentioned earlier, my biggest problem, and I acknowledge it may not match others, was professors who were bad in class were no better in office hours. They did no better one on one than they did in class. The professors who did well in class, I didn't need office hours. Heck some of them even sat in our discussion groups. What was really fun was when our group was trying to work a problem, and several professors would get intrigued and be arguing at the board over the solution. What I grew to realize later in life is they weren't just teaching us the material; they were teaching us how to work in a professional environment.
.

Just over the weekend I read an article that said, lower-income students tend to either be too embarrassed (or intimidated) to ask the prof for help during office hours, or they don't know it's an option that's available. I was in a program once, where the students rarely asked questions in class. I was the only one who asked questions, and the other students would always thank me for asking the questions they were puzzling over, themselves. They seemed to think, that to ask a question on the material in our readings, which was also usually covered in class lectures as well, was admitting that they didn't know the material. They thought it would make them look bad. So that type of thinking is probably what causes some students to not make use of office hours. They think it's "bad" to need help, a mark against them.

I remember, that the only class I ever needed help in, in college was a class where the professor wouldn't have been of any help. He was the type who was so off on his own cloud, that he wouldn't have been able to understand why anyone was having trouble with the material, or how to help students figure out a topic for the required paper. He wouldn't have been able to come down from his cloud to the mundane level of kids struggling with a required course that was over their heads. I was able to eventually find the help I needed from a friend.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Just over the weekend I read an article that said, lower-income students tend to either be too embarrassed (or intimidated) to ask the prof for help during office hours, or they don't know it's an option that's available. I was in a program once, where the students rarely asked questions in class. I was the only one who asked questions, and the other students would always thank me for asking the questions they were puzzling over, themselves. They seemed to think, that to ask a question on the material in our readings, which was also usually covered in class lectures as well, was admitting that they didn't know the material. They thought it would make them look bad. So that type of thinking is probably what causes some students to not make use of office hours. They think it's "bad" to need help, a mark against them.
.

That's an interesting point. Where would they "learn" that asking questions is bad? It seems so many kids in elementary school are egger to ask questions about everything. By high school they try to hide in the back of the class. What makes them afraid to speak up in class?

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I remember, that the only class I ever needed help in, in college was a class where the professor wouldn't have been of any help. He was the type who was so off on his own cloud, that he wouldn't have been able to understand why anyone was having trouble with the material, or how to help students figure out a topic for the required paper. He wouldn't have been able to come down from his cloud to the mundane level of kids struggling with a required course that was over their heads. I was able to eventually find the help I needed from a friend.

I can see that as a form of the "professor wouldn't have been any help.

[cowboyxjon]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Just over the weekend I read an article that said, lower-income students tend to either be too embarrassed (or intimidated) to ask the prof for help during office hours, or they don't know it's an option that's available. I was in a program once, where the students rarely asked questions in class. I was the only one who asked questions, and the other students would always thank me for asking the questions they were puzzling over, themselves. They seemed to think, that to ask a question on the material in our readings, which was also usually covered in class lectures as well, was admitting that they didn't know the material. They thought it would make them look bad. So that type of thinking is probably what causes some students to not make use of office hours. They think it's "bad" to need help, a mark against them.

I remember, that the only class I ever needed help in, in college was a class where the professor wouldn't have been of any help. He was the type who was so off on his own cloud, that he wouldn't have been able to understand why anyone was having trouble with the material, or how to help students figure out a topic for the required paper. He wouldn't have been able to come down from his cloud to the mundane level of kids struggling with a required course that was over their heads. I was able to eventually find the help I needed from a friend.

I don’t understand how they would not know that office hours are an option that is available. It’s usually listed on the syllabus and the instructor usually mentions it as well.

I went to office hours from time to time when there was something I felt I didn’t understand well although some of my professors might been intelligent people, but were poor teachers. So in those cases I usually looked elsewhere for help or clarification.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

Sorry not to respond sooner. Our son was finally able to get home on leave so today was his Christmas. He left to head back this afternoon.

Hope you had a nice time.

I'd agree that high school should get back to tracking but event that doesn't address those who pick the wrong major.

Perhaps high schools need to do a better job of guiding students toward appropriate majors.

You've said that your college was mediocre so you may not have seen as much of the demographic I'm talking about; the ones who are college level material and can do well in college but not necessarily in specific majors.

Most of those I knew who were weeded out of engineering majors either dropped out, flunked out, or switched their major to Human Development and Family Studies..

That's a legitimate decision and reasoning. But perhaps what I was trying to say didn't come through. Which leads into...

I would say that when you are in high school, you need to determine your life goals and career goals. Instead of choosing a major that would academically interest you for 4 years, decide where you want to live and what lifestyle you want. Choose a career that is plentiful where you want to live, that you can at least tolerate, and that would allow you your desired lifestyle, and then choose a major that leads do that career. And decide if you want to work to live or live to work, and whether or not your intended situation will be dependent on a higher ranked college, or if you'd be better off to avoid debt. The problem is, no 17 year old knows enough about himself/herself nor about the world to make these decisions.

Is the material in AP and college the same? Or do more rigorous colleges teach to a higher level.

in looking at syllabuses and lecture notes online, and in seeing what my peers were doing, I would say that what I learned in AP was identical to what they learned in college. And, as I explained, I know for sure that my AP Chem class was identical to the chem class that Syracuse University students took. I should also mention that my AP Physics C teacher had a daughter whose then boyfriend was a student at the college that I attended. He showed my teacher all of the exams that he had in the first 2 physics classes (the weed out classes), and said the exams were actually much easier than the AP exam.

You keep mentioning professors working against you. Now I readily admit there are bad professors and have stated so often. But doesn't imply that any professor is actively working against you. That would imply they cared enough about you to expend the effort to work against you. However that doesn't mean the coursework and performance expectations won't be used to weed out those who don't meet them.

What I mean is that they work against us by having exams at inconvenient times (such as Wednesday before Thanksgiving after the dorms are closed), having major assignments due at inconvenient times and not allowing them to be handed in early, by having draconian attendance policies with no exceptions for any reason, where missing class even for a funeral is 10 points off your average, and there are no makeup exams, and any exam you miss, even for a funeral, means getting a 0. and given excessive amounts of busywork homework, not challenging homework like the professor that you mentioned liking gave you. I would also say that outright refusal to explain your grading policy is also working against students, but the academics who dominate this forum just think I was a grade grubber. Openly admitting that they break the rules but that they have tenure so there is nothing anybody can do is working against students.

Dual enrollment, at least as we've seen it, allows students in high school to enroll in a local college and attend classes through the college, taught by the college's faculty. They transfer in as college credit rather than AP credit. The courses count as both high school and college credit so it's possible to graduate high school with a year of college already completed (depends on how they are able to schedule classes). The thing that's limited it the most where I live is the high school course schedule doesn't always align well with the local college class schedule and there are some mandatory high school classes that don't have equivalent college courses. Specifics differ with different locations. Best part around here is dual enrollment is free to high school students because it becomes part of their high school education, and the law requires high school to be provided. High school Credit. College Credit. And no AP exam or bill.

Does this mean that you'd be travelling between the high school and college. Seems like a burdon, and it seems that it precludes having a normal high school life and participating in extra-curriculars, and having a job outside of school. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. My high school definitely did not offer anything like that. And, even if they did, the consensus was, rightly or wrongly, that colleges would be more willing to accept the AP class since the colleges were more familiar with it.

Cool. I love learning about other fields. What do you do as a traffic engineer? I always thought the mits in your username was for MIT Student.

Mostly things like intersection design, traffic signal timing, lighting, and ITS. MITS = MIT + ITS.

Note 1. I think you had a bad assumption there. I don't know any professors who do nothing. I know a few that tried, but tenure didn't protect them.

Maybe it depends on the school. I know plenty of professors who were paid for doing basically nothing, and they were proud of that fact.

Note 2. I'm not sure that follows from getting a PhD. It may at some places, but many others hire them easily. It may not help but haven't seen it hurt anyone.

Most employers say it makes you overqualified.

Note 3. That's pretty much normal. You have to pass a set of exams to become eligible for the PhD in the technical programs I'm aware of. I learned those rules even while still in undergrad. No different than any career out there. The pyramid gets smaller as you move up and more weed outs occur.

Then instead of it being promoted as a Masters program, it should be promoted as a PhD program that most students are dismissed from after 2 years. If I knew what I knew now, would I have been willing to risk 2 years of my life to see if I got into the PhD program? I say no.

I'm curious now what they taught in the college you attended. I've used things I learned in college right from my very first job. In fact, that job was my first experience where people could not be trained to do the job even though they had a college degree if they didn't have specific academic learning before starting the job.

First of all, the vast majority of my civil engineering classes had nothing at all to do with traffic / transportation. Many of them were structural, geotechnical, or environmental, and none are even remotely related to the work that I do. Aside from that, everything was very theoretical, not real-world oriented, and very mathematical. I did well in college since I am very mathematically oriented. But in real life, my field is less mathematical, and more about "engineering judgment", which is not something that I am strong in at all. I do not know if engineering judgement is something that you either have or don't have, or if it's something that a better college could have taught me.

The few times I did go to office hours for engineering classes, the only response I'd ever get was "use your engineering judgment". But anything that didn't mirror what the professor wanted was marked wrong. So it was never about judgment. To my mind, engineering judgment is basically mind reading. For the poll, I counted that as the advice not being helpful.