Xref: utzoo comp.edu:1518 sci.math:5066 sci.physics:5104 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!apple!bionet!agate!e260-4b.berkeley.edu!c60a-2di From: c60a-2di@e260-4b.berkeley.edu (The Cybermat Rider) Newsgroups: comp.edu,sci.math,sci.physics Subject: Re: Student and Course Integrity (was Rising cost of textbooks) Summary: Points of view from a British-educated student Message-ID: <18107@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 10 Dec 88 01:43:06 GMT References: <1131@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> <1887@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> <1057@l.cc.purdue.edu> <12483@bellcore.bellcore.com> Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 127 NOTE: Although I'm studying at Berkeley now, I spent the previous years of my education under the British system in Singapore (General Certificate Examinations and all that). As such, the comments that I'll be making below are from the standpoint of a DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. No one has to agree with them - they're just the way things are in my home country. I'm also NOT TRYING TO SUGGEST CHANGES TO THE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM! Educational institutions here enjoy a MUCH GREATER autonomy than Singaporean ones, particularly with respect to exams and grading. As such, any suggestions I post will probably be impossible to apply (and are likely to draw flames, too :-) With that in mind, let us proceed to THE MEAT OF THE DISCUSSION: In article <12483@bellcore.bellcore.com> duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: >In article <1057@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >>3. It is not just a problem of mathematics, but the idea that one learns for >>the future, and not just for the grade in the current class, seems to have >>disappeared. > >While I think I have a feeling for what is meant here, I must admit that, in >many ways, even 20+ years ago when I was in college, the purpose of learning >was pretty vague. College faculty did not make a big deal of why you were >learning, except, of course, to go on to the next degree program. So, if you >wanted to be critical, it was a self-serving image presented. I never felt >it was that, as I loved to study and learn, and faculty encouraged me greatly >and life was great. However, I did NOT sense any great direction from them >when I participated in general class situations, i.e., they were encouraging >to me personally but pretty vague about why you were there in an open class >situation. Love of learning sort of came through, but no sense of future. In Singapore, on the other hand, there is a definite pressure on students to excel - a kind of educational "meritocracy" (not very suitable, but I can't think of a better word right now) brought about by the harsh realities of later employment. (It has been said that engineering students had better aim for AT LEAST A MASTER'S DEGREE in order to be assured of a good job, and in certain fields, even THAT is not enough - the competition is JUST TOO FIERCE!). As a consequence, the general philosophy among students is: "If I wanna get a good job and live fairly comfortably for the rest of my life, I'd better work REAL HARD NOW and study to the best of my abilities." This attitude seems to pervade from elementary school right up to university level. Not the ideal reason for learning, I'll grant you that, but it DOES seem to be VERY EFFECTIVE - students are more concerned with GENERAL PRINCIPLES rather than specific methods (perhaps partly through the constant drumming of the above into our thick skulls by our beloved teachers :-) Which is not to say, of course, that there are those who LOVE learning...... >>5. The teachers at the elementary and secondary levels can only teach >>plug-and-chug operations. Even proofs are memorized. The students expect >>such, and object to a teacher even mentioning anything else. They consider >>it an intolerable imposition on them if an examination question is given >>which cannot be done by following exactly the steps of a problem in class. >>There is resentment of taking class time to give an understanding of the >>material. Any statement made by the teacher is at least implicitly >>challenged by "Is this going to be on the final?" Not whether it will >>help in doing the exams, but whether it will be explicitly on the exams. > >This was true when I was a graduate assistant 20 years ago, too. But it's not true in the British system. Demonstrated proofs are used as EXAMPLES of general problem-solving techniques, and a student can be at least 95% sure that the problems presented will NOT appear in the exams in any immediately recognizable form. >>6. At the college level, it is politically difficult to require that the >>students have knowledge prerequisites. That someone got A's in their high >>school mathematics courses is no guarantee that s/he know anything from >>high school mathematics. That someone got an A in last term's calculus >>course is no guarantee that the material of that course can be used in this >>one. I have advocated that knowledge prerequisites be used, and that >>remedial courses be provided, and even taught with the understanding that, >>while it may be on the students' records, some of the students may not even >>have seen the relevant material. > >..... > > As I noted in another posting, I also >let people know at the very outset what they would have to know -- at least >as far as it was under my power to tell them -- for the end of term exam. I >never suggested they not attend class. No one ever tried to do so and just >show up for tests. (Yes, I did have people drop-out, but nothing dramatic. >And it was usually over other problems.) We do it on a larger scale - students are provided at the outset with a DETAILED SYLLABUS (common to all institutions within the British Commonwealth), so we are able to do a LOT of self-study, the better ones even MOVING BEYOND the guidelines provided. >>At least 10 more paragraphs can be written. The situation is BAD. Our >>Ph.D. programs are now dominated by foreign students, because the >>American ones do not exist. I have put forth some suggestions. > >Is this suggesting something wrong with having good foreign students. If the >point is to bemoan the state of public education in this country, I think a >better way to express it could have been found. It sounds like the aim is to >be sure "foreign students" don't "dominate" us rather than to just worry >about improving our educational practices. (sorry if I'm wrong but it sounds >like a condemnation of foreign students.) I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but I've just come from a Math lecture, and I was TAKEN ABACK at the majority of questions asked during the review session for the finals: "Is topic XXX gonna come out for the finals?" and (my personal favorite) "What do we have to know about YYY?" (EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN TAUGHT, obviously!) There have been rumors (note that - RUMORS!!!) circulating amongst Singaporean students that some American universities plan to impose quota restrictions against foreign students. If this is true (I hope FOR ALL OUR SAKES it isn't), such a measure WOULD NOT HELP AMERICAN STUDENTS AT ALL!!!!! The solution is not to reduce/eliminate foreign competition, but TO MAKE LOCAL STUDENTS MORE COMPETITIVE. I hope my point is taken. > >Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... >Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) > (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) > (201-699-3910 (w) 201-463-3683 (h)) And for myself (and my multiple personas), ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Ho a.k.a. The Cybermat Rider University of California, Berkeley c60a-2di@web.berkeley.edu Disclaimer: Nobody takes me seriously, so is it really necessary?