BadBoysDriveAudi: In my line of work, I have scheduling conflicts all the time for meetings or training sessions while trying to continue to actually produce a product/service.
OohShiny: What gets you fired is choosing not to attend meetings because you don't like the instructor or having a second job interfere with your duties on the first. You don't have that freedom in the real world, and there is no reason you should have that freedom at university.
By trying to argue too much, you're committing all sorts of fallacies. How is a meeting scheduling conflict going to get me fired? As I see it, there are multiple people demanding my time, and I have to make a choice as to which meeting I attend. The other one is attended by someone in my stead, who takes the minutes so that I may review at a later time. In the other scenario, I sit on the phone with a headpiece, or I video conference while working on my laptop. Either way, I continue to get things done, and in such a way that people continue to request my time because they like the quality of my product/service.
In your previous post, you stated that I should get real because you can't or shouldn't pull off both things at once, i.e., do one thing and then watch a lecture at a later time. This was because, as you say, "it doesn't happen in the real world" [paraphrased]. I think I've given you a valid example that it DOES happen in the real world.
BadBoysDriveAudi: I'm arguing that if a university decides to record and disperse a lecture, they should do so freely. My second argument is that universities should seriously consider doing this for all lectures (or for lectures in high demand) because it's a very good idea.
OohShiny: Neither of those are arguments [complete with reference to Wikipedia].
First of all, let me state that I'm a geek and love Wikipedia. However, you shouldn't use the Wiki as your only source of defining the word argument. In fact, one should always question to validity of the information you find on Wikipedia because it can be altered or contain bad information. To borrow from your phrase, let's get real (as opposed to playing with subtle word definitions)...
When you walk into court and present a case, the action of presenting is called -- you got it, an argument. When the prosecutor contends something, it is his/her argument. When the defense does its thing, it's an argument. You have things such as closing arguments, etc... Last time I checked, those are persuasive speeches as well, as were the words I put down in my prior post.
The market doesn't "dictate", the market reflects demand. Demand exists apparently for both kinds of universities, those that record, and those that value presence. Given that both kinds of universities exist, what are you complaining about?
Ok, perhaps a poor word choice on my part, but I'm sure you got the point. Oh, and should we define the word complain?;)
"Second, attendance is mandatory not just in elementary school, but for many meetings, educational and otherwise, in adult life. I mean, what do you think would happen in the real world if you worked at Circuit City and told your manager that you wouldn't be attending their training sessions because you don't like the instructor or because you had another training session at Radio Shack at the same time? Get real."
Since you bring it up, let's get real. In my line of work, I have scheduling conflicts all the time for meetings or training sessions while trying to continue to actually produce a product/service. Guess what I do? I have people take meeting minutes so I can attend one meeting and then "catch up" on the other. I also utilize teleconferencing so I can attend a meeting while I actually get other work done.
Let's be real. The market may dictate that things go as you described UNTIL enough folks band together to enact a change. Isn't that how it always is? You're on a path, even if some people don't agree with it, until enough people find a way to change the status quo. California didn't like Governor Davis, yet he remained in office UNTIL enough people had enough and forced a recall. Based on these life events, I'd say that students (market), as a whole, haven't reached a critical mass yet.
First of all, many students obviously choose colleges where attendance is mandatory or where lectures aren't recorded (you apparently did yourself), so the market seems to have decided.
Again, critical mass hadn't been achieved so I took what I could and "made it work". Don't think for a second that I wouldn't be willing to volunteer my time to help out our current or future students though.
Saying "I have a right to" isn't persuading.
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I said a lot more than "I have a right to do such and such". Notwithstanding, I believe a certain distinguished gentleman once said "[t]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Last time I checked, the context of that speech clearly categorized it as persuasive.
But it's not a matter of opinion; it's a simple fact that many lectures aren't recorded and that you (obviously) have not been able to do anything about it.
You're missing the point; I'm not arguing that most lectures aren't recorded. I'm arguing that if a university decides to record and disperse a lecture, they should do so freely. My second argument is that universities should seriously consider doing this for all lectures (or for lectures in high demand) because it's a very good idea.
You have complete say about how you receive the material: there are hundreds of colleges offering material in a form completely suitable for people in the workforce. But you do not have a right to force changes in the program you are in; all you can do is to try and persuade them.
Isn't that the whole debate that's going on here? We're talking about students having the right to choose whether or not to attend classes or get the lecture in some other format. If the professor that I most desire holds his/her class hours at a time that is inconvenient for me (regardless of whether it's work or scheduling conflicts with another class), I should have the right to listen to the lecture if the program makes it available via a Podcast. I'm not advocating lynching the administration to make them honor my demands, I'm saying that IF they offer the Podcast service, then make it freely available.
I think responding to the rest of the comments will be beating a dead horse (no offense).
I'm also suggesting that students, i.e., the market, should persuade the administration(s) that it would be benefitial to relax the "you must attend the class" requirements because it's rather oxymoronic to call it higher education when you treat the students like they're in elementary school.
I guess the point I'm trying to make (not the issue of whether or not I had a hard life) is that the college should offer students, i.e., the market, what the students are demanding -- especially considering that we're footing the bill. After all, we're the ones footing the bill, so we should have some say as to how we choose to receive our material. Is it the college's right to offer "different products" as you put it? Yes, I'll agree with you. But at the same time, if the market decided to vote against that limited product set, where would the college be?
I've changed where I do my banking business because they don't allow me to download my transactions automatically in a format that's recognized by my personal finance software. It's their right to not offer the product, and it's my right to reject their services. That's slightly different than the situation where colleges across the board decide that full-time day students are going to be REQUIRED to attend class. It should be my right to decide if I'm going to waste my time and skip, or to attend class, or to work and view the lecture at a later time. I paid for that "spot" in the lecture, so it's up to me whether or not I choose to utilize it.
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.:)
"There are programs for people like you: part-time programs, degree programs for working professionals, and long distance degree programs. If you're in a full-time program, however, the program is designed for people who have the time to attend every lecture, participate in every group, and do all the homework. If you can't make it to lectures because of conflicts or work, then chances are you are missing out on other parts of the program as well that can't be video taped.
So, it sounds like you're simply in the wrong program. The solution is for you to switch to a different program, not for the university to change their full-time program into a program for part-time students like you."
I respectfully disagree. During those times, I was taking no less than 15 credit hours (12 is considered full-time student), and working as a waiter and/or cashier (hardly what I'd consider a working progessional). I HAD to work to pay for my books, my tuition, my rent, food, etc. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have parents who socked money away for them to attend school without having to worry about the real world at the same time. I'm living proof that any individual coming from a very humble beginning can succeed if they put their mind to it.
Quick personal history: broken home (abusive father), single mother living on welfare to feed three small children (she was embarrassed and worked hard to get off of it -- which, ironically, is probably where I get my work ethic), disgraceful schools, gunshots on the block at night. Mom takes very dangerous assignments in subway at night in Bronx or Brooklyn in order to make a small additional amount of money to feed the kids. Believe me, if she had the cash to stash for my education, she would have.
Perhaps I could've ate better, and have more time for studies (and fun) if I just stood on the corner and slung dope on the weekends. But then again, that defeats the whole purpose of what I was trying to accomplish.;-)
"Let me ask the reverse question: why would you not come to lectures at the scheduled times? You're in school, you're paying good money for it, the curriculum is designed to enable you to take the courses without conflicts, and the courses are designed for steady, regular attendence. What earthly reason would there be to skip classes except in cases of dire emergency?"
Let me give you a few examples because I've run into these situations.
You'd rather have Professor A than Professor B, but if you sign up for Professor A, the class time conflicts with another class you'd like to attend. This has happened to me numerous times.
You'd like to take a class (regardless of whether you like the professor or not), but can't do so because you also have to work to pay the bills. If I could get the lesson on video and watch after I get home from work, that would be awesome! Yes, this has happened to me as well, so I ultimately had to work less because I couldn't trade hours. Those semesters sucked because I basically scrapped by on peanuts. It would have been better if I had a choice.
"Of course, if the professor in question is a good professor, the engaging, interactive, interesting, imaginative type who we always want as teachers but never seem to get, they shouldn't have a problem drawing people to their actual lectures anyway. People should WANT to come, and the ones that don't want to probably shouldn't be there anyway: they just sit in the back, and cause disturbances when their cell phones ring or they spill their Vente Mocha Decaf Frappichinos."
Thank you...thank you, thank you, thank you! That's exactly the message I tried to convey earlier. This is higher education, so let it be up to the students (who are footing the bill anyway) make the determination of whether they should go to class. I had a database professor who also taught the Management Information Systems class, and both courses were a bore. I actually did better reading the text IN CLASS rather than listening to her lecture.
On the other hand, my Econ professor was absolutely great, and I enjoyed being in class. Western Civilization (a class that I thought I'd hate) turned out to be one that actually looked forward to attending, and I hated history! I enrolled in the follow-up class the next sememster (never thought in a million years that I'd do that).
It's higher education folks -- let's let the ones paying the bills decide what's important. It's bad enough we have to take mandated classes that may or may not have anything to do with our career goals.
"But are they learning if they are not part of the interaction between the teacher and the class?
No questions asked, none answered."
----
Oh, come on now! I took C, Java, VB and C# among other things in Uni, and while I achieved the highest marks in all subjects, I don't doubt my ability to learn Python outside of the classroom. Do I really need to sit in a class for 3.5 months to learn a new language, or can I just stroll down to the nearest Borders and buy a book and teach myself (using Google in areas where I need more information)?
If I were interested in how to become a better investor, so I decided to learn about financial analysis, do I really need to sit in a class to learn what a P/E ratio is or how to apply it? This is higher education, and I believe it is up to the student to decide how they choose to learn. For goodness sakes, the student is the one paying the bill, so why are we allowing professors and the school itself to mandate attendance?
IMO, if the student desires the Podcast, let him/her have it unconditionally. If that student needs to pose a question, they can choose to wander into the classroom and ask it personally. Let's let higher education BE higher education.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, for the love of...
BadBoysDriveAudi: In my line of work, I have scheduling conflicts all the time for meetings or training sessions while trying to continue to actually produce a product/service.
OohShiny: What gets you fired is choosing not to attend meetings because you don't like the instructor or having a second job interfere with your duties on the first. You don't have that freedom in the real world, and there is no reason you should have that freedom at university.
By trying to argue too much, you're committing all sorts of fallacies. How is a meeting scheduling conflict going to get me fired? As I see it, there are multiple people demanding my time, and I have to make a choice as to which meeting I attend. The other one is attended by someone in my stead, who takes the minutes so that I may review at a later time. In the other scenario, I sit on the phone with a headpiece, or I video conference while working on my laptop. Either way, I continue to get things done, and in such a way that people continue to request my time because they like the quality of my product/service.
In your previous post, you stated that I should get real because you can't or shouldn't pull off both things at once, i.e., do one thing and then watch a lecture at a later time. This was because, as you say, "it doesn't happen in the real world" [paraphrased]. I think I've given you a valid example that it DOES happen in the real world.
BadBoysDriveAudi: I'm arguing that if a university decides to record and disperse a lecture, they should do so freely. My second argument is that universities should seriously consider doing this for all lectures (or for lectures in high demand) because it's a very good idea.
OohShiny: Neither of those are arguments [complete with reference to Wikipedia].
First of all, let me state that I'm a geek and love Wikipedia. However, you shouldn't use the Wiki as your only source of defining the word argument. In fact, one should always question to validity of the information you find on Wikipedia because it can be altered or contain bad information. To borrow from your phrase, let's get real (as opposed to playing with subtle word definitions)...
When you walk into court and present a case, the action of presenting is called -- you got it, an argument. When the prosecutor contends something, it is his/her argument. When the defense does its thing, it's an argument. You have things such as closing arguments, etc... Last time I checked, those are persuasive speeches as well, as were the words I put down in my prior post.
The market doesn't "dictate", the market reflects demand. Demand exists apparently for both kinds of universities, those that record, and those that value presence. Given that both kinds of universities exist, what are you complaining about?
Ok, perhaps a poor word choice on my part, but I'm sure you got the point. Oh, and should we define the word complain? ;)
"Second, attendance is mandatory not just in elementary school, but for many meetings, educational and otherwise, in adult life. I mean, what do you think would happen in the real world if you worked at Circuit City and told your manager that you wouldn't be attending their training sessions because you don't like the instructor or because you had another training session at Radio Shack at the same time? Get real."
Since you bring it up, let's get real. In my line of work, I have scheduling conflicts all the time for meetings or training sessions while trying to continue to actually produce a product/service. Guess what I do? I have people take meeting minutes so I can attend one meeting and then "catch up" on the other. I also utilize teleconferencing so I can attend a meeting while I actually get other work done.
Let's be real. The market may dictate that things go as you described UNTIL enough folks band together to enact a change. Isn't that how it always is? You're on a path, even if some people don't agree with it, until enough people find a way to change the status quo. California didn't like Governor Davis, yet he remained in office UNTIL enough people had enough and forced a recall. Based on these life events, I'd say that students (market), as a whole, haven't reached a critical mass yet.
First of all, many students obviously choose colleges where attendance is mandatory or where lectures aren't recorded (you apparently did yourself), so the market seems to have decided.
Again, critical mass hadn't been achieved so I took what I could and "made it work". Don't think for a second that I wouldn't be willing to volunteer my time to help out our current or future students though.
Saying "I have a right to" isn't persuading.
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I said a lot more than "I have a right to do such and such". Notwithstanding, I believe a certain distinguished gentleman once said "[t]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Last time I checked, the context of that speech clearly categorized it as persuasive.
But it's not a matter of opinion; it's a simple fact that many lectures aren't recorded and that you (obviously) have not been able to do anything about it.
You're missing the point; I'm not arguing that most lectures aren't recorded. I'm arguing that if a university decides to record and disperse a lecture, they should do so freely. My second argument is that universities should seriously consider doing this for all lectures (or for lectures in high demand) because it's a very good idea.
Like I said, we'll have to disagree.
You have complete say about how you receive the material: there are hundreds of colleges offering material in a form completely suitable for people in the workforce. But you do not have a right to force changes in the program you are in; all you can do is to try and persuade them.
Isn't that the whole debate that's going on here? We're talking about students having the right to choose whether or not to attend classes or get the lecture in some other format. If the professor that I most desire holds his/her class hours at a time that is inconvenient for me (regardless of whether it's work or scheduling conflicts with another class), I should have the right to listen to the lecture if the program makes it available via a Podcast. I'm not advocating lynching the administration to make them honor my demands, I'm saying that IF they offer the Podcast service, then make it freely available.
I think responding to the rest of the comments will be beating a dead horse (no offense).
I'm also suggesting that students, i.e., the market, should persuade the administration(s) that it would be benefitial to relax the "you must attend the class" requirements because it's rather oxymoronic to call it higher education when you treat the students like they're in elementary school.
I guess the point I'm trying to make (not the issue of whether or not I had a hard life) is that the college should offer students, i.e., the market, what the students are demanding -- especially considering that we're footing the bill. After all, we're the ones footing the bill, so we should have some say as to how we choose to receive our material. Is it the college's right to offer "different products" as you put it? Yes, I'll agree with you. But at the same time, if the market decided to vote against that limited product set, where would the college be? I've changed where I do my banking business because they don't allow me to download my transactions automatically in a format that's recognized by my personal finance software. It's their right to not offer the product, and it's my right to reject their services. That's slightly different than the situation where colleges across the board decide that full-time day students are going to be REQUIRED to attend class. It should be my right to decide if I'm going to waste my time and skip, or to attend class, or to work and view the lecture at a later time. I paid for that "spot" in the lecture, so it's up to me whether or not I choose to utilize it. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one. :)
"There are programs for people like you: part-time programs, degree programs for working professionals, and long distance degree programs. If you're in a full-time program, however, the program is designed for people who have the time to attend every lecture, participate in every group, and do all the homework. If you can't make it to lectures because of conflicts or work, then chances are you are missing out on other parts of the program as well that can't be video taped.
So, it sounds like you're simply in the wrong program. The solution is for you to switch to a different program, not for the university to change their full-time program into a program for part-time students like you."
I respectfully disagree. During those times, I was taking no less than 15 credit hours (12 is considered full-time student), and working as a waiter and/or cashier (hardly what I'd consider a working progessional). I HAD to work to pay for my books, my tuition, my rent, food, etc. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have parents who socked money away for them to attend school without having to worry about the real world at the same time. I'm living proof that any individual coming from a very humble beginning can succeed if they put their mind to it.
Quick personal history: broken home (abusive father), single mother living on welfare to feed three small children (she was embarrassed and worked hard to get off of it -- which, ironically, is probably where I get my work ethic), disgraceful schools, gunshots on the block at night. Mom takes very dangerous assignments in subway at night in Bronx or Brooklyn in order to make a small additional amount of money to feed the kids. Believe me, if she had the cash to stash for my education, she would have.
Perhaps I could've ate better, and have more time for studies (and fun) if I just stood on the corner and slung dope on the weekends. But then again, that defeats the whole purpose of what I was trying to accomplish. ;-)
"Let me ask the reverse question: why would you not come to lectures at the scheduled times? You're in school, you're paying good money for it, the curriculum is designed to enable you to take the courses without conflicts, and the courses are designed for steady, regular attendence. What earthly reason would there be to skip classes except in cases of dire emergency?"
Let me give you a few examples because I've run into these situations.
Thank you...thank you, thank you, thank you! That's exactly the message I tried to convey earlier. This is higher education, so let it be up to the students (who are footing the bill anyway) make the determination of whether they should go to class. I had a database professor who also taught the Management Information Systems class, and both courses were a bore. I actually did better reading the text IN CLASS rather than listening to her lecture.
On the other hand, my Econ professor was absolutely great, and I enjoyed being in class. Western Civilization (a class that I thought I'd hate) turned out to be one that actually looked forward to attending, and I hated history! I enrolled in the follow-up class the next sememster (never thought in a million years that I'd do that).
It's higher education folks -- let's let the ones paying the bills decide what's important. It's bad enough we have to take mandated classes that may or may not have anything to do with our career goals.
"But are they learning if they are not part of the interaction between the teacher and the class? No questions asked, none answered." ---- Oh, come on now! I took C, Java, VB and C# among other things in Uni, and while I achieved the highest marks in all subjects, I don't doubt my ability to learn Python outside of the classroom. Do I really need to sit in a class for 3.5 months to learn a new language, or can I just stroll down to the nearest Borders and buy a book and teach myself (using Google in areas where I need more information)? If I were interested in how to become a better investor, so I decided to learn about financial analysis, do I really need to sit in a class to learn what a P/E ratio is or how to apply it? This is higher education, and I believe it is up to the student to decide how they choose to learn. For goodness sakes, the student is the one paying the bill, so why are we allowing professors and the school itself to mandate attendance? IMO, if the student desires the Podcast, let him/her have it unconditionally. If that student needs to pose a question, they can choose to wander into the classroom and ask it personally. Let's let higher education BE higher education.