Impressions November 2020 Part III

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Zachary Ross:
One time in mechanics the professor threw out the exam, with the logic that if everyone did so poorly it was the exam and not the students that failed.

Hm. One might read the causality the other way.

I don’t agree. For many physics and engineering profs, it’s not easy to put their mind set into one learning a topic for the first time and having much less facility for the subject matter. It is also not the goal to have an exam fitting into the high school grading system of 60 (D-) to 100 (A+). There will be a curve in all cases.

I had a Physics Prof in grad school, one of my favorites actually, who wouldn’t give anyone a solid A in Quantum Mechanics at Michigan because we weren’t at Harvard. (He is a lifelong Michigan guy now around 90.) Our max grade was A-. I guess presumptions about the highest achievable score of Premier Cru and Grand Cru pervade every field.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Rahsaan:

originally posted by VLM:
At the very least they offer a judgement of relative quality to me (a 90 is a better wine than an 88)...As you know, I actually view them as objective grades of quality. You don't need to view them that way but would you rank them differently? Even if you don't believe they are interval in scale, would you allow them to be at least ordinal.

I think the wine internet has seen this discussion many times over. But it is exactly this comparison across wines (interval/ordinal/whatever) that loses me. Wine is not like money (more = better) because different wines have different qualities. Points don’t help you choose the ‘best’ wine for a casual oyster feast as opposed to a formal dinner with steak.

But that’s why I don’t put down numbers. Your notes are clearly very sensitive to the context of the wine, so whatever works.

Yeah, we don't need to rehash all of it. My scores are a reflection of my perceived quality. I like to think that given my experience and knowledge that this does capture something objective about, or at least intrinsic to, the wine in question. But no one needs to believe that. If you find the words useful, the score should add context to the words because if I rate a wine higher than another then I think it is better. Even if Profs Maxwell and Loesberg use a different part of the scale, as long as they are internally consistent we can learn something about how you perceive wine quality and would allow correlation with each other. I would never want to debate (or care really) if you scored the 2008 Mugneret the same as I did. I would, however, argue with you if you rated the 2005 Mugnier higher because I think it is lower quality irrespective of how you use the scale. In measurement, this is allowing everyone to set their own anchors.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Yes, I remember a math professor at my undergraduate university saying that any test he gave in which any student got 100 was a failed test because it didn't show what the students did not know, and since he wanted to find what they hadn't learned, he curved the grades accordingly. It was not the principle of grading I experienced or followed as a humanities professor.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Zachary Ross:
One time in mechanics the professor threw out the exam, with the logic that if everyone did so poorly it was the exam and not the students that failed.

Hm. One might read the causality the other way.

I don’t agree. For many physics and engineering profs, it’s not easy to put their mind set into one learning a topic for the first time and having much less facility for the subject matter. It is also not the goal to have an exam fitting into the high school grading system of 60 (D-) to 100 (A+). There will be a curve in all cases.

I had a Physics Prof in grad school, one of my favorites actually, who wouldn’t give anyone a solid A in Quantum Mechanics at Michigan because we weren’t at Harvard. (He is a lifelong Michigan guy now around 90.) Our max grade was A-. I guess presumptions about the highest achievable score of Premier Cru and Grand Cru pervade every field.

I wipe the floor with Crimson trash on a regular basis. Overachieving sociopaths.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Zachary Ross:
One time in mechanics the professor threw out the exam, with the logic that if everyone did so poorly it was the exam and not the students that failed.

Hm. One might read the causality the other way.

I don’t agree.

You know what they call the med student who got 32% on his final exam?

This is not a thought that makes me happier.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Zachary Ross:
One time in mechanics the professor threw out the exam, with the logic that if everyone did so poorly it was the exam and not the students that failed.

Hm. One might read the causality the other way.

The STEM disciplines in academia are rife with those who gain some perverse satisfaction from a low average on their tests. These are the same sorts who level criticisms at award-winning teachers such as yours truly who have test averages that are higher as “pandering to students” or “dumbing down the material.” (For reference, my test averages are in the 60-70% range). They overlook the pedagogical shortfall of score compression just as those with an 85% average do. My metric is dynamic range: my tests typically range from 24-106 (with extra credit), which is good enough for me.

Mark Lipton

 

[VLM]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Zachary Ross:
One time in mechanics the professor threw out the exam, with the logic that if everyone did so poorly it was the exam and not the students that failed.

Hm. One might read the causality the other way.

The STEM disciplines in academia are rife with those who gain some perverse satisfaction from a low average on their tests. These are the same sorts who level criticisms at award-winning teachers such as yours truly who have test averages that are higher as “pandering to students” or “dumbing down the material.” (For reference, my test averages are in the 60-70% range). They overlook the pedagogical shortfall of score compression just as those with an 85% average do. My metric is dynamic range: my tests typically range from 24-106 (with extra credit), which is good enough for me.

Mark Lipton

When I taught (as shocking a thought as that is) I was most proud of leading all graduate teachers with the lowest correlation between grades and teacher rating. No one would ever confuse me with an award winning teacher, though. The funny thing about grades is how little they matter. If you know the material, the grade takes care of itself (but woe be unto thee who tries to convince undergraduates of this). I used to think that my end game would be as a teacher with a small NIH portfolio, but mostly as a teacher at a college instead of a large R1 university. I always wanted to develop a full bank of test items and really apply IRT over 10-20 years. BTW, your dynamic range metric is a good one from an evaluation standpoint.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Zachary Ross:
One time in mechanics the professor threw out the exam, with the logic that if everyone did so poorly it was the exam and not the students that failed.

Hm. One might read the causality the other way.

The STEM disciplines in academia are rife with those who gain some perverse satisfaction from a low average on their tests. These are the same sorts who level criticisms at award-winning teachers such as yours truly who have test averages that are higher as “pandering to students” or “dumbing down the material.” (For reference, my test averages are in the 60-70% range). They overlook the pedagogical shortfall of score compression just as those with an 85% average do. My metric is dynamic range: my tests typically range from 24-106 (with extra credit), which is good enough for me.

Mark Lipton

When I taught (as shocking a thought as that is) I was most proud of leading all graduate teachers with the lowest correlation between grades and teacher rating. No one would ever confuse me with an award winning teacher, though. The funny thing about grades is how little they matter. If you know the material, the grade takes care of itself (but woe be unto thee who tries to convince undergraduates of this). I used to think that my end game would be as a teacher with a small NIH portfolio, but mostly as a teacher at a college instead of a large R1 university. I always wanted to develop a full bank of test items and really apply IRT over 10-20 years. BTW, your dynamic range metric is a good one from an evaluation standpoint.

The undergraduate premeds I tutored in Freshman physics back in the day certainly thought their grades mattered. I don’t suppose anything has changed 25 years later. (F, we’re getting old.)

 

[Peter Creasey]

Maybe I missed it, but there seems to be a need for parameter(s) whereby low/high test scores should have a bearing on judgement as to how well/poorly the professor taught the course.

. . . . . . Pete

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Maybe I missed it, but there seems to be a need for parameter(s) whereby low/high test scores should have a bearing on judgement as to how well/poorly the professor taught the course.

. . . . . . Pete

This is one of the great bad ideas of all times. Since the professor gives the grades, he or she can make sure the grades will reflect a well-taught course. There are really no trustworthy criteria for judging quality of teaching. Student evaluations do tell you something,but no one is sure quite what. Looking at course material is instructive but not definitive (there are, alas, instructors who can put together very intelligent syllabi, paper assignments, exams, etc. but can't negotiate their way through a classroom). They are also time consuming to evaluate (so faculty don't like to do the work and administrators mostly won't) and, with no commonly agreed upon criteria, the judgments invariably vary. And, yet, despite this, the American University system is very good at what it does.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Maybe I missed it, but there seems to be a need for parameter(s) whereby low/high test scores should have a bearing on judgement as to how well/poorly the professor taught the course.

. . . . . . Pete

This is one of the great bad ideas of all times. Since the professor gives the grades, he or she can make sure the grades will reflect a well-taught course. There are really no trustworthy criteria for judging quality of teaching. Student evaluations do tell you something,but no one is sure quite what. Looking at course material is instructive but not definitive (there are, alas, instructors who can put together very intelligent syllabi, paper assignments, exams, etc. but can't negotiate their way through a classroom). They are also time consuming to evaluate (so faculty don't like to do the work and administrators mostly won't) and, with no commonly agreed upon criteria, the judgments invariably vary. And, yet, despite this, the American University system is very good at what it does.

It really does do an amazingly good job given how chaotic it all is and how teaching has almost nothing to do with the incentive structure in place. It's one of those things where it could be better, but I think trying to improve it might just kill what makes it work in the first place. Students have to become active learners rather than passive recipients which is the source of the greatest growth for individuals and value of a college education, IMO. It's not really about *what* one learns. Mostly, you don't learn enough with just an undergraduate degree to do anything specific and technical in any field but you figure out how to acquire and store knowledge and relate it to other knowledge.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

The great difference between American universities and European ones, at least, according to the few Europeans who have studied in both institutions, and colleagues who have done Fullbrights there, is the level of individual attention students get at American universities. Most of this attention, in large research universities, for lower-level undergraduates, never comes, alas, from the msot achieved faculty, but they do get it and it does make a difference. If I am to judge from my own erstwhile institution, alas, more and more of the work of office hours, counseling and personal treatment falls more and more on underpaid adjuncts and contingent faculty. But, it's probably true that the cost of paying research faculty, who teach many fewer classes, to do this for the bulk of undergraduates would be prohibitive.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The great difference between American universities and European ones, at least, according to the few Europeans who have studied in both institutions, and colleagues who have done Fullbrights there, is the level of individual attention students get at American universities. Most of this attention, in large research universities, for lower-level undergraduates, never comes, alas, from the msot achieved faculty, but they do get it and it does make a difference. If I am to judge from my own erstwhile institution, alas, more and more of the work of office hours, counseling and personal treatment falls more and more on underpaid adjuncts and contingent faculty. But, it's probably true that the cost of paying research faculty, who teach many fewer classes, to do this for the bulk of undergraduates would be prohibitive.

Jeez, Jonathan, may I request that you rewrite this with half as many words? You've got so many dependent clauses, inversions, and counterpoints that I have had to read it three times to have any idea who's tutoring who and how much.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The great difference between American universities and European ones, at least, according to the few Europeans who have studied in both institutions, and colleagues who have done Fullbrights there, is the level of individual attention students get at American universities. Most of this attention, in large research universities, for lower-level undergraduates, never comes, alas, from the msot achieved faculty, but they do get it and it does make a difference. If I am to judge from my own erstwhile institution, alas, more and more of the work of office hours, counseling and personal treatment falls more and more on underpaid adjuncts and contingent faculty. But, it's probably true that the cost of paying research faculty, who teach many fewer classes, to do this for the bulk of undergraduates would be prohibitive.

Jeez, Jonathan, may I request that you rewrite this with half as many words? You've got so many dependent clauses, inversions, and counterpoints that I have had to read it three times to have any idea who's tutoring who and how much.

Never try to read one of my books, Jeff.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

I thought I was the only one who bought La Sibilla piedirosso. I am drinking the 2005 right now and it's so beautiful, maybe the best it's ever been. Still has those succulent gamey flavors and is now about as ethereal as wine gets. The way it flows on the palate is like you'd just upgraded your tasting apparatus from 30 to 60 fps.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

I see several old reports about La Sibilla Piedirosso from ten years ago using the search, but I’m not sure I’ve ever had this wine. It looks like 2017 and 2018 are both available in NY. Any preferences? At this price I could just get one of each but not surprisingly I’d lean toward whichever comes off cooler, even if that’s hard for either of these vintages.

 

[MarkS]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The great difference between American universities and European ones, at least, according to the few Europeans who have studied in both institutions, and colleagues who have done Fullbrights there, is the level of individual attention students get at American universities. Most of this attention, in large research universities, for lower-level undergraduates, never comes, alas, from the msot achieved faculty, but they do get it and it does make a difference. If I am to judge from my own erstwhile institution, alas, more and more of the work of office hours, counseling and personal treatment falls more and more on underpaid adjuncts and contingent faculty. But, it's probably true that the cost of paying research faculty, who teach many fewer classes, to do this for the bulk of undergraduates would be prohibitive.

Is this another example of "you get what you pay for"?

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by MarkS:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The great difference between American universities and European ones, at least, according to the few Europeans who have studied in both institutions, and colleagues who have done Fullbrights there, is the level of individual attention students get at American universities. Most of this attention, in large research universities, for lower-level undergraduates, never comes, alas, from the msot achieved faculty, but they do get it and it does make a difference. If I am to judge from my own erstwhile institution, alas, more and more of the work of office hours, counseling and personal treatment falls more and more on underpaid adjuncts and contingent faculty. But, it's probably true that the cost of paying research faculty, who teach many fewer classes, to do this for the bulk of undergraduates would be prohibitive.

Is this another example of "you get what you pay for"?

Not entirely. You can pay plenty to be an undergrad at Harvard or Stanford and still have no smaller class size or contact with a Professor than at a large public school. OTOH, my department at a large public institution has the policy that all classes are taught by tenure-track faculty. Any Chem major here who wants to meet me has merely to come to one of my office hours (an offer that few take advantage of).

Mark Lipton

 

[Tristan Welles]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by MarkS:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The great difference between American universities and European ones, at least, according to the few Europeans who have studied in both institutions, and colleagues who have done Fullbrights there, is the level of individual attention students get at American universities. Most of this attention, in large research universities, for lower-level undergraduates, never comes, alas, from the msot achieved faculty, but they do get it and it does make a difference. If I am to judge from my own erstwhile institution, alas, more and more of the work of office hours, counseling and personal treatment falls more and more on underpaid adjuncts and contingent faculty. But, it's probably true that the cost of paying research faculty, who teach many fewer classes, to do this for the bulk of undergraduates would be prohibitive.

Is this another example of "you get what you pay for"?

Not entirely. You can pay plenty to be an undergrad at Harvard or Stanford and still have no smaller class size or contact with a Professor than at a large public school. OTOH, my department at a large public institution has the policy that all classes are taught by tenure-track faculty. Any Chem major here who wants to meet me has merely to come to one of my office hours (an offer that few take advantage of).

Mark Lipton

I found and, though anecdotally, find that you get what you try for. My familiarity is with U Wisconsin. If you want academic attention from tenure track faculty, do a little work and you will be rewarded, as Mark notes above.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

It's true that at places like Harvard and Stanford, one sees mostly if not entirely adjuncts and assistant professors for one's first two year, at least. And as with Mark's school, mine made it a point of pride and of advertisement that all professors taught lower lever general education classes, so that a freshman could easily be taught by a full professor.

But that wasn't my point. European institutions don't make full professors any more available to lower level undergraduates and if you gt megafamous, you get positions in which you don't teach at all. I knew Tzvetan Todorov slightly from my time at the School of Criticism and Theory (trust me, in literature a famous name) and I remember him telling me that his academic position in Fracce did not entail any teaching. But even at Harvard and Stanford, where one sees only non-tenure or lower level faculty, one gets individual attention from that faculty in a way that is rare or non-existent at European universities. Even when the cost of tenured research faculty entails that they do a smaller and smaller percentage of the teaching because there are fewer and fewer of them relative to the faculty as a whole, the faculty that is there is still required to hold office hours and expected to see students individually. There is a reason, American higher education draws in so many students from abroad.