Professors say today's college kids really ARE dumber and lazier

That's a fair rebuttal. But from what I understand, it varies based on the college. Some colleges are clamping down on admissions to promote a "higher learning" atmosphere, while others are not. And what if the colleges which are letting in more kids now than 30 years ago are doing so for economic purposes?

 

One answer public colleges have had to shrinking budgets is to loosen admission standards. If you swell enrollement, you swell your bottom line.

 

One of the things that drives me crazy about (typically) public higher ed institutions is the attention paid to freshman retention. In part, I think, this comes from chasing rankings (e.g., U.S. News); freshman retention plays a modest-to-small role in those sorts of things. And in part the effort results from trying to justify funding with state legislatures. But I think that emphasis leads to some really screwy patterns.

For example, at my previous institution, the admissions stats were something on the order of 3 to 4 applications for every student actually admitted. But then once those who were admitted actually matriculated, lots of resources were devoted to keeping them engaged/motivated/handheld/ass-wiped, and a whole culture devoted to their care and feeding evolved.

My thoughts were always, "Hey, you got in, but if you blow this off, there are several others out there who'd love to take your seat. No need to let us know, either. Your performance will tell the tale." I think if higher education institutions actually would send the non-performers packing, you'd see a lot less of this dumber/lazier dynamic. Plus, for the more selective institutions, I think you'd see less of the affirmative action pressure. By that, I mean that many of those who didn't get in the first go-'round would likely as not get their chance a bit later in the game. "Pedro, Chase here has shown he's not all that interested in that slot we gave him last year. You've done fine so far at Less Selective U, so if you're still interested in us we'd love for you to come on in and take Chase's slot."

 

One of the professors I had first semester of my freshman year had this attitude. It was an entry level history class, and he was a gruff, old, tenured professor who couldn't stand teaching entry level classes. He spent the first few weeks basically berating the various idiots in the class until most of them dropped.

He was one of the best professors I had in undergrad. If he knew you cared about the material, he would give plenty of one-on-one time for papers and such and wanted to help those who cared. He was also probably the smartest professor I had and could speak knowledgeably about anything in the humanities. My main regret of school was not taking a higher level class with him before he retired during my junior year.

 

As I recall, I probably had only two or three undergrad courses taught by faculty who weren't on the tenure track, and many/most of my core freshman- and sophomore-level classes were taught by tenured associate and full professors. They were perfect in that role, because it was clear that if you didn't want to be there, they were more than willing to help you find your way out. If, on the other hand, you wanted to be there, they knew their stuff and they'd go out of their way to make sure you learned what you were supposed to learn.

Nowadays, unless you're at a small, selective liberal arts college, by and large your underclass core is going to be taught by adjuncts and lecturers whose continued employment depends almost exclusively on student teaching evaluations. Your feet are not going to be held to the fire. Indeed, your ass is going to be kissed. At my previous institution, they would have to schedule extra janitorial staff for that week when evaluations were going on to take care of all the doughnut/pizza/cookie boxes left by faculty trying to buy off the students. And yet the same people who scheduled the janitorial staff were the ones who thought that student evaluations were such good indicators of faculty performance!

 

"One of the professors I had first semester of my freshman year had this attitude. It was an entry level history class, and he was a gruff, old, tenured professor who couldn't stand teaching entry level classes. He spent the first few weeks basically berating the various idiots in the class until most of them dropped."

Does that sound awful to anyone else? I get it that he was an old guy, and there is something cool about his old angry attitude. But he's basically passing the buck. As a tenured professor, it sounds like doesn't really want to (gasp!) teach people. He was given a job to do, and instead of trying to do it, he basically acted petulant until he gets what he wanted.

I've seen profs who harshly dealt with intro classes well. One used a curve where over 12 percent of the class failed (it turned out to not be that harsh). One threw himself into the subject with a fever, only berating people when they did something ridiculous like answer a cell phone in class or buy a paper online. And even with the cheating, he basically acted disappointed, because he expected something more of students rather than just driving them off.

It seems that professors, in a lot of senses, are ignored is this situation. Never mind that many professors show their loathing of intro classes, making it clear how unimportant the younger students are compared to their research. Never mind how uninvolved intro classes basically show freshmen the way to get decent grades without effort, or even at some times attendance. I know students should be self-motivated, and come to class with a thrust for learning, but when the teacher shows up and treats the class as unimportant, well why would an 18-year-old not take some sort of cue from an expert in the field?

 

The kids he dealt with harshly were those who showed they didn't care to be there by showing up late to class, checking their phones in class, not doing the reading, etc. If they didn't want to try in his class, why should he try to care about teaching them? There were some kids who weren't that smart, but because they tried he was very helpful to them.

For those of us who cared and stuck around, we all agreed that is was by far our best history intro class.

 

Ok, I see. On the first reading I guess I read it differently than what you meant. Professors can often classify kids as idiots for some not great reasons (only having a mild interest in the subject rather than a deep passion). If kids were just being jerkoffs, it's warranted. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

There isn't much room for error in our field, though. If you come out of school lazy and unprepared, you won't last long. Maybe the only positive about the job market in journalism. (Attempt at optimism)

One thing I will say is that I've never seen 18 to 21-year-olds work harder in school than the editors at college papers scrambling on deadline. I think that's something a lot of us can look back on as a positive in our college experience, especially those of us in our 20s... as we battle the stigma this thread addresses.

 

When in doubt, find another internship.

 

Kids are dumber and lazier because their parents enable them. Helicopter parents do everything for a lot of kids in college these days. I'm sure some students have no idea what classes they need to take, even though it's listed in a catalog, how to register, or apply for financial aid. Poor results in the classroom is just a symptom of a wider problem.