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

Those kids usually are/end up in community college.

 

You would think so, but observing undergrads waiting in line at my local university suggests otherwise.

 

I don't really know if that first part is true. I know my j-school (a somewhat well-known one) had no requirements for working at a student paper or internships. In fact they in some ways discouraged getting really involved with student papers, in favor of finding any sort of internship. And talking to a few of my now coworkers, it seemed there were often schisms in J-Schools between serious newspaper people (who often acted like know-it-alls and felt they were too good for the lower level classes) and people who had little or no connection with the paper. I know I was in the latter category.

 

This. Interesting no studies come out about professorial involvement. Nothing wrong with trying not to come in before 10:30, trying to get all your classes Tuesday-Thursday so you have Fridays off and emphasizing how you put research ahead of your students.

 

I stand corrected, then. I was going by my own experience, which wasn't at a well-known J-school. Maybe the fact that the program wasn't huge made the paper more of a centerpiece. It certainly wasn't a "know-it-all" thing, though. It was a "if you want to graduate" thing.

 

You are assuming that no school officials or teachers can be trusted to properly evaluate students. There is plenty a teacher can do to make sure students are doing there own work.

Do it in class. Students don't get any help on non-standardized tests given in class. You can also make them do the work for projects, essays or longer papers in class, too.

It is not worth it to put so much emphasis on standardized testing. Putting the focus on evaluation rather than learning is a huge mistake, and it is one that is being made nationwide.

 

And when the day comes when every school is doing this, then college admissions directors can start emphasizing essays over standardized tests again.

 

I am quite a few years removed from the college experience. There is one thing I remember, though -- a disconnect, even a general dislike, between "academic" journalism profs with little to no field experience, and those who learned by doing. And those in the first group DO still think that a 3.8 GPA will overshadow a total lack of field experience.

 

Are there that many journalism profs with little to no field experience? It doesn't strike me as a particularly academic pursuit, so I always thought most of the profs had spent at least some time in the field. I certainly wasn't particularly impressed, especially in hindsight, by the experience that mine brought to the table.

 

Oh, I knew quite a few profs who were more interested in the academic pursuits -- publish or perish, etc. -- and believed field work would be a waste of their time. At least, that was my take on them.

Then again, I got my B.A. from a liberal-arts based school, even if it was a journalism degree. A real J-school, it's probably different.

 

Yeah, me, too. So you're talking the journalism profs here? What in the world kind of academic journals does a journalism prof publish in in publish?

 

There's a whole field for that. Columbia Journalism Review, etc. Plenty of room -- and plenty of pressure -- to be published for some journalism professors. Remember, upper-level college administrators may paint everyone with the same brush. And in most endeavors, getting published is vital for faculty.