Search News


Browse Archives

News

Campuses of Ids

March 14, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

More than 2,000 new students at Towson University had gathered for the convocation that was to be a focal point of orientation week. Videos showed campus scenes. The marching band was going to help teach the Maryland institution's fight song. The university president, several Towson sports stars, and the student government president were to speak to the freshmen in a relatively short (45 minute) program.

But before the halfway point, students started to leave -- not just a few, but hundreds. And they continued to leave, even as the master of ceremonies, a local sportscaster, implored them to stay. University staff members wondered at the time -- and still -- "how could students be so rude," said Debra Moriarty, vice president for student affairs, in a discussion Monday at the annual meeting of NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

A packed audience at the meeting traded stories that demonstrated that the Towson experience is far from unique. And it's not just the new students who are rude. Several of those in the audience said that they have a similar problem at graduation ceremonies. Once students get their diplomas, they get up and leave, and so do their parents, leaving those at the end of the alphabet with plenty of room to stretch.

The student affairs leaders who gathered to discuss the issue said that they face increasing pressure from their bosses in the administration and from faculty members to do something about rude or uncivil students. While some of the issues relate to questions of diversity and tolerance, the focus of the discussion was on encouraging fairly basic levels of politeness. Administrators talked about students who begin discussions with expletives, who mock students with whom they disagree, and who think nothing of picking up a cell phone and making a call in class.

Moriarty said that it was important for colleges to "articulate the values of the institution" to students and that -- failing to do so -- colleges can hardly be surprised when students don't share those values. But she acknowledged that this was easier said than done, especially when not everyone agrees on what civility is.

Kandy Mink Salas, dean of students at California State University at Fullerton, said that cell phones are a good example. Five years ago, she scoffed at students who felt the need to be on the phone as they crossed campus. These days, she said, she does it, too.

A big part of her message for faculty members, Salas said, is that they can ask students to change behavior that is rude -- and that they shouldn't feel that their role is strictly about grades and papers. "It's not just me who can ask a student to turn down a boombox," she said.

Salas said that it was important "not to be relativistic" and to assume that all behaviors were equally valid. At the same time, she added, it was important for faculty members to step back and ask themselves why certain behaviors bothered them, and whether there were ways that they could recognize legitimate student needs. This is especially the case, Salas said, when there are clashes of cultures, such as between a more traditional faculty and a diversifying student body.

For example, Salas said that professors complain to her that students eat full meals in class, making noise and distracting others. That makes sense, Salas said, but what about the growing population at many colleges of older students who rush to campus from full-time jobs and literally don't have time to eat, but need a boost to get through class? She suggested that a professor might ask students on the first day of a course to restrict eating to energy bars.

In the case of cell phone use in class, she said there's not much of a justification for it -- and she said she encouraged faculty members to bar cell phone use on the first day and to make the rule clear to everyone. On some "rudeness" issues, however, she said it was important to step back and be sure there was a problem. Are students who are seen as being "too loud on the quad" really too loud or just different from students of previous generations?

One audience member chimed in that colleges say they want a diverse student body, but that when diverse students enroll, "we want them to act like little white guys from 1952."

Some of the student affairs officials talked about circumstances in which they are being asked to mediate conflicts involving students and professors. Sara A. Boatman, vice president for student life and campus community at Nebraska Wesleyan University, described an incident there in which a student in a public speaking class gave a talk in favor of allowing gay marriage. Her fellow students snickered and insulted her, and then followed her across campus, piling more insults on. The professor -- in her first year at the university -- asked the class to be more polite, but didn't know what to do, especially since the student who was being attacked said she "didn't want to make a big deal of it" for fear of making the students angrier.

Audience members urged an assertive response, and said that the behavior in this case wasn't just rude, but harassing, too. Several said that the professor shouldn't have been afraid to speak to rude students about their behavior and to explain why it was inappropriate, regardless of their views on gay marriage.

One official seemed to capture the mood of the crowd when he said that there was an important middle ground between seeking judicial action and ignoring the incident. "We're allowed to act without charging students with anything," he said.

Indeed a general theme of the session was that colleges and those who work in academe need to have the guts to state their expectations. Salas, the Fullerton dean, acknowledged that many professors have a "real fear" that doing so will make them unpopular with students, but she said that rules need not result in a faculty member getting trashed in evaluations.

"Most 18 year olds appreciate structure," Salas said. Faculty members need to avoid talking down to students, and should mix in a little humor while explaining rules, but as long as rules and expectations are spelled out clearly, and enforced consistently, students won't object. What students will rebel against, she said, is any sense that rules are arbitrary or that rules were in place without being explained.

Salas also said that today's generation of students wants to be praised -- with grades or commendations of some sort. Students who think they are more likely to get an A by following the rules will follow the rules, she said. "You can call it student development or student manipulation," she quipped.

Botman, of Nebraska Wesleyan, said that students aren't the only people on campus sensitive to culture. Professors are more likely to become involved on civility issues if their peers are, she said. Senior professors telling junior professors that they can take a stand on conduct will be more effective than student affairs people saying the same thing. And when professors act in concert, you have an "institutional ethos" that truly can promote civility.

Several in the audience said that it was important to extend that ethos to the admissions office. One person described a program in which the student affairs division prepares a list for the admissions office each year of students who have been expelled or suspended. If professors and student affairs officials are wondering "why did we admit that student?" it's important to look for patterns, she said.

In terms of making expectations clear to students, organizers of the panel pointed to several statements on civility that colleges issue -- not as rules necessarily, but as a philosophy about how students should treat one another. These statements tend to stress positive actions -- empathy, respect, civility -- rather than just listing behaviors to avoid (although some statements include some of them too) and these policies aren't intended to punish as much as to provide goals. Some of the statements cited include those of Coe and Smith Colleges, the University of California at Berkeley and the University of South Carolina.

Several at the session said that student incivility isn't going to disappear overnight and that those working to promote a more polite campus need a long-term view. After one audience member spoke of her frustrations at how students treated her, Salas replied: "You have to be strong and have faith. They won't get it today or tomorrow, but some day."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Campuses of Ids

  • Students can leave spirit rituals if they want
  • Posted by Larry on March 14, 2006 at 6:00am EST
  • I don’t get it. How can someone expect people to be polite and stay for a “fight” song. I would leave, too, and am renown for my etiquette and table manners. I am rarely late and never rude.

    This isn’t a case of students being impolite to a person. This is simply a case of students not wanting to put up with an empty ritual that serves no purpose. Perhaps if everyone was uniformly polite to one another, this wouldn’t be a problem, but since professors, students, and staff all view each other as part of different worlds, this probably won’t be happening any time soon.

    For example:
    I keep reading that some professors don’t return student emails regarding academic subjects. They have valid-sounding excuses, but to the student, it appears rude. Moreover, most undergrad professors make little effort to differentiate between intellectual inquiry by socially-oafish students, and slackery by slackers.

    Staff of schools are notoriously rude regarding routinely requests for paperwork. Many are on power trips. Even at the most efficiently-run schools, offices close without warning.

    Alumni, while often coddled for their money are usually not asked to provide substantive input on how to improve the school, and get rude responses when they try. (Though if they think you have a large bank account, deans and presidents pretend to care what they have to say.)

  • The public toilet
  • Posted by R.A. Shaw , Citizen at Big Sports U on March 14, 2006 at 6:50am EST
  • While ol' Lar's got a point about dreary public ceremonies -- e.g., the millionaire donor/famous person who gets to pontificate at graduation -- this what you run into at today's campus:

    * The majority of students without basic social skills for job interviewing, several colleges are now having seniors-level formal dinners as a crash course in basic, common sense manners;

    Classrooms so messy and disheveled, they look like a riot happened;

    Certain students who, for reasons unknown, do not flush urinals, spit in public, and shout non-stop into their cell-phones; and

    Of course, the bane of all instructors, the inconsiderate colleague who refuses to leave clean the chalkboard for the next user.

    Sound terrible? Well, it is. Truth, like love, hurts.

  • Posted by Larry at not a pep rally on March 14, 2006 at 8:25am EST
  • RAS, I am not sure what you mean by “social skills” for interviewing. There are, what I will call “basic” social skills, such as shaking hands such. There are also “higher level” social skills which include knowing which fork to use, and never saying anything bad about anything (which, as a law student, confused me as I thought I was expected to defend positions). Some people include constant talk about sports as a social skill.

    Whatever the case, I agree with you. The article is just grousing because people didn’t want to go to a pep rally. Staying at such a pep rally is not a social skill.

  • Behavior
  • Posted by Scott on March 14, 2006 at 8:25am EST
  • Reality check folks! Our culture has been heading to the outhouse since the 60's. How does one define "barbarian?" Somewhere in there is precisely what nearly every aspect of our society has been embracing for decades. Is it any wonder that some of those warm, fuzzy student affairs types at NASPA won't even acknowledge rude behavior when it slaps them in the face, calling it instead, alternative behavior?

  • That’s The Way I Like It
  • Posted by RWH on March 14, 2006 at 8:45am EST
  • I must admit that after the second meeting of each of my classes they are almost precisely how I intended them to be ... and that isn’t even close to oozing with civil sweetness. Incoming students may not be the brightest stars in the universe, but they are plenty savvy and more than 70% are teachable. It’s all a matter of laying out the requirements for being in my exalted presence for three hours a week and having almost unlimited access to my time after class is dismissed.

    Just by way of example, my syllabus states that any student whose cell phone rings in class will receive an automatic F in the course ... and guess what?

    One of the problems with expectations for civility as described in Scott Jaschik’s article is the tremendous rise of mid-level “administrators” on college and university campuses since World War II. In the old days students came to campus because they were interested in the “experience” and because that’s where all the bright people (including the professors) were. The point of being there was to maximize the interaction of students with teachers and students with each other. And frankly there is every reason to expect it to be a stimulating and raucous experience. Now, it seems, a great many are there because they have to get a college degree in order to get employment “over to the Ford plant,” where, incidentally, they will currently receive inferior medical benefits and embarrassingly pathetic retirement packages. In any event, all of these mid-level administrators have really important responsibilities that require their periodically conveying God knows what to students ... so sit there children (or, better yet, stand there in line until I have time for you) and be grateful.

    When I was a freshman in college, freshman orientation was designed and presented by students for students. The student government even had an important committee called the Freshman Orientation Committee. Now, apparently, it’s in the hands of yet another vice president for whatever.

    Granted, our entire society is much less “civil” than it was fifty years ago, but I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing. Have you ever been to a meeting of Harvard’s Hasty Pudding Man and Woman of the Year Awards? Have you ever watched a meeting of the British Parliament on BBC? It’s mesmerizing. Frankly, given a choice between an hour of South Park and an hour of Noam Chomsky, I might opt for the former myself.

    By the way, did you know that young men who wear their baseball caps backwards lose an average of fourteen I.Q. points in a very short time. That’s precisely why I require my students to check their baseball caps and their Dale Earnhardt nylon jackets at the door.

  • Posted by John Lobell , Professor at Pratt Institute on March 14, 2006 at 8:55am EST
  • Seems to me that this is part of a larger problem of “general education” that has lost its focus. If we do not know what college is for, how can we say how students should behave?

    As a professor of architecture in an undergraduate program, I have been spared many of the problems of my colleagues elsewhere. My students know why they are in school: they want to become architects. Architecture is a culture, a discipline, and a profession, so there are standards against which to make judgments. Thus I can say to my students: “Assume that your paper or exam is a memo being given to a client. If it looks like it was done by a fourth grader, we will lose the client and you will lose your job.”

    Similarly with behavior. Behavior that would turn off a client is unacceptable behavior.

    However, I am still wondering about dress. When I say, “Dress for the review the way you would dress for a job interview,” I am lead to wonder how they are dressing for job interviews. Girls don’t seem to wear underwear any more. Or is there some advanced geometry that I do not understand that allows a thong to remain invisible when a girl is bent over moving her presentation at a review while I am looking down her butt crack exposed by her low cut jeans?

  • What job?
  • Posted by A.D. on March 14, 2006 at 9:05am EST
  • " .. If it looks like it was done by a fourth grader, we will lose the client and you will lose your job ..”

    Exactly the point -- what kind of job, can one get, with a degree in, say, ethnic studies, or GLBT politics, or critical linguistics? Working for the government? An NGO?

    "I spent my college years, critically thinking about the dominant paradigm" is hardly encouraging to a recruiter from any mainstream organization. Even Fidel expects Raul to follow his directions.

  • Posted by ex-prof on March 14, 2006 at 9:25am EST
  • Larry makes some good points. His note that students are treated rudely by administrative staff quite frequently is quite accurate. But I've also seen students treat staff worse than dogs for no reason. I even intervened once to inform a student who was verbally abusing a quite polite department staff member that I'd be calling campus security to have him escorted out of the building if he didn't leave of his own accord. (He left, though he didn't produce the apology I suggested he owed the secretary.) In other words, this article is NOT just about one incident where students rightfully protested with their feet when forced to learn a meaningless fight song that they'd learn anyway.

    For my part, I was saddened that someone would suggest, as reported in the article, that good grades might be used as a bribe for exacting good behavior. That is NOT what grades are for, and it simply encourages the kind of thinking my students regularly expressed--I deserve an A because I was in class every time, smiled, and never caused a problem. Never mind that they were never prepared to discuss any of the material, and wrote papers and essays that were nearly irrelevant to the assignment.

    Finally, I would second the claim that it takes a UNIFIED faculty to change student behavior. You'd think that would be easy. Given my experiences, I doubt its achievable. I had the misfortune of teaching a weedout course that many students dreaded. So, there was a fair amount of misbehavior in it, and that led me to put a statement in my syllabus requiring appropriate behavior for a passing grade. This didn't stop one student from being extremely disruptive in class, and openly hostile to any of my directions to the class. As a result, I gave her a D for her final grade. She appealed to a board composed entirely of faculty. Not only did the board find in her favor, but they suggested that I had acted capriciously, despite the fact that I had given the student several warnings before dropping the axe, had documented the infractions, and had put my policy in my syllabus. Why did they favor the student and heap abuse on me? I think many faculty fear students far more than a faculty member in another department (or even in their own), given that many administrations indicate far more concern for students than for faculty. (After all, administrators determine faculty pay, promotion, etc. based on student evaluations despite the fact that they are clearly invalid.) I also think a lot of faculty view students as surrogate children, and so act as their mommies to the extent of never believing anything bad about their little darlings. Whatever the reasons, don't hold your breath for a united front against student rudeness by faculty! Thus, things are only going to get worse, and probably much worse.

  • Call for . . .
  • Posted by MDG on March 14, 2006 at 9:41am EST
  • This morning I called my daughter from our land line--we parents do not have a cell phone, she does though. I was in the kitchen, and she was in bed upstairs. While I did it as a joke, this article makes me wonder if I have fallen prey to the allure of Star-Trek technology and capitulated. Of course, the rude people list should include deans and vice presidents who have cell phones ringing throughout meetings (including that empty ceremony called graduation).

    By the way, the young lady in favor of gay marriage has been sexually harrassed, and the professor does not have an option to report it only if she wants. These actions create a hostile environment for everyone.

  • Empty Ritual
  • Posted by Daryl on March 14, 2006 at 11:45am EST
  • Larry says, "This isn’t a case of students being impolite to a person. This is simply a case of students not wanting to put up with an empty ritual that serves no purpose."

    I disagree. It is a case of the Student Orientation failing to successfully entertain the new students. Entertainment is a fundamental undergraduate student value. Here's the student's perspective. If the professor doesn't entertain me, I won't attend class. If the readings don't entertain me, I won't read the book. On second thought, I won't read the book because I don't like to read. I'm in college now, so I get to decide what best entertains me and I will walk away from anything that doesn't immediately capture my admittedly short attention span.

    Larry's mistake is in assuming that I can successfully distinguish ritual from spontaneity, and worthwhile from empty in either case. I can't. I'm 18 and I need to be entertained! Right now! Hurry up! Time's up! I'm outta here! (And quit nagging me about my cell phone. I need to let my roommate know that I just left the most boring orientation. He didn't have to go to the stupid orientation because he's in sports and had lifting today.)

    [4 years later]

    I want to tell you that I filled out the NSSE [National Survey of Student Engagement] today. I told the truth. I estimated that I spent about 2 1/2 hrs. per week preparing for all of my courses, total. And I'm graduating with a 3.1 GPA. Who's fault is that, huh? So long, suckers!

  • Right on the nose
  • Posted by Joe Clark , Instructional Project Manager at Florida State University on March 14, 2006 at 11:45am EST
  • How timely to see this piece, since I'm conducting a workshop on classroom civility this Friday.

    The comments seem to follow the range of opinions I've seen elsewhere: everything from "Decline of Western Civilization Continues" to "Justifiable Revolt Against Fascist Hegemony". It's obviously part of a larger issue related to changes in society and the standards and mores of institutions and individuals. One of the more interesting observations I ran across described the increasing presence of students with emotional disabilities on campus, and how that might be addressed.

    Pragmatically speaking, the literature offers some useful advice (reflected in the comments here, too) about reducing the incidence of incivility and dealing with it when it arises. You're welcome to browse the collection of workshop resources at http://home.oddl.fsu.edu/~joeclark/civility.html if you're interested in following up, and I welcome comments and additions to that material.

  • Plenty of Blame
  • Posted by Retired Prof on March 14, 2006 at 12:55pm EST
  • There are valid arguments in both the article and the subsequent comments, and there is plenty of rude behavior on both the part of the students and faculty/staff to go around.

    I believe the key to civility in the classroom is to have clear behavioral expectations, articulate them, and enforce them consitently. Worked for me. But the unacceptable behavior had better be something that detracts from the teaching and learning process and not just a pet peeve.

    My students always developed meat-platter sized eyes when I made my first utterance of the semester: "Just so we all understand, 'A' is not an average grade, 'B' is not an average grade,....." and then I went into expectations of civility in my classes. It was a world the students had, apparently, never experienced before. During a semester I sometimes had to invite a student to exit my class for, say, a sandbox or a kindergarten somewhere. I believe some of the students' attitudes stem from the fact that the Marketing Department of instituions of modest reputations now call our students "customers."

    But beware. If you have expectations of your students, be assured they have expectations of you. You had better plan lessons that are relevant and engaging -- not necessarily entertaining, mind you, although that is a componant of most good lessons at some level. Students need to know what you are teaching is or will be important to them and why.

  • Posted by Larry on March 14, 2006 at 3:05pm EST
  • The problem is, Daryl, you lose your claim to academic legitimacy when you make people listen to a band or engage in a pep song. No member of my family would tolerate being treated like a high school student at an institution of higher learning.

    By the same token, professors lose their claim to academic legitimacy when they judge students on their social skills or don’t take undergrads seriously. Students lose their claim when they act like bimbos in class.

    This isn't about manners. This is about a fundamental disagreeabout about the purpose of education. It it to be socialized to behave like a "team player"? Is it to act like an intellectual? Or is it to have fun.

  • A Few Observations on the Issue of Civility
  • Posted by CJO on March 14, 2006 at 4:35pm EST
  • In no particular order, here are a few thoughts on this very important issue of civility and respect:

    * As can be reasonably inferred from the Retired Prof's comment, perhaps one explanation for uncivil behaviors rests in the penchant for characterizing students as "customers" who--when you follow the logical lines of that metaphor--can shop around and bear no responsibility to anyone other than themselves.

    * It's not just the younger generation that sees itself as the customer who's always right, and certainly the traditional age college student has not been the only student on college campuses. Nor can this behavior be attributed solely or even largely to cultural differences stemming from greater diversity. Example: at the many musical and dance performances I attended for my child and his friends I noted a disturbing pattern among the almost exclusively white middle to upper-middle class parents and grandparents (members of the Greatest Generation). Not only would they often leave immediately after their own child's/grandchild's performance, but had no compunction about talking--and not so quietly--during those of other children.

    * Larry's reference to the Towson event as "an empty ritual that serves no purpose" also bears discussing. For whom is the event an empty ritual, and why? Larry seems to consider such an event to be so (unless I've misunderstood his remark), and clearly the students involved thought so. But obviously, perhaps many of the graduates who would leave their graduation ceremony immediately after having received their diplomas might feel that any part of a ritual that doesn't directly affect them is an empty ritual (they're selectively defining what is empty, of course). Now, perhaps the Towson administration (and others) need to re-evaluate their audience to determine what modifications to their convocation are needed to meet the value systems of their students. Or, since such epideictic ceremonies are designed to enculturate the new students into that particular college community, perhaps the college needs to re-evaluate what kind of community it sees itself as in the context of today's society. How does or should the college (or any college) define itself as a community (particularly in its recruiting materials)?

    On the other hand, since students are new members of a community, what kind of position are they in to determine what kind of ceremony is "empty" and whether it serves any purpose or not? One of the goals of education, one would think, should be to help students learn that anything beyond that which serves only their own immediate needs is not devoid of purpose or meaning.

    * On the subject of community, here's another issue: particularly on campuses that have a large (or total) commuting student population, what kind of community do students see themselves to be a part of? Especially if they work full-time and go to school part-time, they probably don't see themselves as part of the school community.

    I think one way to approach this problem is to focus more attention on the fact that a college campus is a community--as is any college course. My written and oral statements to my students at the beginning of each semester address this fact: the course is a temporary community, but one consisting of people who share (at least to some extent) a common purpose of (presumably) learning the material in the course. [I realize there are those who are in some courses only because they can't their degree without having to "suffer through" such an unnecessary course--according to their determination of what is needed for a field for which they're still preparing, so they may very well not be engaged at all with the material or their fellow classmates.] The issues of leaving class early for anything other than some kind of emergency, entering late especially when it's done consistently and not the result of situations that are totally out of their control, engaging in disruptive and blatantly disrespectful behavior all come under the category of things that are counterproductive to the goals of the learning community. I don't see extraordinary success with my approach (though I have seen some), but I believe that this may be due at least in part to the fact that (as someone else suggested) there is no unified effort by my colleagues to address the situation of civility. (I teach communication and literature courses, where the rhetorical concept of community is also related to the subject matter of the course, so my approach--and I'm not the only rhetorician who uses it--makes sense in this context.)

    Professor Lobell said "Architecture is a culture, a discipline, and a profession." A college community is a culture as well, one that has as one of its goals to prepare people for participation in a discipline (note the implications of that word) and/or a profession--and presumably for participation in civic discourse--participation in any number of communities.

  • Posted by Larry on March 14, 2006 at 4:55pm EST
  • Oh, I get it, CJO, students should be required to attend ceremonies they don’t like in order that they may learn to love this community. I got a better idea: make students suffer through challenging courses together (even the ones that want to take easy courses). Make the faculty work with all the students on an equal basis. Require all students to produce original publishable works that the faculty will be proud of (and their professional colleagues will judge them based on). If a school admits students that are incapable of making professors proud or doing real work, the school needs to stand up and say that their students are really not that smart and deserve a bunch of pep rallies because that is the kind of kid they recruit. (I think it is cute that people talk about “communities” and then declare themselves to be the arbiter of what constitutes such a community.)

  • I’ve Got To Start Passing On the Shiraz At Dinner
  • Posted by RWH on March 14, 2006 at 8:00pm EST
  • I can’t tell you how much I hate the direction this discussion has taken. So, according to Professor Lobell – and with unquestioned acceptance by CJO -- “Architecture is a culture, a discipline, and a profession.” Okay, let’s accept that. And so is business ... and engineering ... and education ... and medicine ... and (yes, even Larry knows) law. And every time I think of poor misguided undergraduates spending four years in any one of those disciplines, cultures, and professions (or spending four years in PRE-you-fill-in-the-blank), I plagiarize once again, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

    If Lobell and CJO are perfectly comfortable with undergraduates being trained for a profession instead of wallowing in educational pursuits, then it’s absolutely essential that their students take lessons in résumé writing, proposal writing, spread sheet usage, cad-cam applications, good manners (civility), and yes, even properly constructed PowerPoint presentations (see http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html),

    Many’s the night I fall asleep with a copy of Paul Goodman’s “Compulsory Mis-education and the Community of Scholars” resting on my nose, anticipating a dream that never comes ... that academics will eschew their and their students propensity for training in lieu of education. Apparently the educated man or woman is a thing of the past ... to be eagerly replaced by the trained architect. No wonder civility is so important ... can you possibly imagine selling your latest, greatest product without all of the advantages garnered from civil behavior? It just can’t be done.

    We already have clinical psychologist , Mary McKinney, helping hapless graduate students, post-docs and faculty members deal with the travails of academe ... all we need now is someone to help all of these trained professionals figure out how to come across as being wonderfully civil. I suppose since education – as opposed to training – is out of style these days, I’ll hang out my “Specializes in Civility Coaching” shingle tomorrow.

  • Posted by John Lobell , Professer at Pratt Institute on March 15, 2006 at 4:40am EST
  • Interesting the hatred in some parts of academia for anything real. RWH does not state his/her field, but I am guessing it is in the liberal arts.

    There is not room here to bring RWH up to speed on architecture and architectural education, but many of my publications are on my web site, JohnLobell dot com, (replace the “dot”) and one of my books is “Between Silence and Light: Spirit in the Architecture of Louis I. Kahn.”

    RWH writes: “Many’s the night I fall asleep with a copy of Paul Goodman’s “Compulsory Mis-education and the Community of Scholars”

    RWH might be interested to know that Paul Goodman (one of my professors) coauthored the book “Communitas,” about architecture and planning, with his architect brother, Percival Goodman.

    RWH writes: “If Lobell and CJO are perfectly comfortable with undergraduates being trained for a profession…”

    We do not train people for a profession in architecture. If interested you will find some of my course outlines online at:

    http://pratt dot edu/~fac/syllabus/aboutus.htm

    (replace the “dot”)

    Yes, there are problems in many areas of education; in business education, in professional education, etc., etc.

    However, one suspects that those in the liberal arts, which has totally collapsed, are attacking other “disciplines” in order to avoid confronting the mess they have made of their own.

  • Reading carefully
  • Posted by CJO on March 15, 2006 at 6:50am EST
  • Misreading distresses me, and not only when I see it done by students.

    I'd like to note that my words do not suggest that I am "perfectly comfortable with undergraduates being trained for a profession instead of wallowing in educational pursuits." In fact, my comments on Inside Higher Ed pieces have often strongly opposed the conception of higher education as primarily or exclusively training.

    Rather, what I said was:
    . . .ONE of its [college's] goals [is]
    to prepare people for participation
    in a discipline (note the implications
    of that word) and/or a profession—and presumably for participation in civic discourse—participation in any number of communities. [Capitalization added for emphasis]

    I also distinguished between participation in a discipline and participation in a profession.

  • state expectations upfront
  • Posted by J on March 17, 2006 at 11:05am EST
  • Without jumping into all of the debate above, I just wanted to say that this all reminds me of a fondly-remembered first day in my intro Econ class in college. This was a huge (250 seat) lecture, the type in which many students showed up for every purpose other than listening to the lecture and learning. The prof stated up front that if students wanted to eat full meals, have conversations, do the crossword in the student paper, sleep, etc., that they were welcome and encouraged to do so somewhere other than the lecture hall. Many students subsequently took him up on his offer, and the rest of us who were actually there to learn were thankful for their absence. A win-win situation, if there ever was one.

    So, as far as classroom manners go, state your expectations up front, and encourage those who can't meet them to either drop the class or be elsewhere during the class period. My philosophy has always been that the students are adults in charge of their own behavior and performance, and if they can't meet simple classroom expectations, they probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

  • Apology ...
  • Posted by RWH on March 18, 2006 at 5:40pm EST
  • Needless to say, CJO’s claim that I overstated the case when I wrote “[he is] perfectly comfortable with undergraduates being trained for a profession instead of wallowing in educational pursuits” is right on the money. He is also correct that it was my distressing inability to read accurately that got me in that fix in the frst place.

    It was his statement, “A college community is a culture as well, one that has as one of its goals to prepare people for participation in a discipline (note the implications of that word) and/or a profession -- and presumably for participation in civic discourse -- participation in any number of communities.” that threw me off.

    He went on to note, “my comments on Inside Higher Ed pieces have often strongly opposed the conception of higher education as primarily or exclusively training.” I’ll take his word for that. It’s just that, to date, Larry is the only regular respondent to IHE for whom I have creatred an intellectual dossier ... and that because I’m thinking about submitting an application to be his alter ego. I’ll get to work on CJO’s dossier immediately.

    In any event, CJO, I apologize for misrepresenting your perspective about education and training in higher education.

  • Trying To Put Things Together
  • Posted by RWH on March 18, 2006 at 6:05pm EST
  • As my most recent posts have demonstrated, there is often a bumpy, curvy trail connecting my thoughts. Here’s the map ...

    We’re talking about civility.

    I’m a big fan of politeness, and I almost always detest civility.

    What’s the difference (and I admit I’m thinking out loud ... I have never written this down ... and I have only recently discussed it with my political activist friend, Nellie)? Politeness involves respect for another person as an individual ... and a general inclination to interact with that person in a manner that, at the least, is not hurtful, and, at the most, is supportive and helpful. I endorse politeness as a general principle and practice it as often as possible. If I have occasion to interact with someone I barely know (the person at the check-out counter at the grocery store, the person who gives me directions at Home Depot, the person trying to sell me something over the telephone, my brother-in-law’s aunt whom I will meet at most five times in my lifetime, etc.) I try to be on my very best behavior (polite). I’m a big fan of politeness.

    In general I dislike civility ... and, for the most part, think it has no place on a college or university campus. Let me start with an example. I am dedicated to my television on Sunday mornings, and, in sequence, watch (1) This Week with George Stephanopoulos and George Will, (2) The Sports Reporters with John Saunders, (3) Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, (4) Meet the Press with Tim Russert, and The McLaughlin Group with John McLaughlin, and almost always with Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Cliff and one other guest. Stephanopoulos, Will, Schieffer, and Russert all strike me as being very nice people for whom civility – whatever that means – is very important. But, truth be known, on their shows I rarely (1) learn anything new, (2) hear something that sends me to the Internet for additional information, or -- and this strikes me as being most damning -- (3) get an interesting idea. For me at least, The McLaughlin Group stands out in the sense that the participants are always engaged, are eager to have their say, don’t beat around the bush of political correctness, challenge each other, raise their voices, interrupt each other, almost never avoid giving a direct response to a question ... in short, they abandon all pretense of civility. In that short, thirty-minute period I get more ideas (sometimes as many at two) and more incentive to follow things up after the show than on all the other shows mentioned above combined. And to top it off, my social and political perspectives couldn’t be further from those of Blankley and Buchanan. Most of my friends hate that show simply by virtue of its lack of civility. John Saunders manages the inclination of the sports reporters to be McLaughlin-like so expertly it almost defies imagination ... or maybe it’s just the intellectual superiority of the participants on his show to those on the others mentioned above that makes his job so easy.

    The public interaction of members of the U.S. Congress strikes me as being wonderfully civil ... and almost as phony as a three-dollar bill. The public interaction of the members of the British Parliament strikes me as being much less civil ... and wonderfully so.

    Civility involves an attitude (or rules) of behavior practiced by individuals who wish to demonstrate no conflict of thought, principles, or feelings. Don’t you just hate those discussions when two individuals, smiling at each other all the while, like a couple of Miss America contestants, say, almost in unison, “I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.” Omigod, I just want to bang their heads together ... or at least ask them if they’d mind French kissing each other right there on the spot. That kind of civility disgusts me.

    I know there are exceptions, but, for the most part, when Mathematician A tells Mathematician B she’s “full of shit,” their interaction will almost instantaneously evolve into a discussion of ideas. When Sociologist C tells Sociologist D that he’s “full of shit,” that remark will be seen as a personal affront and feelings will be hurt. My point is that civility in academe is domain-of-definition-specific. If I change “full of shit” to “inconsistent with reality,” the politeness of the discourse may be changed, but the reactions are the same (i.e., in the second case, my behavior is still perceived as uncivil).

    Now, the problem with most educational (as opposed to training) environments is that you have all of these folks – in various stages of knowing each other – who are in close physical proximity to each other ... and the most important thing they’re doing is sharing – and debating -- ideas. I suppose they could do that while displaying an aire of civility, but how efficient and how much fun would that be? On the other hand, most training – and I emphasize “most” – entails dissemination of information, not discussion of ideas ... so shut up children and pay attention to my PowerPoint slides. Civility reigns supreme.

    And – and I’m certain this is not debatable - not very many youngsters in the United States today are, within the context of their high school experiences, inspired to spend the rest of their lives becoming educated human beings. So, if their college and university experiences don’t play that role, it just ain’t gonna happen. And the more college and university experiences are devoted to training – as opposed to education – the less likely it will be that our students will come out of college with just a smattering of knowledge and an overwhelming desire and commitment to spend the rest of their lives getting a whole lot more of it. And the more likely it will be that our lovely country will have a populace that is not just marginally brain-dead, but increasingly anti-intellectual as well. Civility sucks!!!

    So back to the topic at hand. I take the general call for more civility of our youngsters these days to be related to the facts that (1) there is very little about our society today that either demands respect or justifies civility and (2) civility is seen to be neither a rational reaction nor a thoughtful behavior, but to be a “tool” that one must master – like writing a first-class résumé – to enhance one’s career opportunities.

    Hmmm ... maybe, for me, it will be back to the Shiraz a bit earlier than usual this afternoon.

  • I Know That Guy ... I Think
  • Posted by RWH on March 18, 2006 at 6:05pm EST
  • I spend at least half of my time hanging out with RWH, so let me respond to John Lobell’s interesting comments about him.

    Mr. Lobell implies that RWH can be identified with “hatred in some parts of academia for anything real.” Hmmm ... “anything real” ... I wouldn’t touch that with a ten foot Doric column. If, however, he means anything associated with training for an occupation, RWH bears no prejudices there. Indeed, he has spent almost one-fourth of his forty-five-year teaching career in business schools, he has been on the faculty of a “top five” business school, and has been president of a company (he started) that routinely employed graduate students from a top five engineering school on a contract basis.

    Mr. Lobell wrote, “There is not room here to bring RWH up to speed on architecture and architectural education, but many of my publications are on my web site ...” Okay, I have visited his web-site, and he does, indeed, seem to be a very interesting person ... one with whom any educated or scholarly person would enjoy an occasional outing (I’m pleased that that’s not an issue).

    On the other hand, visiting the Pratt Institute web-site is a mixed bag. I thought negotiation of the site was not particularly “intuitive,” but their undergraduate catalog is quite spectacular ... and who wouldn’t want to study architecture, architecture management, fashion design, industrial design, interior design, media arts, arts and cultural management, computer graphics, creative arts therapy, information and library science, and any number of other “real” topics right there at Pratt.

    I went to the Mathematics Department (actually it’s Mathematics and Science) and discovered only three undergraduate courses with MATH prefixes and three other courses with SCI prefixes that obviously have some mathematics content.

    When I checked out undergraduate programs in architecture I discovered two, Construction Management (and I knew I was not interested in that) and Architecture. There I discovered that architecture students will enroll in a ten semester curriculum. In their first year they apparently take eight architecture courses and two English courses. In their second year, it’s another eight course in architecture (including Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Systems) and two semesters of a core course in World Civilizations. In any event, I think I’m beginning to understand what Mr. Lobell means by “real,” and I certainly know why civility is such an important “tool” for Pratt undergraduates.

    Mr. Lobell mentioned that one of RWH’s favorite “philosophers of education,” Paul Goodman coauthored “Communitas,” a book about architecture and planning, with his architect brother, Percival Goodman. It turns out that RWH has read that book, as well as Goodman’s novel, “Empire City” ... although he tells me not quite sure what that has to do with anything.

    RWH recalls reading that Goodman once told Studs Terkel, “I might seem to have a number of divergent interests -- community planning, psychotherapy, education, politics -- but they are all one concern: how to make it possible to grow up as a human being into a culture without losing nature. I simply refuse to acknowledge that a sensible and honorable community does not exist.” Nice!

    Mr. Lobell made two comments about the liberal arts that are most revealing. He wrote, “RWH does not state his/her field, but I am guessing it is in the liberal arts.” Frankly, I take that to be a quasi-slur in response to either the tone of or the general weakness of RWH’s arguments.

    Then he followed that conjecture with, “one suspects that those in the liberal arts, which has totally collapsed, are attacking other ‘disciplines’ in order to avoid confronting the mess they have made of their own.”

    It turns out that RWH has never taken a course – undergraduate or graduate – in political science, sociology, psychology, anthropology, women’s studies ... hmmm, none of that stuff. He has, however, taken more than his fair share of courses in literature, history, philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences (he apologizes for that). His Ph.D. is in statistics, but only after taking all of the course work and passing the qualifying exams for a Ph.D. in mathematics. He will admit that he has focused most of his attention on the applications of mathematics in business, education, and the social sciences (he is guilty of that too). I could go on ... but, as always, enough is more than enough.

    For what it’s worth, Mr. Lobell may be expressing a view that is just slightly inconsistent with his institution’s perspective ... inasmuch at Pratt’s mission statement includes the sentence, “With a firm grounding in the liberal arts and sciences, a Pratt education blends theory with creative application in preparing graduates to become leaders in their professions.” (emphasis added).

    Unfortunately, every time I see Mr. Lobell’s name in the future I will think of those humorous scenes in that most enjoyable flick, “Flamingo Kid.” in which Jeffrey Willis’ sister Nikki (she’s a very dedicated student at Columbia University), tells him if he refuses to take his academic life more seriously, “You’re going to have to go to Pratt!”