Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Teaching at the
University Level
Steven Zucker
AUGUST 1996
OF THE
AMS
863
of my own course (Calculus II for Physical Science and Engineering, fall semester 95I taught
the same course in fall 93 and fall 94) with
much success, despite the inevitable dilution of
effort that results from our first-semester freshman pass-fail. It helped that my message was reinforced by my departments new Survival
Guide, which was passed out in all basic courses
at the beginning of the semester. The class did
rather well on exams that were deemed difficultI prefer thoroughby my colleagues. We
should be putting our effort into reforming the
students, not the calculus! My personal attempt
at orientation was based on a collection of handouts. At the end of the semester, I saw that I
could write up their effective content on one
page; it is appended to this article.
Im told by students that during that first
week, most of the class was thinking Strange.
Why was our professor going on like that? It
eventually dawned on me that this sort of academic orientation should have been getting carried out by the organizers of Orientation Week,
who now put all of their efforts only into making students socially at ease the week before
classes begin. After all, isnt how to study in college something important that most freshmen
dont know when they arrive? Still, they will be
expected to have figured it out by the end of the
academic year (not necessarily without pain).
Why is this important piece of wisdom concealed
from our entering students? And why do serious educators have to endure the consequences
of receiving a batch of students with expectations
at the high school level?
When college students act as though they are
still in high school, they rate their professors accordingly. If it is even suspected that the ratings
will be taken nearly at face value, as I fear they
too often are these days, a prudent instructor will
then be tempted to make his or her courses
more like high school. A serious instructor with
ambition will probably end up absorbing the
consequences of mediocre ratings. Thus, the
teaching of basic university mathematics at the
college level becomes the thankless task of the
idealist. We must hold the system responsible
for encouraging the behavior that it rewards
and ourselves for allowing such a system to persist.
We let them stay in high school for several reasons. One is the fear of negative teaching evaluations! Its a vicious circle. To get good evaluations, one can simply give the students what
most of them (think they) want: a course where
the material moves slowly and can be picked up
largely in the classroom, exams that reflect a predetermined list of problem types. Careful preparation and a few drops of avowed concern completes this recipe for an A rating with students.
864
NOTICES
OF THE
AMS
And Ive never heard more than a handful of students complain that a course was too easy!
Another reason for letting them stay in high
school is that we may opt to take the path of least
resistance. It takes a lot of time and energy on
the instructors part to prepare and deliver lectures and to make up and grade suitable exams
that will help the students attain the goal of
command of the material. And it requires emotional strength to hold ones stance when some
of the students show signs of strain while at the
same time giving help to the students during office hours and beyond. In short, it is pragmatic
to teach so as to keep ones ratings up and to
leave the standard near the high school level.
I used to be hoodwinked by the notion that
it was unfair to test the students on anything I
didnt go over in class, even when problems
were assigned in the homework. I feel now that
it was an unwarranted concession to their intent
to stay in high school. Why are we rewarding their
resistance? At Hopkins one of our finest graduate student teaching assistants taught calculus
in the summer session. One of her students had
the gall to assert in the course evaluation survey that he or she could not recommend her: the
TA had had the effrontery to ask the class to pick
up one of the last topics on their own.
One of my basic tenets is that the students
have no right to know what an upcoming exam
is going to look like. (However, exams from previous years are on file at the library.) I aim to prepare them for any reasonable exam I might come
up with. That is, Im asking them to aspire for
command of the material of the course and not
any particular subset of it. Some students think
this is unfairit wasnt like that in high
schoolwhen in actuality asking for a sneak
preview of the exam is nothing but attempted
cheating. When the instructor helps them cheat,
the students reward him or her with higher
marks on the evaluation survey for giving fair
exams and relevant lectures, and the community ends up with the impression that the instructor is a good teacher. I think Ive made a
good case that such people should be reprimanded, not lauded, for they contribute to the
undermining of education at the college level.
(The reader may be able to anticipate the corollary that one cannot measure the level of a course
just by looking at the exams: an exam that looks
hard may cease to be so if the students had
been told by the instructor to expect those problems or ones just like them.)
Naturally, an instructor who plans the lectures carefully and delivers them well will rate
better than one who does not; that is appropriate. Im only trying to enunciate a point that
every math professor surely knows, at least subconsciously: other things being equal, an easy
VOLUME 43, NUMBER 8
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
NOTICES
OF THE
AMS
865