The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Oil
A professor explained this morning that business students are more engaging than law students. To combat our apathy, he announced a plan to base twenty-five percent of the course grade on "class participation." *
Yes, you heard right: not "contribution," but "participation." Contribution, which is inversely proportionate to participation, appears to be irrelevant.
Tell me, if I share war stories or choke out a tearful memory of my childhood dog, am I participating? What if I raise my hand and enthusiastically agree with every single thing the professor says? What if I fart loudly?
Don't get me wrong, I'm going to enjoy the class, I'm not going to drop it, and I am not going to complain or point out in class how misguided participation-based grading is. But it is misguided. "Particpation" is a soft factor that rewards memorable or charming individuals who also happen to be loud. Those political qualities are useful and important, but they are also absolutely separate from analysis or mastery of the material, and in a class on substantive law and procedure they should never be allowed to trump. Here, however, they will trump. Boalt's grading system means twenty-five percent of a course grade swallows the curve -- the difference between a P and an HH for almost (if not every) single student will reduce to "class participation."
For my part, I'll participate. I'll try not to say anything too stupid, but apologies in advance to the Monday/Tuesday morning crowd in Room 12 -- I'll be the guy who raises his hand once a day, every day, whether or not he has anything to contribute. You'll be able to distinguish me from everyone else in the room because I'll be wearing a top hat and chewing a long-stemmed cigarette holder. It's memorable.
*He also gave McWho a hundred bucks and told him to "spread it around," a series of events which only further shows how screwy things are in there.
Yes, you heard right: not "contribution," but "participation." Contribution, which is inversely proportionate to participation, appears to be irrelevant.
Tell me, if I share war stories or choke out a tearful memory of my childhood dog, am I participating? What if I raise my hand and enthusiastically agree with every single thing the professor says? What if I fart loudly?
Don't get me wrong, I'm going to enjoy the class, I'm not going to drop it, and I am not going to complain or point out in class how misguided participation-based grading is. But it is misguided. "Particpation" is a soft factor that rewards memorable or charming individuals who also happen to be loud. Those political qualities are useful and important, but they are also absolutely separate from analysis or mastery of the material, and in a class on substantive law and procedure they should never be allowed to trump. Here, however, they will trump. Boalt's grading system means twenty-five percent of a course grade swallows the curve -- the difference between a P and an HH for almost (if not every) single student will reduce to "class participation."
For my part, I'll participate. I'll try not to say anything too stupid, but apologies in advance to the Monday/Tuesday morning crowd in Room 12 -- I'll be the guy who raises his hand once a day, every day, whether or not he has anything to contribute. You'll be able to distinguish me from everyone else in the room because I'll be wearing a top hat and chewing a long-stemmed cigarette holder. It's memorable.
-----------------
*He also gave McWho a hundred bucks and told him to "spread it around," a series of events which only further shows how screwy things are in there.
Labels: Classes/Professors
posted by Patrick Bageant at 7:02 PM
32 Comments:
fine. then i'll attend class like this and we'll see who gets the HH:
http://www.razzamatazz.co.uk/uploads/images_products_large/2206.jpg
Don't make me break out the tu-tu. I won't like it any more than you will but if I have to, I'll do it!
I know for a fact that 3/4 of the classes we've had together have had participation components to the grade. So is it that it's such a large percentage of the grade?
If that's the case, I have a bit of a scoop. A professor who asked to remain nameless said that barring a situation where a student just doesn't come to class, the professor ignores the participation component. This may seem dishonest, but is easily rationalized by making the participation component extremely easy to satisfy.
T, why would that professor include a participation component in his or her grading scheme at all? You're right that putting it on the syllabus and then ignoring it is mildly dishonest . . . but it's wildly weird.
It's there for the same reason as the "mandatory" ASP policy some classes have... to scare us into paying attention/going to class. Makes sense, and in talking to a few people around school, it's clearly worked so far.
At the risk of hypocrisy, me thinks the editors are starting to sound a bit curmudgeonly. Liven it up and get with the hopeful, optimistic times, peeps; particularly when the news is so down and the future could be either very bright or very dark, no one cares about your poorly argued, unsolicited opinions of your colleagues who raise their hands in class or hearing the disrespect you spit at people who ride different modes of transportation than yourselves. *yaaaaaaawn*
11:38 - I don't think you got the memo on this: Nuts & Boalts is a blog. If you want the ability to post anonymously, you have to respect the fact that all blogs are created, in part, to express our cynical views of the world. See, e.g., 90%+ of posts on this blog; see also 99%+ of ATL.
your complaint is purely semantic. you know what he means. let me guess-you're one of those who doesn't like to participate OR contribute?
To continue with Slam Master's point... 99.9%+ of the posts on the typical personal blog consist of emo-inspired gut-wailing. At least Patrick lays out some pretty solid reasoning, despite any semantic issue; on omgmylifeissohard.com, the reasoning consists of "the football players burned my pants today, so i'm totally going to get them by getting a tattoo that like disses them so hard".
well I'd disagree that it's "solid reasoning," hence it being a semantic issue. second, another lesson on blogs, since you guys are apparently giving a seminar in that today, is that people will disagree with you. if you want to be jerked off go to your local sorority house. if you want discussion, participate in the comments. don't dismiss them.
as for your assessment of personal blogs, you've clearly not read many if you think they're 99.9% like that. and i wouldn't bother commenting on those that are just bitching and whining.
6:44, your shift key is broken. Otherwise, if you have any substantive thoughts on the blog, you're welcome to share them by e-mail with me or any of the co-bloggers. But anonymously bitching about the contents doesn't really, shall we say, motivate anyone to do anything. Save it for class "participation." Maybe you can make a solid "public policy" argument.
"if you want to be jerked off go to your local sorority house" Wow, Jon, what an insightful and hilarious comment. I am most amused. Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother reading the comments in the first place. Were you trying to be ironic?
Heh... I didn't see anyone dismissing your comments. But then again, I live on Crazy Planet where disagreeing /= dismissing.
Woot! Welcome back to classes, irony and egos, on all our parts. -11:38.
Sigh.
Jon, I actually agree with you that the blog is a little too cynical/whiny. One of my goals in coming on was to combat this trend. However, I quickly realized that it's kind of difficult to blog about how much you love everything. And I really do love a lot of things. Like, if I posted, "Life is grand in 2009, and a hearty welcome to any newborns lucky enough to have graced this beautiful planet," that'd be a warm and fuzzy sentiment, but it likely would not generate much discussion or contribute to the student body's general knowledge.
News is typically negative because part of its goal is to address problems. We point 'em out, you debate whether they exist and how to solve them, and in the end, sometimes, they get fixed.
Example: last semester I posted one of my first straight bitching blogs, where I pointed out how absurd it is that the school was trying to enforce the "2Ls must take an ethics class BEFORE 3L" while only providing us a single 30-person class in which to do it. About a week after I posted that and everyone joined in my bitching, the school added "the Law of Lawyering," in which I am now enrolled.
I can't claim that my post necessarily had anything to do with that, but it might have. Other notable bitchings that have led to change include the locker shortage, when Patrick figured out that telebears times were NOT random, and the election of Barack Obama. Ok maybe just the first two.
Sometimes people need to bitch, and N & B is a pretty good place for it. Sorry if the tone occasionally gets grating.
speaking of bitching, can we get a thread on professors who give unfair exams? i swear, i had one takehome last semester for which I would have fared just as well (or badly) had i NOT TAKEN THE CLASS. this semester, i heard of a prof who is giving 48-hour takehomes. BRUTAL. so let's out them.
One of the property professors last fall gave the 1L's a 48 hour take-home. In their first semester of law school. That crosses the line from brutal to just plain mean.
No, a 48-hour take-home is neither brutal nor mean. It may seem that way if you actually spend all 48 hours on it (or, anything over 25-30, for that matter). But at that point, it's your fault, not the professor's.
Even as a 1L, Matt? In your first set of law school exams? Boalties are cool, but not that cool.
Well, they should be.
Come on people. My ASP tutor 1L year, whom I love and respect, said that the time and word limits you get for exams are like gasoline in the tank - use it all! of course, you gotta sleep, but for a 48-hour takehome, that means you subtract 16 hours, plus 2 hours for pee breaks - and you have 48-16-2 = 30 hours. but why sleep when you spend more hours on it?
A 30-hour exam is brutal, and especially so for 1Ls who have never taken exams before. No two-ways about it.
and, if it were not brutal, why would harvard have outlawed 24 hour exams?
2 hours. That's a lot of peeing . . .
I agree. Exams longer than eight hours should be done away with. I had my first take-home last semester. It was a six-hour, and it almost killed me.
I know only one law student who would spend two hours during a 48-hour exam peeing...
Is it me?
Is it the student who got drunk during both of his take-homes?
I think it is the certain N&B poster who who brought a bottle of champagne to a final.
I'm in a class with a 48-hour take-home (although I guess the prof is putting it up for a vote), and she has emphasized that she only intends for it to take 8 hours, and that it has a strict word limit. She just wants people to be able to take their time with it. Now, I know professors all say that, and sometimes they're full of crap, but she has said she's happy to change it to a 24-hour or an 8-hour, but she will be handing out the same exam in any of those cases. I just think it's crazy to say that you should use every minute in a situation like that. I think it's kind of nice that you could go work out or take a nap to clear your head in the middle, and that anyone who spends 30 hours obsessing over their exam.... just shouldn't. I don't know. I like the idea of a 48-hour take-home.
The situation is (literally, in some ways) a prisoner's dilemma. From the SEP:
Tanya and Cinque have been arrested for robbing the Hibernia Savings Bank and placed in separate isolation cells. Both care much more about their personal freedom than about the welfare of their accomplice. A clever prosecutor makes the following offer to each. “You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning.”
The “dilemma” faced by the prisoners here is that, whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent. But the outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent. A common view is that the puzzle illustrates a conflict between individual and group rationality. A group whose members pursue rational self-interest may all end up worse off than a group whose members act contrary to rational self-interest . . .
Are you talking about forced classroom participation, 48-hour take-homes, or both?
I'm also in the class with the 48 hour take-home mentioned by 2:47, and even though I initially liked the idea of it as well, I don't see how it is any better than a 24 hour final in terms of allowing you to nap, take a walk, etc. The problem with a 48 hour final is that you have to block out 48 hours of your finals period for it, on the off chance that you need the time to think about it more or whatever. You probably wouldn't use that 48 hours to work on other finals, even if you don't spend it all writing this final (which would be insane). 24 hours is still very generous, and although there may be the occasional crazy that actually works on it for 24 hours, it still allows time for sleeping and other activities.
Post a Comment
<< Home