Reading one of the blogs last week about how Menand influenced a student's life and how it changed how she viewed education and how she changed how she goes about education (you can find it
here), I began to think on Menand's impact on my life and which of
his theories I fall into.
Despite how much I would like to be able to just focus on learning and not worry about grades, the sad truth is I can't afford that luxury. I decided to pursue medicine, and not because I have parents or society pressuring me, but because I chose to. With this comes the burden and expectation from medical schools as well as prospective employers that I have a high GPA. Now sure I could spend all my time locked up in my room or in the UGLi studying and doing extra problems, but like most college students I prefer to have some semblance of a social life. College has sadly become a living representation of the first theory. My GPA is all that matters, and any attempt I would like to make at actually enjoy a class and the material presented is overshadowed by the worry of getting the right grade. Any student pursuing medicine, or law, or business, or what have you are forced into this.
Now there is nothing wrong with that to an extent. I chose to pursue medicine so that I can make a difference, but to achieve that goal I have focus on my grades. How else are programs supposed to decide who to accept? Lets face it, grades are the easiest way to "measure the success" of a student. But what about that portion of students who understand the material but are horrible test takers, or those who have no idea what they are doing but have an ungodly ability to cram, spew and forget? Does this system truly measure their ability? No not really, but should we just ignore grades in general then? No that would be a horrible idea. If you didn't have to worry about your grade would you really show up to some of your classes? I know I for one wouldn't. I would gladly blow off Orgo 2 and Calc to just sit in my philosophy class and actually enjoy and absorb what we are doing.
But let's look at
Menand's second theory, that the purpose of higher education is primarily to produce well-rounded and informed citizens. Yes college does it to an extent, but not nearly as much as Menand intends. How much of history class do you remember? Or what about biology? The fact is unless you are majoring in one of those subjects, the likelihood that you remember much at all is pretty low, and even more so 10 years from now. The way education has been built, students are encouraged to learn for the test. Some teachers (more in high school than in college) teach to the test. This system encourages a environment where students learn the material required for passing the midterm or the final, throw it up on a packet of papers in the period of an hour-and-a-half and then erase it from their minds forever. Unless you are preparing for a profession a specific profession (
Menand's third theory) that requires the information you learn in undergrad to be successful, i.e. business or medicine, then the amount you actually retain of what you learned will be fairly low.
Now there are some exceptions to the rule. For example, classes that have an unconventional grading system where you aren't expected to learn the material for a test so that you can just spew it out, but where you are instead asked to critically interact and engage with the material. Take for example this class. It definitely seems easier than a lot of my other classes, but I can honestly say I am learning much more and will hopefully retain more of this information than I have in other classes, like Orgo. Because I don't have to worry about memorizing the material, and my grade is based on things like blogging where I am actually interacting with and thinking about the material, I absorb more than say in my Econ course.
But in general, education sadly follows Menand's first theory. The way the job market and economy are structured right now, student's have to focus on their GPAs and don't end up learning very much. creativity is discouraged and uniformity is encouraged. If you aren't good at test taking, well then you won't go very far. The fact is, education and the job market need to undergo a revolution. If you are more interested on this topic, be sure to check out my next blog post.
I agree with your post in many ways, but in my opinion the problem is that classes are not structured in a way that makes them enjoyable and thus most people only care about their grade rather than actually learning something. In other words, I believe that grades, as you are saying, are not a good indicator of how smart or job-ready a person is. However, I do believe that a high GPA can in some instances serve as a good ranking system for students. The reason I say this is that I believe if you actually have a passion for a certain class then you will do better than someone who is merely trying to get a good grade. Moreover, the passion and interest for a particular subject fuels the ability to get a good grade in the class. This is because if you are interested in the subject material being covered in the class than it will not feel as much like work when you are studying for a test or writing an essay. My point is that a specific GPA in a major can be a good indicator of how much that person enjoys the subject. Obviously there are going to be exceptions in which the person is just an extremely good crammer or essay writer etc. but from my experience, I have gotten the best grades in classes that I actually enjoyed. Overall, I believe a student's GPA is an incomplete measure of how smart or highly they should be ranked, but I do believe it serves as a good indicator of how important a particular field is to a student. It indicates how much time they are willing to spend in order to master the subject, and lets face it if the person does not enjoy their major it is unlikely they are going to get a great GPA no matter how smart they are. Of course, there are variables as you mentioned like pressure from parents or society that can motivate students, but I believe motivation from within is the best way to succeed in a class and in college as a whole. This goes along with what Menand is saying in his article. The fact that students used to put much more work in because it was a privilege to be in college. And this is the way of thinking we need to get back to in order to get the most out of college. I believe students would be more successful (higher GPA) if a degree was viewed as something that the student wants for his or her self and not to please anyone else.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Abhilash. Menand also provoked me to think about why I was in college, and I agree that the truth can be somewhat disappointing. I can see what you're saying about forgetting a great deal of what we learn in college - but I actually think that in my two years at U of M I've learned more than in the rest of my life combined. Yes, you're right, I will probably forget a lot of it - and I have so much left to learn in the grand scheme of things. That being said, whether it intends to or not, I think college does fulfill Theory 2 to some extent. How could it not? Even when I'm not particularly engaged in my classes, I can manage to build connections to the material in my other courses. For instance, I'm taking Psych 112 for my natural science requirement, and I wasn't looking forward to it at all. But I've actually learned a great deal - some of which applies to political theory - and as a result, I've been pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoy Psych, and the experience of being in Psych has also increased my enjoyment of Political Theory.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I won't retain all the dates and statistics I learned in my classes, but I do think my analytical skills improve gradually every day, along with my understanding of the world around me. Some professors understand this more than others. As you pointed out, Professor LaVaque-Manty seems to understand that the big picture is what's important in the long run, and he runs the class accordingly. But you can even take away something from courses in which the professor asks for random facts on the exam. You learn how to challenge yourself, how to absorb information, and that life is tedious and annoying sometimes - all of which will help you at some point in life.
Eleanor I agree with you, college does fulfill theory 2 to an extent. However I believe that the problem is that it focuses more on theory 1 than anything. The point I am trying to make is that people tend, and kind of have to focus on grades over just learning. Sure you pick up and retain some of what you learn, but when you have to just focus on grades the problem is just that, you focus on your grades. Now Jordan, I understand what you say and agree with you, when you are passionate about something you will most likely do better in the class and it will be easier, but I don't think its as true as you say. Take for example my econ class. I find the material really interesting and I find what I am doing super applicable, but when it comes to studying for the midterms, I am not the most motivated person to be honest. And I also disagree when you say that GPAs are good measure of how interested or passionate you are in a subject. This goes back to the whole test-taking point I made in my post. Some people are really passionate about a subject and they can understand and articulate the material in a discussion type setting, but when it comes to just taking a test, they don't do very well just because that's not how their intelligence works. I'm not saying that the GPA system is wrong, it's the easiest way to sort students, but it is broken. I think the system Prof.LaVaque-Manty is a step closer to fixing the system and is working pretty well.
ReplyDelete