Most classes I had in college didn't include attendance into participation grades. If you just sat there quiet every day, you'd get a bad grade.

 

One of my poly-sci classes had a system where each day the teacher would take tally of how many times each student participated....Each day was worth 5 points towards the overall participation grade. If you said nothing the entire year, you'd have a zero.

 

That is the reason I stayed away from Political Science classes; kids making their opinions known, no matter how outlandish they were. I wish more professors would dock participation points for kids who make it a point to insert their opinion about some matter in each and every class. I did not pay thousands of dollars to hear some kids theory on the death penalty, nor will his opinion matter come test time.

That is the reason I stayed away from Political Science classes; kids making their opinions known, no matter how outlandish they were. I wish more professors would dock participation points for kids who make it a point to insert their opinion about some matter in each and every class. I did not pay thousands of dollars to hear some kids theory on the death penalty, nor will his opinion matter come test time.

 

Again, that's not how poly-sci classes work, or at least the ones I took.

 

There were no tests. There were papers that had to be written, mostly opinion-pieces, with support for your ideas, and discussions. That's it. Participation was a very key factor in the class.

That is the reason I stayed away from Political Science classes; kids making their opinions known, no matter how outlandish they were. I wish more professors would dock participation points for kids who make it a point to insert their opinion about some matter in each and every class. I did not pay thousands of dollars to hear some kids theory on the death penalty, nor will his opinion matter come test time.

 

You paid thousands of dollars so that you could listen to one point of view (i.e. the professor's) and then pass a test created by the professor?

Again, that's not how poly-sci classes work, or at least the ones I took.

 

There were no tests. There were papers that had to be written, mostly opinion-pieces, with support for your ideas, and discussions. That's it. Participation was a very key factor in the class.

 

 

My Intro to Govt classes was during the fall 2008 and you basically had people going back and forth about issues with the teacher moderating a lot of the discussion. Was in Con Law for about 2 months before I realized I needed to get out of it, luckily was still able to withdraw.

 

As far as the no tests go, I clearly went to the wrong college. WKU, why did you have to administer tests? I would have been more than happy with just writing papers.

My Intro to Govt classes was during the fall 2008 and you basically had people going back and forth about issues with the teacher moderating a lot of the discussion. Was in Con Law for about 2 months before I realized I needed to get out of it, luckily was still able to withdraw.

 

As far as the no tests go, I clearly went to the wrong college. WKU, why did you have to administer tests? I would have been more than happy with just writing papers.

 

All tests do is measure a persons ability to memorize and regergitate information. No real learning occurs through taking tests.

You paid thousands of dollars so that you could listen to one point of view (i.e. the professor's) and then pass a test created by the professor?

 

Sounds like a waste of money to me.

I think this bring ups another issue of Universities making participation or class attendance a part of the grade. I've always found that to be crazy. If a student can do the work and get an A that is all that matters. Interacting in a classroom with a proffesor who probably has never had a job in the real world won't do much for me once I graduate.

 

Being able to express yourself clearly and effectively to a group of people is an important skill, isn't it? In fact, businesses have been demanding a lot of this kind of thing from colleges in recent years. There are a lot more "group" assignments now largely because universities have been asked to push it (and corporations give a lot of money to universities).

 

Participation also forces the students to keep up with their assignments so they can participate and also forces them to understand the material enough that they can articulate it. Depending on the course or subject, hearing different perspectives and challenging the ideas of other classmates is part of learning as well. I don't see the problem.

You paid thousands of dollars so that you could listen to one point of view (i.e. the professor's) and then pass a test created by the professor?

 

Most of what I learned in UG was pretty black and white.

All tests do is measure a persons ability to memorize and regergitate information. No real learning occurs through taking tests.

 

I completely disagree here. Some things are learned merely though the memorization and dumping of information. The Tax Code is a great example. Guy buys something for his business and wants to depreciate assets, I gotta know which section to look to instantly in order to be efficient with my time.

 

So are you completely against testing? Or just the usage of say the MC concept of testing? How would one measure the gain of knowledge on particular subject without testing?

This comment is just ridiculous. Most college professors were highly successful people in successful companies or are currently in those positions while they're teaching.

What world do you live in ?

Being able to express yourself clearly and effectively to a group of people is an important skill, isn't it? In fact, businesses have been demanding a lot of this kind of thing from colleges in recent years. There are a lot more "group" assignments now largely because universities have been asked to push it (and corporations give a lot of money to universities).

 

Participation also forces the students to keep up with their assignments so they can participate and also forces them to understand the material enough that they can articulate it. Depending on the course or subject, hearing different perspectives and challenging the ideas of other classmates is part of learning as well. I don't see the problem.

People learn in different ways . I for example can grasp information without my hand being held . If students don't keep up with the work they fail if it's not enough motivation probably going to struggle anyway . I just think if a student can get an A without perfect attendance more power to them. It is why I like the growth of online courses.

Most college professors who have their PhD are career academics. It is why I stress younger people to intern as much as possible. That learning experience is much more important for the growth of a real career . The business world is about networking. A degree is a means to an end. Work hard get the grades but networking is the key. Kids focus to much on adding multiple degrees before real world experience.

This comment is just ridiculous. Most college professors were highly successful people in successful companies or are currently in those positions while they're teaching.

 

What world do you live in ?

 

Sounds like the teachers, not professors, who teach the Adult Learning/Non-Traditional classes

What world do you live in ?

 

The real world.

 

What world do you live in, where you have the nerve to say teachers aren't part of the real world?

Most of what I learned in UG was pretty black and white.

 

Which is precisely why it doesn't prepare you for the real world...