Timeline for How honest should one be with their students when talking about the realities of academia?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 20:31 | history | edited | O0123 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 19:52 | history | edited | O0123 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 15:22 | history | edited | O0123 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 14:35 | comment | added | O0123 | @PeteL.Clark Thanks, I have added some nuance to the formulation. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 14:35 | history | edited | O0123 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 57 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 2:17 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Vincent: 99.9% is indeed a high chance, higher than I would report for most things. I will be honest and say that I have never had a student approach me about an academic career for whom I thought they had only a .1% chance of academic success. But I don't see this justifying assertions like "Therefore, it is always imperative to explain to your student that you can not predict his future chances, simply because there are so many chances." If I may: I suggest that the antidote of exaggerated claims is not exaggerated claims in the other direction, but rather accurate claims. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 0:24 | comment | added | O0123 | @Sana Amazing that you think that people might not change in their laziness, or in their F's, or in their initiative? This look at students is exactly what I am opposing in my answer. You have to be aware of the fact that what you say actually can change a student's initiative and laziness: again, students are not static entities. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 23:12 | comment | added | Sana | @VincentVerheyen I think you're misinterpreting some logical quantifiers in my statements. I can't predict success for all students, but there exist some students for whom I can predict with 99.9% certainty their failures (lazy, lots of F's, no initiative, etc.) | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 22:46 | comment | added | O0123 | I wonder if the OP also has a crystal ball to predict reasonably accurate (say 99.9%) which students will "succeed"; which is of course also impossible. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 22:44 | comment | added | O0123 |
Sure @PeteL.Clark one who is an expert in the probabilistic theories of academic success might, to some degree and with some error, be able to predict chances in some general populations and so on ... This may be based on population studies. I think we both agree on that. High income of parents might be such an influencing factor? Perhaps. But I feel like my answer is a necessary antidote to the OP. See e.g. what he/she says below: a reasonable chance (say 99.9%) that a student will fail. I am saddened by this claim of 99.9% predictability on an individual.
|
|
| Jan 9, 2017 at 19:56 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | Of course there are, but so what? Are you saying that any student you interact with may be a "genius" -- or, more soberly put, someone whose potential is dramatically hindered by contingent, temporary factors -- so that they could do much better in the future than they have in your observed interactions with them? Of course that's true, but that's why we're talking about probability (one is virtually always only talking about probability when giving advice or making any decision whatsoever). I somehow doubt that you ignore probability in your own life, so I don't get your position. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 19:53 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Vincent: I'm afraid I don't really understand your comment, and not because I have any trouble with academia as a sociological construct. (As a practicing academic, I am very well aware of this.) "There must certainly be geniuses who are e.g. inhibited by some social factors at some point in their lives, but perform brilliantly once these factors have been eliminated at another point in time and place." | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 19:23 | comment | added | O0123 | @ JeffE I agree, but you will agree that no one works without the will to work. So, we agree that our advice is not horrible. @Pete L. Clark Medicine isn't quite the same as social pedagogy, but I appreciate your analogy. My point is that students, as well as academia, are inherently social phenomena. There must certainly be geniuses who are e.g. inhibited by some social factors at some point in their lives, but perform brilliantly once these factors have been eliminated at another point in time and place. Nevertheless, I can agree with predicting in some mentally retarded cases of course. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 18:50 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | This kind of answer reminds me of physicians who are unwilling to speak in probabilistic terms under any circumstances. It is really unhelpful, and the necessity of it is clearly falsified by other (better?) physicians who will happily speak in those terms. Do you really feel that there are no circumstances in which your own past experience gives you more insight into the student's likelihood of attaining a future academic career than the student presently has? I find that rather frightening. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 18:23 | comment | added | JeffE | the better he wants to be, the better he will become — This is absolutely horrible advice. The better he works at becoming, the better he will become. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 16:55 | comment | added | xLeitix | "the better he wants to be, the better he will become" oh $deity, how I am happy that my mentors and advisors usually gave me something a little bit more tangible than that. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 16:14 | history | edited | O0123 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jan 9, 2017 at 16:09 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 9, 2017 at 19:25 | |||||
| Jan 9, 2017 at 16:09 | history | answered | O0123 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |