Noah D. Arney

Tag: teaching

  • “A Stark Warning” on Ideological Control of Universities

    It’s been a while since I did one of these long replies to an editorial, but this one needs a response. The other week I was reading Peter MacKinnon’s “A stark warning about the state of Canadian academia: Universities are ostracizing monocultures that need reform“

    Peter MacKinnon often has interesting things to talk about, and I appreciate hearing his perspective, much as I often disagree with his solutions. So lets look at his evidence and solutions

    The Evidence

    The starting point to this editorial is a quote from Dr. Yuan Yi Zhu when speaking to the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research. I’ll give you the long version:

    However, I think it is fair to say that within Canadian academia, there is a monoculture where, if you deviate even very slightly from what is fashionable and what is commonly accepted by your peers, not only will you be ostracized, but often you will not be able to have an academic career in the first place.

    Unfortunately, when I advise my students, I have to tell them, “You know, if you are in any way not progressive, you have to hide your views until you actually have at least a dissertation accepted, because otherwise you will never get ahead.”

    https://openparliament.ca/committees/science-and-research/44-1/111/dr-yuan-yi-zhu-2

    This was said in the context of concerns being raised regarding the use of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion requirements in applications for federal research funding. Dr. Yuan also had concerns that the approval of funding applications was often tied to the use of specific buzzwords rather than the strength of the research proposal. He proposes that both the requirement to speak to EDI and the preference given to buzzwords means that federal research funding tends to follow ideological trends.

    I think it’s important to point out that Dr. Yuan’s perspective here is that the funding awarding needs to be non-ideological, because that is not what MacKinnon takes away from it. Instead his reading of it is influenced primarily by the other presenters at the same committee session, Eric Kaufmann and Christopher Dummitt.

    Although Mr. Kaufmann tried to connect his perspective with Dr. Yuan’s, his perspective was that the problem is not lack of neutrality, but rather that the reviewers are politically left leaning and the political perspectives of the granting council need to be balanced

    I think that the values of the general public that supports research are what should prevail, not the values of academics, I’m afraid—or at least the vocal academics who wind up participating in these committees.

    I disagree with Mr. Kaufmann here that his perspective is the same as what Dr. Yuan stated. It may align with what Dr. Yuan believes and has said elsewhere, but it does not align with what he said in this case and so I have no interest in trying to attach Kaufmann’s perspective to Dr. Yuan, unfortunately, this is exactly what MacKinnon does.

    MacKinnon links in an editorial to support him written by Jamie Sarkonak, which is focused more on what Dr. Christopher Dummitt discussed at the committee, around a lack of “viewpoint diversity” in academia and that this leads to conservative academics “self-censoring” which, he says, damages any attempt to have universities be a “truth-seeking and truth-validating research enterprise”.

    Sarkonak condenses all of this into the declaration

    Together, they described an environment of injustice and conformity — cultivated in part by the ideologically guided hand of the federal government through its research funding agencies. It’s just not fair.

    Although beginning with the quote from Dr. Yuan, the true starting point for MacKinnon is that the combination of DEI statement requirements as well as the lack of politically conservative members of the decision panels means that access to federal research funding is not a level playing field and leads to a lack of viewpoint diversity. That term is important because it is a term that is never mentioned by MacKinnon, but is in the title of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute study (“The viewpoint diversity crisis at Canadian universities” by lead researcher Dr. Dummitt who I previously mentioned) that he uses to transition from talking about federal research funding to the actions of professors collectively, and to bring up his concerns with the the political beliefs of professors.

    MacKinnon continues by citing the Liberal Party of Canada’s 2021 political platform encouraging diversity in various areas. Of note, from what I can tell, the result of this platform four years later is the creation of a leadership development initiative and the hiring of less than two dozen “culturally competent and trauma-informed” counsellors.

    These three points, MacKinnon, contends, have led to a situation where “students fall silent rather than challenge orthodoxies presented to them in classes”.

    This provides the background to the rest of his editorial. His evidence then is:

    1. Dr. Yuan’s statements about how Canada has gone too far toward trying to use federal research funding to encourage Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and instead the funding should be ideologically neutral.
    2. There is a lack of conservative viewpoints among federal research funding reviewers.
    3. The current government party talks about wanting to increase diversity across Canada.
    4. There is a lack of conservative viewpoints among professors in Academia.
    5. The lack of conservative viewpoints among professors discourages conservative students from expressing themselves.

    Unfortunately MacKinnon does not directly connect from the first three points to the final two, allowing the reader to make their own connection, but as I see it, the argument is that the Liberals have imposed their view (evidence point 3) on the granting councils (point 2) which can now be seen in Dr. Yuan’s perspective (point 1) and because they have done this it has changed the political ideology of professors (point 4) and that is impacting students (point 5) and is further changing the makeup of granting councils (point 2). The implicit argument is that this is a cyclical problem which would make things worse eventually for those who are not left leaning.

    In support of his point is Drs. Dummitt and Patterson’s research that 88 percent of professors identify as voting for left leaning parties and only 9 percent for right leaning parties. Now, if this is a cyclical problem advanced by the ideology of the Liberal Party it means that it must have something to do with the ascent of the Liberal Party ten years ago. Thankfully we don’t have to take their word for it, we can look at previous research such as that published by Nakhaie and Adam in the Canadian Journal of Sociology in 2008 (PDF) which helped form the foundation of Dummitt & Patterson’s. As seen in these tables, although the headline of Dummitt & Patterson’s research is what political direction they claim to lean (88/9), the research on how they voted is different.

    Self-reported voted for1993199720002021
    Right leaning1311118
    Left leaning80837877
    Professors
    Self-reported voted for1993199720002021
    Right leaning35383837
    Left leaning62606060
    General Population

    As you can see from these comparisons there is very little change over time for the general population in Canada. Just under 40% of the population votes for right leaning parties while around 60% votes for left leaning parties. And there is a noticeable change for professors, but the biggest change for professors is actually an increase in voting for non-major parties, which moved from 2.7% to 7.4% between 1993 and 2021.

    Unfortunately this leaves the evidence rather shaky. If the proportion of left/right hasn’t changed much in thirty years, then this is not a new problem, rather this is something that is simply reflective of who decides to work in academia. The political ideology of professors has not substantially changed (if using who they vote for as the assessment) since 1993. Which means that the makeup of granting councils is unlikely to have changed. And since there was no actual material changes made by the Liberals in their push for diversity with the exception of adding the EDI statements, points 2, 3, and 4 are flimsy, but point 1 still stands. Point 5 was an extrapolation by MacKinnon from the first four, which without further evidence seems unsupported.

    Unfortunately this leaves us where we started, with Dr. Yuan’s statement on the importance of research funding being independent from ideology being the only evidence we have going into MacKinnon’s solutions.

    The Problem and Solution

    This problem, according to MacKinnon is best seen by his first solution:

    What is to be done? There is a short-term and long-term answer to this question. A prospective change of government in Ottawa should reverse the present government’s agenda that has been imposed on the sector, and provincial governments should insist that their universities focus on excellence and the search for truth, not on progressive or social justice goals. Failure of any institutions to do so should be reflected in funding decisions.

    The problem represented here is that the government’s focus on and requirements around diversity distracts from, or harms, a “focus on excellence and the search for truth”.

    That would line up well with Dr. Yuan’s perspective that mandating diversity statements is harmful to research independence. However, the final line of the proposal is not about government, but rather about institutions needing to abandon “progressive or social justice goals” and that the government should cut their funding if they don’t. Because some research is directly and intentionally about progressive goals or social justice goals, this means that MacKinnon is not advocating neutrality in funding allocation, but rather is advocating replacing the Liberal Party of Canada’s ideology with another party’s ideology.

    Although this does not align with Dr. Yuan’s words, it does align with Dr. Dummitt’s and Mr. Kaufmann’s. The problem for them is not that the government needs to get out of the role of imposing their ideology, but rather that other ideologies should be able to be imposed.

    MacKinnon then continues into his longer term proposal, which is governance reform. Here he identifies several threats to good university governance.

    1. Substantial institutional growth
    2. Faculty unionization leading to Senate dysfunction
    3. Student councils using member fees for causes students don’t support
    4. Flawed Board appointment processes and dysfunction

    His questions then are:

    how do we strengthen statutory governance bodies, boards and senates? How do we ensure that freedom of expression and academic freedom prevail over institutional and personal politics? Should we insist that fees collected by students or on their behalf be used for student services, and not for political causes inimical to the interests of some that pay them?

    I agree with MacKinnon that Senates and Boards need to be focused, strong, and know what their roles, goals, and objectives are. Further, I think he may be correct that substantial institutional growth and changes in faculty labour relations have caused some of the lack of focus and unclear roles in governance. I probably disagree with him on how to solve that however, because although MacKinnon doesn’t present any full solutions, he does hint that one solution is more oversight through external board appointees who are more in line with the public interest as determined by the government. Or to put it another way, more in line with the ideology of governments. And as mentioned in his short term solutions, a government without a left-wing ideology.

    It’s the final two questions that make me raise an eyebrow. He advocates for freedom of expression and for academic freedom (two separate things). But he also has concerns with how student councils operate. He earlier states that “student councils use member fees to support causes that are an affront to some of those obliged to pay them”. Student councils are elected by other students. He seems to be advocating for universities to mandate how these councils may operate. But that would indeed be the institution rejecting the freedom of expression of students, as displayed by their choices in a student council election.

    My worry here then is that his short term solution is not independence, but rather requiring adherence of universities to a government ideology (just a different one than currently), and his long term solution is not freedom of expression, but limiting expression to ideology approved by the university.

    A Stark Warning

    Peter MacKinnon is indeed giving a stark warning. It’s a stark warning that when he looks at the problems in Canadian Academia he sees the problem is not that it is a “monoculture” but that it is the wrong “monoculture”. If we work from the short term solution to the long we see this:

    1. Replace a left-wing ideology in government with a right wing ideology
    2. Ensure that the new government ideology is reflected in funding decisions for research
    3. Reform University Governance to better align with and implement the new government ideology
    4. Limit student expression that does not align with the new government ideology

    I want to close off where MacKinnon does

    Everyone in our universities, and governments responsible for them, should be chilled by the diagnosis of Professor Yuan, and should ask themselves if there is truth in his words. If their answers are yes, as they should be, they must commit to reforms that are necessary for their institutions to survive and again command wide public support.

    I ask myself if there is truth in Professor Yuan’s words, and the answer is yes, on the concept that research funding should be ideologically neutral. MacKinnon then says that I must commit to reforms, but the reforms that MacKinnon proposes are not ideologically neutral, but rather are the opposite. What is proposed is not neutrality in the search for truth, it is adherence to the ideology brought in after “A prospective change of government in Ottawa”.

    MacKinnon is right, the idea of someone as well regarded as he is proposing more government control of research and university governance, and limitations on student speech should be a stark warning to everyone in Canadian academia.

  • This is how you get an academic survelence state.

    Sometimes great ideas start throwing up red flags very quickly.

    I love data. Data is my jam. It’s why I’m currently on the Strategic Enrolment Management group at my university and why I’ve been part of a similar group at two previous institutions. Data and assessment are a great way to enable us to make things better for students. So I’m coming at this as the type of person that the author of this piece want to recruit toward their way of thinking and I need to tell you OH HELL NO.

    Higher Education Needs Its Own Version of Moneyball

    Lets start with part 1 of the premise:

    Higher education needs its own version of moneyball—a set of active, predictive and creative measures that can be deployed to improve student outcomes and fulfill their promise of student success.

    Makes a lot of sense, and I fully agree. This is what a culture of assessment and SEM looks like. It’s amazing and I am here for it.

    And then in the next sentence the red flag gets waved high:

    Postsecondary institutions must be able to collect and instantaneously analyze student progress data and have intentional plans for adjusting in the moment to the needs of their learners.

    There’s the oh hell no moment. Moneyball style analysis uses publicly accessible and consensually given information and visible information to work. This asks us to tie every moment of a student into a machine.

    Ok, lets dig into the points that support the premise.

    1. part time learners don’t complete their programs as often so they should be assessed more
      • But part time learners often have other things outside of school like work or family responsibilities, which normally means that they are more likely to be financially disadvantaged students. So you’re asking us to have more surveillance of those who we know are already over surveilled and over policed?
      • Also there are often reasons why students pick their course load. Supporting them in increasing that course load is a great idea, forcing them to increase their course load without supporting the reasons they didn’t think they could is awful.
    2. Productive credit hours as a measure – do students take more classes at certain times or days, or are there too many gateway classes preventing moving forward
      • This one makes sense and I’m here for it, but this is just proper scheduling and doesn’t require real-time analysis, just semester based analysis which is what SEM already does.
    3. Predictive metrics
      • There isn’t any information given for this one so I’ll have to make assumptions. “This planning starts with insights that enable institutions to identify opportunities for accelerating student progress and predict the efficacy of those interventions on retention and graduation rates.” Predictive metrics mean one of two things:
        • Constant surveillance of students (how often do they attend events, library use, computer on campus use, assignment submission times, in-semester grades) which is problematic and sounds like a surveillance state.
        • Assumptions of students based on statistical models which often break down when applied to the individual. For example, in the USA, ~1-5% of adults are diagnosed with ADHD, but ~25% of adults in prison in are diagnosed with ADHD. Does that mean ADHD is a predictor of crime, or that people who are institutionalized are more likely to receive a diagnosis? What about when you find out that ~20% of adults in post-secondary education have ADHD? Are the predictions based on data always reliable? They might be in aggregate, but the idea here is to take that aggregate and apply it to the individual. That’s like looking at a normal curve and saying “well, people over 7’4″ don’t exist” when we know for a fact that they do, but they are rare.
    4. Make the stats open to all
      • Again, statistics in aggregate about the student body, even when looking at relatively small groups, is a great idea. How many students take classed in X department, how many of them pass it, how many are International student, etc. This data is important for SEM to identify gateway classes, problem pathways, programs that are missing something, or departments that are under-enrolled. But using it in specific is dangerous.
      • Do we really want a professor to be able to know how long a student takes to complete an assignment in someone else’s class? What about whether or not they use the library? How much data do you need about the specifics of someone? I don’t even like that my LMS lets me know how long ago a student accessed the system.

    Where this article is right: SEM is the way forward. Data is important, and needs to be viewed by as many people as possible. Universities and Colleges are filled with brilliant people, getting more eyes on a problem with the relevant data means more potential solutions.

    Where this article is scary: implying that we need to feed all data about students in real time into a data analytics system, and then turning that into and using it as predictive metrics of success.

    It feels like an article written by someone who isn’t seeing students as people, but as bundles of data that they can access. That way lies teaching machines, but the way forward toward better developmental and lifelong learning outcomes for students (regardless of academic outcomes) is through relational connections on the individual level that are supported by using data on the macro level.

  • AI Hasn’t Cracked Persuasion Yet

    I spent some time today playing with ChatGPT between meetings. I figured that I should see what it could come up with when asked about job application documents. It’s idea of what a resume looks like is rooted in the resumes of yesteryear, but it’s not so bad that I’d throw it out, just guide the writer in how to explain their impact in the prior roles.

    However, what I really wanted to see was what it could do for a cover letter. I started out simple by seeing if it knew the formatting, and the result was… well I guess that counts?

    Read more: AI Hasn’t Cracked Persuasion Yet

    Dear [Hiring Manager],

    I am writing to apply for the [position] at [Company]. With my extensive experience in [field], I am confident that I can quickly become an integral part of your team.

    In my current role as [position title], I have been responsible for [responsibility 1], [responsibility 2], and [responsibility 3]. These experiences have given me an understanding of [industry] and a valuable set of skills. I also have experience with [software/platform], which could be beneficial to your team.

    I am very excited about the opportunity to join [Company] and believe I have the dedication, knowledge, and enthusiasm to excel in this position. I am a quick learner and would appreciate the chance to bring my skills to the team.

    Thank you for taking the time to consider my application. I look forward to hearing from you and discussing my qualifications in more detail.

    Sincerely,

    [Your Name]

    It kinda looks like a narrative version of a resume though and that’s not the point of the cover letter. The broad strokes of the formatting are correct but it’s as if the system doesn’t know the point of the format. As you’ll see, that was the theme of my tests.

    Next up I gave it a job posting (I’m redacting certain info because it was an internal posting)

    Dear Hiring Manager,

    I am writing to apply for the Financial Analyst Co-op position at XYZ. With my educational background in finance, my enthusiasm for working in the capital markets and my strong analytical skills, I am confident that I am a perfect fit for this role.

    I have obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in finance, and I am currently pursuing a Master of Science degree in finance. My studies have provided me with the knowledge and experience to understand the complexities of the capital markets. I have also developed strong analytical skills, including the ability to analyze datasets, develop insightful commentary, and create analytical tools and initiatives.

    I have excellent verbal and written communication skills, and I can work independently and under pressure in a high-pressure, high-reward environment. I am also motivated to gain my CPA or CFA and am eager to take on increasingly greater accountabilities.

    XYZ is an organization that I truly admire and I am excited at the prospect of joining your team. I am confident that my enthusiasm and experience will be an asset to your organization. I look forward to discussing further how I can contribute to your team.

    Sincerely,

    [Your Name]

    It was able to pull some things in from the job posting, but it didn’t understand the required education and also wasn’t quite sure how things connected together. Instead what I got was a listing of skills in the job posting but with the words “I have excellent” ahead of it. It’s exactly what I expect to see of a generic cover letter from someone who doesn’t actually know what they have that’s valuable to the employer. There’s no real content in the cover letter it’s just reposting what the employer asked for. Also, Masters of Science in Finance? Really? That wasn’t asked for in any way, and the job is for someone with two years of education.

    After some tweaking I got a bit better of a cover letter

    Dear Hiring Manager,

    I am writing to express my strong interest in the Financial Analyst (Co-op), Capital Markets Performance Management position at XYZ. With my background in accounting/finance and reporting, my exposure to Capital Markets products and businesses, and my experience with analytical tools and managing large datasets, I believe I would be a great fit for this role.

    My background includes a B.Sc. in Accounting and Finance, in addition to experience in PowerPoint presentation, verbal and written communication, and strong analytical skills. I am a motivated individual who is comfortable working under pressure and can prioritize activities to ensure accuracy and timeliness of reporting.

    I am excited to join a team that is dedicated to providing trusted advice, helping clients thrive, and achieving success that is mutual. With the opportunity to do challenging work, take on greater accountabilities, and build close relationships with counterparts across the company, this position is a perfect fit for me.

    I am eager to learn more about this position and discuss how I can contribute to your team. I am available to discuss this opportunity further and can be reached at (000) 000-0000 or at [email protected]

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Sincerely,

    Your Name

    At least now it looks like a cover letter that I wouldn’t immediately throw out. But it still doesn’t understand that the point is to persuade the reader that they’re a good choice, not just restate what’s in the job posting with some platitudes.

    I’d share what happened with another job posting, but it was more of the same. Lots of platitudes and restating the job posting.

    I figured that it didn’t understand how to connect to the things in the posting because it didn’t have a resume, so I fed an example resume (we make fake resumes based off fictitious students to use as examples) and job posting in. The resume was one that would be just slightly indirectly connected to the job posting so that it was a bit harder. But it would still be something that I could easily walk a student through on how to make those connections. The AI on the other hand… well…

    Dear [Hiring Manager],

    As a 4th year Bachelor of Arts majoring in English and minoring in Psychology with an intention to pursue a career in the not-for-profit sector, I believe I am the perfect candidate for the position. My comprehensive knowledge of customer relations, developed through 5 years of high-caliber service in the food and beverage industry, combined with my strong team player and proficient interpersonal communication skills fostered by 3 years of experience as a community volunteer in event planning make me an ideal candidate.

    I am also highly organized and have excellent time management skills; maintaining a full course load with a cumulative 3.95 GPA while working a part-time job and volunteering. I am proficient in all MS Office Programs (Outlook, PowerPoint, Word, Excel). My experience volunteering at Anytown Shelter Thrift Store, assisting clients with community resources, as well as helping with social media posts and event management will be beneficial to the role.

    I have also presented a poster on sleep deprivation during student exams at the Psycology Conference in Anytown and have been awarded the Coop Student of the Year Award for my excellence and hard work as an Anytown University Coop Student. I am confident that my skills and experience make me an ideal candidate for this position.

    Thank you for your time and consideration and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

    Sincerely,

    Ella Pink

    My first thought was “YES, they got the idea” but then I kept reading. There were four connection points between the resume and cover letter, and the AI was able to figure out one of them. Even worse, it literally just dropped in wording directly from the resume without elaborating on it. And finally, there was something mentioned multiple times in different sections of the job posting (something a human would read as a flag that you need to mention it) but the AI didn’t bother.

    I ran that same resume through with a job posting for a psyc student co-op job with a child care company and a huge red flag went up for me. As soon as it had both a feminine name and childcare connected job the AI decided to stop overselling and be a little more humble about itself. It’s writing about how perfect it is for the job, over and over again, until it thinks it’s a woman applying for a job working with children then suddenly it’s talking about how it’s only a “good fit” for the role instead of “perfect fit” and now instead of talking about itself in an expansive way it talks about how it can provide “valuable support to the team”. Remember everyone, AI isn’t unbiased, it just lacks the ability to critically examine its bias.

    After all of that… well it’s a fun toy, and it’s better than nothing. If you had a resume with one of these cover letters and a resume without a cover letter I’d pick the one with the ChatGPT one. But it only understood structure and copying content, it didn’t understand what the job postings meant, or where the information in them was important or how to frame things in a way that was convincing.

    It seems like it may be a wile before AI has figured out what makes human communication convincing. But since that’s something a lot of humans haven’t figured out yet perhaps it’s not doing as bad as I think. Basically it’s the same issue that AI has with essay writing. The writing fits the structure it’s imitating, and mentions the things in the prompt, but it doesn’t have the ability to write in a way that makes connections between the material and the audience in a meaningful way, or to connect things between the material in a way that is convincing and not simply “hey these two phrases probably go beside each other”.

    I intend to use the output from this in my teaching on cover letters this year as it shows the difference between a good cover letter (which these aren’t) and a bad cover letter (which these aren’t) and a boring/formulaic/lazy cover letter (which these most assuredly are).

  • Grade Inflation And Bullshit

    Adapted from a twitter thread.

    Remember back at the end of September when it came out that a university professor Chris Healy was part of the pro-fascism deadly protest in Charlottesville five years ago? Well, it’s important to connect the dots sometimes because he’s also the person who collected data on grade inflation that has been used for the last decade and a half to complain about modern universities. And data collection is fine, but he also put a spin on that data which has impacted how it’s been used. Biases and perceptions are important and concept that you can fully remove your biases from your interpretation of data is probably a fools errand. Well, turns out his biases may have impacted his analyzing of the data.

    If you haven’t seen it before, “grade inflation” is used as an attack on under-represented minority students in university by many groups (looking at you Fox News), but turns out it really happened because rich white parents wanted it for their kids. No seriously, he doesn’t interpret it that way, but Chris Healy’s own data shows it.

    There’s 2 issues that show up in the data: the SATs and the difference between Private and Public universities and student results.

    First the SATs. Now, there are a lot of problems with SATs, and I’m sure the decision in the 60s to make it harder (and thus showing a drop in SAT scores over the next decade) had nothing to do with more Black students applying to universities /s/. But that’s not what I’m talking about today.

    Healy assumes that SAT should directly predict GPA. But those who study education know that the ways to game the SATs are many and varied, and usually used for those trying to get into either elite private universities or into elite STEM PSIs, aka the schools he identifies as having GPAs lower than what the SAT should predict. Meanwhile students less likely to game the SATs tend to be in the schools he identifies as having a higher GPA than the SAT would predict. The takeaway should be that the SAT doesn’t predict success (and that rich parents generally pay for more SAT prep than poor parents), his takeaway is that public flagship universities are inflating grades more. Except his earlier finding in his data is that public flagships inflated grades substantially less than the private equivalents.

    So the second problem, public vs private university comparison. What his data seems to show is in the 1950s private universities started inflating grades (I’m sure this has nothing to do with how private universities became the bastion of segregation for a decade as wealthy whites sent their kids to them). Then when the last of the Ivy League universities kinda desegregated, the public universities started increasing grades to keep up with the substantial grade inflation that had ALREADY HAPPENED in the private universities.

    Yep, the grades were the same until private universities decided to inflate grades, a decade later the public universities played catchup, but they never actually caught up to the inflation of private universities, because the inflation slowed drastically in the mid 70s as both private (.4 GPA increase) and public (.2 GPA increase) flattened out. It remained that way for the next two decades in public university while private continued to creep up. Then the public universities began to increase again. The end result being private universities were 0.7 above their 1950s average GPA and public universities were 0.4 above. And remember in 1950 public and private had the same GPA average.

    TL:DR what it shows is private universities having massive grade inflation, and public ones following suit a decade later to try to keep up.

    So though the stick of “grade inflation” is used to complain about lowered standards because of historically excluded students, it’s actually happening because legacy rich white students didn’t like that black students or poor students were getting the same grades as them.

    I’m 0% surprised by that, it’s exactly how the US higher education system works, and how they like it to work. It’s another case of privilege laundering.

  • Alberta’s Draft Curriculum Is Built on Sandy Ground

    A former twitter thread

    In June 2021 Calgary Herald published an opinion piece by Dr. Martin Mrazik. It had a lot of issues, but most importantly it tipped the hand about how shaky the foundation of Alberta’s now introduced new curriculum was.

    “The capacity to critically think emerges from a solid foundation of well-sequenced factual background knowledge.”

    https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-albertas-draft-curriculum-provides-strong-base-for-critical-thinking

    That’s… not true. Dr. Mrazik is making two of statements in that single sentence:

    1) critical thinking is a result of background knowledge

    2) specifically well-sequenced knowledge (and in context he means chronologically sequenced)

    The capacity to critically think is aided by background knowledge, but it doesn’t emerge from it. If critical thinking emerged from content knowledge then the banking/blank slate method of education would always lead to critical thinking. We have over a century showing that isn’t true.

    What is true is that critical thinking is improved by and relies on background knowledge, which is wildly different from emerges from.

    Generally speaking, chronological sequencing makes it so that in the early grades students are taught an uncritical version of the content because the critical assessment of it is beyond their current abilities.

    Chronological sequencing is one way to teach, and this curriculum is very interested in that. However, concept based sequencing is another way, and one that is more supported by constructivist and humanist educational theories.

    The problem isn’t a new one from Dr. Mrazik. He said something very similar in May 2021 in the Edmonton Journal (side note: it was very telling that Dr. Mrazik was basically the only academic supporting this curriculum).

    I spend so much time working with people who follow constructivist, humanist, transformative, and Indigenous education paradigms that I sometimes forget that there’s still a strong group of cognitivists out there.

    Dr. Mrazik is a clinical neuropsychologist whose research is primarily into concussions and psychometrics. That’s where these editorials are coming from. From that perspective I understand what he’s trying to say. That having a “knowledge-rich curriculum” is important.

    However, he seems to be ignoring, or perhaps critiquing (he mentions but doesn’t enumerate what he calls “controversial pedagogy and questionable teaching practices”) the theories that have come from the constructivist thread of theories, such as experiential learning theories.

    There are many ways of looking at critical thinking. The one he’s approaching it from is the idea that you ensure a person has a store of knowledge and then you can teach them how to apply it and assess it critically. So first knowledge, then critical thinking.

    One that’s more informed by constructivists would say that if you learn something that is relevant to your experiences you are able to apply critical thinking to it now. That instead of a house where knowledge is the foundation, it’s a tree where knowledge is the leaves.

    Yes that means that you start with less of a knowledge store, but it means that from the beginning you train in critical thinking and apply critical thinking to all of the knowledge you gain.

    Here’s where it matters. If you apply critical thinking from the beginning you train that as a skill. If you try to add it at the end, you might learn it well, but much of your knowledge store was never thought of critically.

    And Dr. Mrazik is right, if you approach it from a cognitivist or perhaps even cognitive-structural development perspective this curriculum design makes sense. But it’s what Dewey would call education that is training for the future rather than present.

    Rogers would critique whether it actually allows the development of the self-concept or would produce incongruence. Freire would be the strongest critique calling this “banking style” education.

    Basically, we’ve spent the last several decades moving away from cognitivism in k-12 education because it doesn’t produce adaptable thinkers, it produces testable thinkers. So of course a cognitivist scholar of psychometrics will think this is a good curriculum.

    But, what is needed for the future is adaptability, and this curriculum doesn’t lead to that.

  • Book Review of “The Missing Course: Everything They Never Taught You About College Teaching”

    A snippet from my review posted at the Canadian Journal of Higher Education

    In my classes I try to explain to second year comput-ing students that their technical skills are only one part of what they need to succeed. Many jobs are like that, requiring both discipline or field specific skills and trans-ferable or soft skills. In The Missing Course: Everything They Never Taught You About College Teaching (2019) David Gooblar explains that for postsecondary profes-sors teaching is not a soft skill, it is a second discipline we should be engaging in the same way we engage with our primary discipline.

    The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning is not a new discipline. However, it is often neglected in grad-uate studies, relegated to the individual’s professional development rather than being a core part of the curric-ulum. The Missing Course (2019) is Gooblar’s attempt to provide a concise and practical overview of teaching and learning with the objective of helping college and university instructors improve their classroom teaching. It is a valuable book for everyone who teaches or plans to teach in postsecondary from full professors to new graduate students.

  • #MySAPath – My Path to Student Affairs via Indigenous Education

    The full post of this is over at The Student Affairs Collective blog.

    I am a student advisor (both academic and career advising) at a small aboriginal college in Vancouver B.C., Native Education College. The issue I have with describing a non-traditional student affairs path is that I have very little reference for what a traditional path is; there are so many routes to the field, at least among my colleagues here in Canada. Mine may have been a little unusual, though.

    My plan when I went to University was to be a high school English teacher. There were many reasons my plan changed but most of them come down to being unaware of my options. I went to university thinking I had one option, came to realize that I had three, and wound up taking the first option anyway only to change my direction two years later.

    Please go here for the rest of the article.

  • Failure and Education

    Today I read a list of “25 of the Most Important Things a Dad Can Teach His Kids“.  I don’t agree with them all, but number one was in my opinion the most important thing you can teach.

    “ Winning is fun, but it teaches you nothing. Failure is the best teacher in the world. Winning is a trophy, failing is an education.”

    Failing is the best way to learn.  If you’ve always succeeded at everything what happens when you come up against something too big for you?  From this standpoint it’s a very good thing to have older brothers.  They teach you very quickly what it is to lose. Growing up means learning to deal with failure.  There is no one in the world that has never failed.  But if you fail at things early in life you learn how to deal with failure.

    Every day I work with students.  They come from a wide variety of backgrounds, but primarily I work with students who have experience with what our society thinks of as failure.  Maybe they didn’t finish High School, or even start. Maybe they’re coming up on two years clean.  Maybe they’re raising their child by themselves while trying to get an education.  But although we might wish that everyone can come from a history of success (personally, emotionally, educationally) I’ve also found something interesting.  When I talk with my colleagues at other schools they invariably complain about students who aren’t ready for university.  They expect it to be easy.  They can’t see what’s wrong with skipping a couple classes and why they can’t make up for it later.  Their parents come to bail them out of something. They don’t know the difference between equal and fair, or in some cases what they actually are.  I don’t run into a lot of that.  Oh of course there’s a little bit (except for the parents thing, that has happened once in three years), but nowhere to the extent that my colleagues seem to deal with.  I suspect that it comes down to failure.  My students know what failure is, have had to work around it, and are working to succeed despite past failure.  But the students my colleagues complain about don’t have much experience with failure.  They have students who’ve been guided through their lives and educations and expect that it will continue forever, because that’s what life is to them.

    I am not jumping on the “this generation has it so much better” bandwagon, or the “they’re so entitled” bandwagon, because every generation can say that about the previous generation, and they’re always wrong, and right, and kinda wrong, and kinda right.  It’s all a matter of perspective and, too often, of narrowing your focus so much that you ignore what’s happening in the rest of the generation.  But in every generation there’s an advantage to the ability to deal with failure.

    Our society has gotten very good at remembering that success is important for teaching.  I think we need to remember that it’s only one side of the coin.  Without failure we’re just setting people up for tragedy in the future.  That isn’t to say that we should let students fail at everything, or fall hard when they fail.  No, as teachers and educators we need to guide failure just as we guide success.  We need to make sure that students are able to function when things get hard, but also able to take advantage of the straight stretches.

    So far I’ve been talking about failure while young.  And I strongly believe that it’s important.  Without it you don’t learn to deal with adversity.  But that’s not to say that you shouldn’t learn how to work with failure at an older age too.

    I’m a firm believer that everyone should have at least two hobbies.  One hobby that you are good at, that you excel at, and another hobby that you struggle at.  A hobby you struggle with teaches you limits.  That there’s always someone better than you.  It teaches you to persevere, and by doing that to incrementally improve.  A hobby you excel at on the other hand shows you that sometimes you’re the bigger fish, that just as you will always be beaten by someone, you will also always be beating someone else. It can also provide encouragement for the hobby you struggle with.

    If all life is struggle then you will slowly be bogged down and beaten back.  But if all life is easy then you never need to push your boundaries and you stunt your growth.  It’s only by excelling at something and struggling at other things that you grow from both ends – success and failure.