Was he/she lenient? Or was he/she stringent? The ones that I enjoyed gave me a challenge but were fair in grading and made it feasible to get that magical “A”. Most importantly they helped you learn something by making the courses seem important, instead of just puking the material as if it were straight from a book. The ones I disliked just lectured the entire time and didn’t make the classes interactive/somewhat fun at all. All tests with no other assignments. With loophole sites like ratemyprofessors.com and other apps, it’s so easy now to find professors that fit what you like and help you dodge the ones that you wouldn’t like. Keep in mind, not all people should be college professors.
I had this one professor, she was so nice and everyone just walked all over her because she didn't take attendance or give out any toll taking assignments. She got pissy from time to time because she felt as if she wasn't getting any respect from her students. I'd put her at the very top of my list because she was so nice and funny but I felt she just was digging her own grave by being such a lax professor. The classes felt awkward at times because the people that did show up got everybody else's backlash.
Don’t you dare fib and convey to me that you liked the challenge when you were really partying with Coca-Cola and Hubba Bubba. We know… Nothing is handed to you!
But if they really love the topic, they should be able to grab anybody's imagination.
I had a geometry class that started with about 30 students and all but 12 dropped it. I was tutoring a student for the class before she dropped it, and I only got a C.
Knowing where to find information and the way to apply to solve problems is far more important than memorizing formulas, etc.
I do understand the need for some memorization for subjects like history. I believe it's important for folks to have a rough timeline of major events and in what order they occurred.
(1)bold and amazingly creative,
(2)old, patient and remarkably learned
(3) Clear, methodical, and succinct
One thing they all had in common was that they were kind enough to take an interest in my ideas and work. They were also very good communicators, though they communicated in very different ways.
Contrast with 'Emily', my English lit professor who wanted to be your friend, couldn't teach for shit, and was a difficult grader on top of it.
Or the guy who you see on Discovery about every 5 minutes, Michio Kaku, who was my physics TA. I'm hoping he got better at his job as the years went by, because he was as useless a TA as they came. In a lecture class with 300 students (and a great physics professor who obviously couldn't cover all of us), about 30 of us were stuck with this guy for 3 semesters and he was terrible. To see that he's authored as many books as he has now tells me either he's got a good ghost writer or he's improved on the job.
I remember my senior year we had to design a program...my group only got half to work, so we had to take a final...the other group got theirs to work and didn't need to do the final...anyway I go in the next year (I worked there after I graduated). I go past his class and see my design on the board that he is teaching to a class...when I ask him about it, he said we were 99% right and just missed on the 2nd part, and that the other team's was actually crap and only worked for like 5 things (that they presented). He had given us credit to the class beforehand and the fact it made it into his lesson really made me like him even more
If it was required, I appreciated the abc this is how you pass it
Loren
Knowing where to find information and the way to apply to solve problems is far more important than memorizing formulas, etc.
I do understand the need for some memorization for subjects like history. I believe it's important for folks to have a rough timeline of major events and in what order they occurred.
Agreed.
called on students - did not wait for volunteers - that way, everyone had to put in work for the class, as opposed to a few carrying everyone else re: discussion.
Contrast with 'Emily', my English lit professor who wanted to be your friend, couldn't teach for shit, and was a difficult grader on top of it.
Or the guy who you see on Discovery about every 5 minutes, Michio Kaku, who was my physics TA. I'm hoping he got better at his job as the years went by, because he was as useless a TA as they came. In a lecture class with 300 students (and a great physics professor who obviously couldn't cover all of us), about 30 of us were stuck with this guy for 3 semesters and he was terrible. To see that he's authored as many books as he has now tells me either he's got a good ghost writer or he's improved on the job.
Unfortunately, the skills that make a good researcher are not the same that make a good teacher.
stuck to the subject
left their politics and personal lives at home.
I had a few but they were very far between.
Most were so full up of themselves, especially the ones teaching grad and senior level courses. They were insufferable. But as a student so was I. I guess it all evens out in the end.
Secondary favorite - IF tied to their syllabus and grading system, they give you everything you need in abundance to meet their expectations.
Don't like 'em - decides (after leading everyone to 40% or less by holding them accountable for 100% of the possible course material while only instructing/preparing students for 10% of the work) to "grade on a curve", or change their grading policy after the fact.
Least favorite - gives a mountain of work, all grades strictly bound by their grading system, which fully depends on attendance/participation. Believes in group work as a method of learning and requires participation as a group - hand-picked by the prof, of course. Doesn't narrow down the material much/at all, and requires you to be prepared for every possible question in the field with not much guidance. Ultimately students with A's are those who best follow their rules, as opposed to those who best understand the content and show an ability to apply it.
He was my favorite.
He was my favorite.
This was back in the 80s! Before everything got all Hilary Clinton administration
As an independent learner, I prefer exposure to a variety of learning activities provided by the professor and being given a choice as to how and when I access those experiences.
Participation is fine as an option, but as a requirement? I'm not a big fan.
When a course is strictly online providing a variety of learning is a challenge.
I prefer an asynchronous course that allows for opportunities to meet with the professor and/or peers on a schedule but does not require it.
But you know how YOU learn best. and that's what the OP was looking for.
But you know how YOU learn best. and that's what the OP was looking for.
How does it create an uneven requirement? What I'm suggesting is that there be no requirement for learning experiences, only requirements for assessment of learning outcomes.
students who participate based on digestion of the material and attend class regularly are de facto assistant instructors.
In undergrad, I appreciated more "to the point" professors, who were able to stick to the curricula without letting the classes sort of take over since much of what we learned was knowledge-based such as history, chemistry, math, engineering, etc.
In grad school, I appreciated professors, who allowed the students to take over the class with lively discussions on topics we were covering. With students from various backgrounds with differing levels of professional experience, we learned more from discussions than from what our professors lectured us.