Wed 4 May 2005
Oren Cass ‘05 has an interesting opinion piece in this week’s record by this name. From a brief summary of his essay — he thinks that the most meaningful part of college occurs outside of class, so professors should realize this and expect less from students in terms of focus on classes and homework — one might think he is being sarcastic. But his tone suggests that he is serious. He writes:
The presumption of obligation has always rested with the classes - “academics come first,” as the slogan goes - but I wonder if that should really be the case.Most Williams classes are uninspiring and unimportant…. But they usually represent learning for its own sake and have little long term applicability.
While some may disagree with him there, I think that the alumni reading this blog would tend to agree with something else he said:
Most people who actually come through Williams will agree that time outside of the classroom was the most valuable, and most will wish they had even spent more time pursuing those experiences. Rare is the graduate who mournfully reflects upon the days he could have spent in the library but didn’t.
This is illogical — he argues against the worth of classes by drawing a caricature of a student who wants to have spent more time in the library — and it is certainly not unimaginable that some graduates do wish they could have taken more classes while at Williams. Cass goes on to argue that while students, parents, and future employers “realize” that time spent outside of the classroom is more valuable than time in class or time spent doing classwork, professors believe that classwork is more important simply because they have dedicated their lives to academic pursuits. But even if this is the case — and I doubt that everyone would agree with his argument — should we really try to decrease the level of Williams academics to allow for more time with friends?
I think this would be a bad idea, as it would undermine the emphasis on studying and learning upon which Williams College depends, and which convinced most of us that Williams was the place for us. After all, if we decrease the importance of classes and professors, what is the use of decreasing class size and hiring new good professors? We might as well have gone to a school where the classwork would be easy and we would have ample free time to pursue other interests.
May 4th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
In reading Cass’s piece, I am still half convinced that it is a parody.
Assuming not, I am one alum who regrets not taking my academics slightly more seriously. In particular, I took one of the science guts spring of senior year. I now wish that I had taken somethings serious, ideally Religion 301 with Mark Taylor, instead.
To the extent that Cass and others find many Williams classes to be “uninspiring,” we have a problem. My favorite (cheap) solution is to make the work in most DIV I and II classes public. I think that having all student papers and professor comments published on the web would raise the intellectual seriousness of many classes significantly. There are other tricks for fixing uninspired classes, but I am somewhat doubtful that this is a big problem.
Cass’s argument would be more forceful if he suggested some numbers. How much time (say hours per week, averaged over the semester) does the typical student spend on academic work per course? How much does this vary by course and by student? I find it hard to believe that the typical student spends much more than 10 (15? 20?) hours per week per course, which would work out to 40 hours per week on academics. Any number between 40 and 70 would seem reasonable to me.
Moreover, Cass ignores some of the relevant history. Back before my day, Williams students took 5 classes a semester. One could imagine a world in which only 3 classes were required. I would wager that most students would spend about the same total time per week on academics in any scenario. The demand for academics (both learning for its own sake and good grades) is probably fairly inelastic.
May 4th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Well, as they say, youth is wasted on the young. The role of a liberal arts education is to teach you how to observe, think, and argue, and not to train you for any specific occupation. While I’ll admit there’s tons of class factoids that I no longer remember, there are a number of class aphorisms that have stood me in good stead.
For example, “Always read your footnotes” — Professor Bahlman, after all of us got a test question wrong that asked about something described only in one of our books’ footnotes. “Never use the word ‘inevitable’” — Professor Bahlman again, after assigning us a paper in History 101 asking, “Is World War II Inevitable?” “Probable at a certain point in time, OK, but never inevitable.” “Deciding what to leave out is the trick” — Prof. Burns on writing (and since he’d won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award, he should know. And an observation: “Mr. Creese, you do have catholic tastes” — Prof. Chick, my German professor, after seeing me at a seminar on the Big Bang and other astrophysical things.
Life is a balancing act. Rather than ask the adminstration to make it easier to do “other things,” students should make their hard lifestyle choices and live with them. Take courses from great professors, hang out with friends, pop into the Clark from time to time, play frisbee, watch a film, whatever.
As an adult, business typically asks you to work long hours. If you’re willing to do it, they keep piling it on. Smart adults draw a line and say no — “Nope, I’ve put in my 40, 60, whatever hours — now I’m going to go home and play with my daughter and then take my family out to dinner.” A line I’ve always used that’s quite effective is, “You know, I was a human first before I was an employee of [blank] company — so I’m going home to be a human.” That usually stuns them into submission.
I recommend that Oren draw the line now; it gets easier if you do it earlier, rather than later.
May 4th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Oren (who seems to be experiencing end of spring semester senior nostalgia) is right that Williams students should take in the richness of their outside the classroom experiences more, and, while his “solution” seems to be purposefully ridiculous, it is worth exploring the inital question, and its real solution, a bit. Following up on what Guy wrote, if participating in your worthwhile extracurricular activity or bonding with your friends over a heart-to-heart conversation is important enough to you, you’ll make the time for it — and learn important time management skills in the process. More free time is not necessarily going to provide that for students (indeed, I would argue the more free time you have, the more you procrastinate, usually in a solitary fashion). In fact, I would argue that the College’s academic intensity is helpful in teaching students how to balance work and play in a way that is individually appropriate — something that is really helpful in the “real world” when you’re not surrounded within walking distance by 2,000 other like-minded people your age. So if you don’t take some individual initiative and don’t schedule in socializing and extracuricular fun time with others for yourself, well, tough luck to you.
May 4th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
I don’t see any hat tip that makes me think Mr. Cass is being anything other than serious. The closest he came is the claim that “Students are pro-experiential, not anti-intellectual.” The whole op-ed is anti-intellectual, which is fine. Academic pursuits aren’t to everyone’s tastes and I am constantly amazed I get paid to do this for a living.
The op-ed strikes me as absurd from start to finish — but I will still waste a few minutes taking the bait because I’m a sucker.
1) What the purpose of going to college? I’m sure that $40,000 a year could finance a pretty kick ass athletic commune for 20 year olds where members are free to divide their time as they see fit. The thing that makes college different from Club Med or coffee shops is the academics.
2) What is the role of professors within a college? It certainly is not to manage the social calendar of students. Professors are supposed to teach the subject matter (and research). That is what they are paid to do, and at least many students expect them to do exactly that. Yeah, other experiences are valuable, but why should the professors care about that?
3) What is Mr. Cass really calling for? He is correct when he says that students make trade-offs between studying and extra-curriculars every day. When I was a student, I pretty consistently favored socializing over studying. And, to be honest, my grades reflected that trade off. However, I was fully aware of the balancing act and accepted the consequences of my actions. For each class I estimated how much work it would take to receive a given grade. I then figured out how much effort I wanted to put into the course (the harder and more interesting the course, the more work I put into it). I then knew roughly what my grade would be. If I didn’t like the result, I could put in more effort, decide to take another course, or live with the lower grade. Mr. Cass seems to be calling for more grade inflation (and since grades are arbitrary, it is up to Williams to decide whether grades are meaningful).
4) Williams could offer course credit for sports, I suppose. Seems kinda contrary to the spirit of a liberal arts education. Heck, even in corrupt Division I basketball programs, the assistant coaches at least have to create courses related to basketball that are open to all students. You could do the same for acapella (though, there exist options for vocal performance credit, I believe).
5) The purpose of the liberal arts education is to train students how to think. Since most students don’t know what their careers hold, how could the knowledge be applied? The same holds even for professional degrees. The information lawyers use in day-to-day operations was learned on the job. The primary purpose of law school was to teach them how to think about and research and argue the law (and provide a signaling mechanism for future employers). If you want to pick up job specific skills, apprentice yourself and save yourself $40K a year.
6) The college has already struck a balance between academics and free time. Notre Dame students take 5 courses a semester. Keeps ‘em fairly busy, but not overly so. Williams students only take 4 courses. They have more free time to pursue activities like sports, singing, carousing, and general tom foolery (I’ve always wanted to be the grumpy old alum who used that phrase). Most Williams students don’t hold down jobs and have plenty of free time. If you want more free time, save yourself $40,000 and go hang out in Europe in youth hostels.
Okay, I’m done now.
May 4th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Seems to me that Mr. Cass could find the academic environment he seeks at any number of colleges and universities for a lot less than $40k per year.
Or, if it’s leisure time with like-minded folks he’s after, $40k would allow him to spend much of the year lounging poolside at a luxury resort hotel.
As I think back on my Williams experience many decades ago, I remember the parties. But, the most lasting value did come from the classroom — not the specific subject matter, but the ability to reflect on multiple sides of an issue and look below the surface. I also recall finding the experience more rewarding when I became fully engaged in the courses later in my four year stint.
Honestly, if schools like Williams don’t have rigorous academics as the number one priority, what’s the point? Expensive “finishing” schools?
May 4th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
The article doesn’t sound like satire to me. I agree with Oren that students who sacrifice all else to academics are missing out on a great deal.
But deemphasize academics? Why not just go to Florida State? Students who choose Williams over generic party/jock schools do so in large part because they want to be challenged by their classes.
It’s too bad that Oren, as a senior, thinks that “Most Williams classes are uninspiring and unimportant.” I don’t think this is true in general - it just reflects Oren’s own (poor) class choices. While some Williams classes are uninspiring, I’ve found the vast majority to be stimulating and interesting. In my experience, this depends on the course material. Gut lectures are usually uninspiring. But Williams allows you to take plenty of seminars and tutorials in subject areas that do interest you. Oren probably hasn’t made very good use of the resources available to him.
As for his complaint that classes “usually represent learning for its own sake and have little long term applicability”…as Guy said, youth is wasted on the young. As you grow older, you’ll find, often, the things you really engaged in at Williams will have a long term applicability to your life. And many alums do wish that they could go back to Williams to take more classes and engage in some “learning for its own sake.”
May 4th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
This op/ed is snide, sophmoric, posturing. I’m sure that I’ve said, at one point or another (probably during finals) that ‘Williams would be better if it was Winter Study all the time’ or that ‘I won’t look back fondly on my time in the library,’ but that’s just passing bile, not substantive thought.
Williams’ greatest strength is the academics. Sure, the setting is nice. Sure, you learn quite a bit on the playing fields and with your entry and at the bar with your buddies. But nobody, not even the most ardent athletic supporter (lookin’ at you, Harry Sheehy) would dream of suggesting that Williams’ educational mission should be secondary. In a sense, I’m outraged. What were you doing, skulking through classes you didn’t enjoy, carefully piecing together the instrumental, finance-friendly, degree with as little enjoyment or curiosity as you could afford? In a sense, I pity you. Why can’t you look back on a seminar you loved, or a conference filled with vital questions, or a class that you struggled with but finished with great satisfaction? You don’t have the satisfaction of great learning, of being able to recognize paintings, to be able to discuss architecture, or music, to be more than just a technocrat.
If anything, in this post collegiate-age, I’m even more sold on the value and vital importance of the liberal arts education. I spent some time in the fall with a Penn Wharton graduate, and the poor young woman didn’t know a thing. I’m sure she had her sums quite well, and could tell us all a thing or two about balance sheets, but she was woefully ignorant.
She did have plenty of things to say about her boozing habits outside of class, though.
I don’t want Williams to go that way. We’re at a high intensity liberal arts college for a reason: to get the best undergraduate education in the world. Why the hell would you want to turn this place into Harvard, a brand name with mediocre classes?
May 4th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Well,
Williams could always extend the academic calendar by 2 weeks to match many other schools. That would reduce the amount that’s crammed into 12 week semesters by 15 percent or so, and free up time for more bull sessions.
Cass’ idea of reducing the academic load seems a little lame to me, though. The reason Williams is full of interesting people is that they’ve worked so hard in so many different pursuits. I wanted to be at a school full of dedicated students.
May 4th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
I don’t think that extending the calendar by two weeks would actually reduce the amount of work — professors would probably enjoy the opportunity to cover or discuss two additional weeks’ worth of material, and would add to, rather than spread out, their syllabus. This is not a bad thing; in fact, it would be nice to learn more — it’s just not going to “free up time for more bull sessions.”
May 4th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Diana, Aidan, Neal, Guy, (d)avid, Alix, hwc and I all agree that Cass is wrong? Truly we have a harmomic convergence on EphBlog today! Even Eisler is probably on-board for this one . . .
May 4th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
What Aidan (and everybody else) said. Oren’s probably wasted a lot of time on POEC and ECON courses that will appeal to investment banks, think tanks, etc. Those courses are bound to be uninspirng. And he didn’t need to go to a liberal arts college to learn those things.
May 4th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
“If anyone has seen Mr. Nickerson lately, please let him know that his presence in class would be appreciated.”
OK, OK, so Dave admitted to slacking in college –If he had critiqued Oren without that caveat, I (Jeff Z., by the way) would have pulled out one of the many great Gary J. moments (speaking of awesome profs!) without expounding. I do hope some of his Notre Dame students peruse this blog, and if ever critiqued for their absence from class, choose to utilize this line. Sorry Dave –please don’t rat me out to my boss in retribution. Not that you have any dirt on me from the college years or anything — right.
In any event, I, like Dave, invested far more time in social life than in academics as an undergrad. And that’s what’s great about Williams, at least as a humanities major. If you want to do a ton of activities and attend every major campus event, converse late into the night about matters intellectual or innane, learn a fair amount about your major, attend about 80 percent of your classes, do 40 percent of the assigned reading, and escape with a B/B-plus average, it’s very doable with the workload as-is. If you want to kick ass and get a killer fellowship and graduate summa, or if you simply feel obligated to complete every single page of the assigned reading, then you need to make some serious sacrifices. It’s really up to you and what you value more.
I would say the balance, as is, is perfect — the school has room for truly committed intellectuals to thrive, as well as for pretty intelligent, vaguely productive, well-rounded teenage slackers to survive. What’s wrong with that?
May 4th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Yup Dave, I agree with all of you.
Really. Academics were the highlight of my career, the body around which the rest of my Williams life orbited, as it were. I did a lot of other stuff too, but I think at the end of the day there’s no other time in your life where pure intellectual exploration will be so emphasized.
May 4th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
Gary ruined that weekend for me. Every party I went to, people would come up to me and say, “Gee, Dave, Jacobsohn seems pretty pissed. You better start showing up for class.” I guess his tactic worked. I had attended only the first two sessions of the course prior to the comment, and then I attended all but one of the classes afterwards. Of course, there were only a handful of classes left, but it was the thought that counts. I got into graduate school, so he must have written nice things about me in the letter of rec.
May 4th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
This is exactly right. Try doing this as a Div III major, and you will be sorely disappointed. As a Math/Econ double major,I’d estimate that I do 2 to 3 times more work for my Math classes than I do for my humanities/social science classes, and yet I consistently get better grades in the humanities/social sciences. If there’s such thing as an easy B/B- in a Math class, I have yet to find it.
May 4th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
Stick with the math. If the words “graduate school” have ever crossed your lips, then being a math/stat major is one of the best decisions you can make as an undergrad at Williams.
I have only one word for you: Statistics.
May 4th, 2005 at 9:57 pm
David R., I really hope you’re not trying to argue that Div. III classes are harder (and those who choose to take them smarter) than those in Div. I or Div. II (perhaps I’m just jumping to conclusions…). When you break it down, you do the same amount of work for each type of class — it’s just that instead of weekly practice sets and several exams as in Div. III classes, the work in Div. I and II consists of several papers or one huge end-of-the-semester paper and lots of reading and possibly response papers. Both types of classes, Div. I and II, and Div. III, have their blow-off work and busywork; and both kinds of classes have their challenging, time-consuming work. It’s not that one is inherently “easier” than another; it’s just different. And anyone who claims that my art history major was not as “challenging” as a biology major’s is itching for a fight.
May 4th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
I’m such a sucker I thought maybe Gary J actually posted here when I saw his name on the front page. I was a real GJ groupie back in the day. As a Williams alum and an Oklahoma fan, it pains me to no end that he’s in Austin now.
May 4th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
I too now have read the Cass piece and agree that he does not appear to be engaging in satire. I am flabbergasted and don’t know where to start a response. Consequently I won’t respond except to say that fifty years hence he might find it interesting to reflect and determine whether his view has changed.
May 4th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
Alix, I think you are indeed jumping to conclusions. I simply said that it is significantly more difficult to coast through a Div III class and earn yourself a B- than it is in a humanties/social science course. I didn’t say that Div III majors are inherently more intelligent than Div I/Div II majors, but I will stand by my claim that Div III courses are more challenging.
What you’re saying is partially true. If you broke it down to total amount of classwork assigned and amount of time needed to complete your assignments, perhaps workload in terms of time would be comparable. What is not comparable, in my opinion, is the minimum effort needed to earn yourself a B- in a Div III course as opposed to a Div I/II course. I cannot speak authoratively about Div I courses since I’ve only taken three of them–intro level English courses and advanced Spanish literature courses(Spanish is my second native language)–but I will, without hesitation, say that this holds true for Div II courses. My intuition and experience tells me that the same is likely to be true for upper level Div I classes, but as you will quickly point out, I may be completely off the mark. Then again, if you were a Div I major with no experience in Div III beyond intro level courses used to fill divisional requirements(which may very well not be the case), I would say that you could just as easily be way off the mark.
As an example, I’m currently taking a Math major core class,a 3xx economics elective, and an intro level Poli Sci course. The minimum effort to achieve a B/B- in either of those Div II classes is substantially lower than the effort I’m putting into achieving the same grade in my math major core class. I could forego 50% of the reading for a week’s worth of class in poli sci and still get a B- on the week’s quiz and following paper. I could forego 50% of the reading in my econ class, and I could still get a B- on the following problem set and possibly a B- on the following exam. Neither of these scenarios is a stretch of the imagination. If I were to attempt to forego 50% of the work assigned in my math course, however, I would undoubtedly do horribly on the following problem set, not to mention fail the following quiz/exam by a large margin.
You’re right, the work is different–it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Regardless, I stand by my claim; based on my experiences, I have yet to find a Div III (major track)course that was an easy B/B-. I have had no problems finding such courses in the other two divisions. Do such courses exist? I’m sure they do. Which is more likely, however, an easy B/B- in the humanities/social sciences or the same in Math and Natural Sciences?
May 5th, 2005 at 12:54 am
[Here David Ra. commented on David Ro.'s accidentally submitted comment that has since been fixed--ed.]
Williams’ peculiar Div I/II/III classification seems an unnecessarily imprecise way of organizing this particular pissing contest. Linguistics has more in common with psychology and neuroscience than with studio art.
I submit that it’s easier to look like an utter ass in the humanities. Students can blow off reading in an upper-level English class, so long as they’re willing to make fools of themselves in the next discussion. I’ve no idea what kind of grade you’d get, as I’ve not done this myself.
It was much harder to embarass yourself in computer science. The closest I remember came during a software engineering elective, when my development team was screaming at another development team for screwing us over. I still remember Wayne spluttering into the phone “What do you mean, ‘the method became deprecated?!’ Methods . . . don’t just depracate themselves!” THe other dev. team looked like dolts (which they were) when the rest of the class saw the mess.
I’ve not taken a math course since high school. Is it fair to say that the discipline is less concerned with the particulars, more concerned with principles?
Another anecdote - the instructor for my last math course told us that homework was optional, but warned us that if we didn’t turn work in he’d expect us to do well on tests. Reading examples was enough for me, so I did approximately 0% of the homework, and aced every test. Of course, that was high school. Don’t get me wrong, math is one of my weak points; I’d struggle with college level work.
May 5th, 2005 at 12:57 am
David R–
It’s not fair for you to make blanket generalizations based upon your personal experiences. My personal experience with courses has been that there is no real difference in the amount of work required by classes in Div 1, 2, or 3. The type of work is drastically different, but I find myself spending the same amount of time getting the same grades on average across the divisions.
In response to Oren, I agree that the fact that his courses have been uninspiring is probably more his own fault than his classes’. I’ve only had 1-2 course at Williams so far that I’d categorize as anything other than extremely engaging and inspiring.
May 5th, 2005 at 4:26 am
Read between the lines.
Oren’s a senior. It’s May. In one month, he will be cut loose from the most profound and involving institutional experience of his lifetime. He’s trying to find a way to move on, and putting some distance between himself and the school is the best way to do that. Aidan came closest on his first pass — “snide, sophomoric, posturing.” Fair way to compensate for a hard breakup.
Thus, Oren’s carping isn’t about Williams’ effect, it’s about his affect. Cut the brother some slack: I suspect he’s had a hard last couple weeks.
Neither Oren’s understandable need for freedom from day-to-day Williamstown nor our regrettable need for dalliance with it produces any helpful perspective. So recognize his views of Williams, and ours, for what they are: stories we tell to make ourselves feel better.
Long long ago, in a valley far far away. . .
May 5th, 2005 at 4:39 am
A brief addendum: the implied “we” of that last paragraph refers only to the crusty old folks — that is, we alums.
Diana, Ronit, David R, and Noah: rock on.
May 5th, 2005 at 6:22 am
Whatever Oren’s motivation, he sure hit a hot button; this is the first time I’ve seen the Recent Comments column completely filled with replies to a single post.
May 5th, 2005 at 7:45 am
Fine to have some angst about leaving Williams, but why publish “snide, sophomoric posturing” in The Record? Can’t Oren get a blog, or just a beer at The Purple Pub?
As for the relative work loads in Div I, II, and Div III, I found them to be about equal. Reading a book a week for a philosophy class and seriously engaging in it takes time. However, it is true that the grades are far more compressed in Divisions I and II. Professors are far more comfortable assigning grades below a B in the sciences. Why? Because answers are clearly and unambiguously right or wrong. Professors can then meaningfully distinguish between getting 64%, 74% and 84% of the exam correct. That is much harder to do in the humanities and social sciences (and I’ve taught both political theory and stats). Getting an A in Div I and II may be no less difficult (indeed, if a professor curves the grades, it could be more difficult), but getting a C means you REALLY screwed up. Getting a C in Div III just means that you incorrectly answered 21% of the questions.
May 5th, 2005 at 10:52 am
(d)avid, I couldn’t have put it better myself, and in fact, I didn’t, so thank you for the clarification of what I was trying to say.
May 5th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
To add on to (d)avid’s characterization, I think it’s considerably easier/more common to see really high grades (A/A+) in Div. III than in the other Divs. An A+ in a Philosophy or Art course would require some serious engagement, insight, and original work beyond the requirements of the course. An A+ in Math or Physics just requires getting all the answers to problem sets and exams correct. Talent (being a math whiz) can get you an A+ in Div. III, but the other Div.’s require serious additional effort for really high grades.
May 5th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Yes, Ronit, it is no accident that the valedictorian comes from Div III. There are Div I and II professors who don’t think A+s are even possible. If you take courses where you can’t get an A+, you’re at a disadvantage.
Of course, that was never a concern of mine (and my B+ in Garrity’s Abstract Alegbra II was quite challenging enough, thank you very much. Or maybe it was a B. Doesn’t matter, that course kicked my ass).
May 5th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Does Williams award A+ grades? The school doesn’t do Ds….
May 5th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Yes. One can get an A+ at Williams.
May 5th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Even Div II gives out the grade of A+. And contrary to David Ramos’s belief — yes, Williams does give D’s.
May 6th, 2005 at 5:22 am
Are my ears telling me that this subject has brought out the vulgar buzz of grade grubbing?