If there’s one thing I don’t like about the first week of classes, it’s the task of saying "no" over and over again.
Like many community colleges, we have far more students than we have slots available in most of our classes. It’s a very rare course where I am able to accept everyone who shows up the first day trying to "crash" a class. More often, as with the three classes I met today, I have wait lists of one or two dozen students. I generally do lotteries for available seats, and ask all those not selected to leave.
I’d like to enroll everyone, of course, and be the "nice guy." But if I did that, I’d be left with a classroom too tightly packed for anyone to move, and in serious violation of city and state fire and safety codes. I’d also be overwhelmed with papers and tests and journals, and my grading load — with seven courses and no teaching assistants — is already immense. So for reasons of both safety and sanity, I have had to get very good over the years at saying no.
Students beg and plead and, invariably, explain why it is that without this particular class, their entire academic career will be ruined permanently and the dreams of their parents dashed. Some students get teary with frustration at the depressing process of huddling in doorways and squatting on floors and ingratiating themselves to be admitted to over-crowded classrooms. A few try flirtation or flattery; on one or two occasions long ago, various bribes were rather openly proffered — and politely refused.
I know it’s no fun for the students to put themselves through this. I honor them for doing it. The smart ones continue to call and visit every day, hoping that some enrolled student has dropped and a space has been freed up. Often, but not always, I am able to accommodate them, but I won’t do so if it means a dozen bodies on the floor and students barely able to breathe.
I find that saying "no" to a student who wants to get into a class is much harder than saying "no" to a student who has asked me to rethink a deservedly poor grade. When I’ve assigned a low grade to sub-par work, I generally feel quite confident in my assessment of the student’s product. But the way in which students get into classes seems so arbitrary (and unfair, as returning students get priority), that I have a hard time defending the system that leads to the composition of any particular class.
Two true lottery stories: one year, I had about two dozen names on a list for my women’s studies course in which five spaces were available. There were perhaps 17 women and 7 men trying to get into the class; by strange chance, all five of the slips of paper I drew had men’s names. It was completely random, but as one of those women who wasn’t selected left, she muttered in disappointment, "God, even in a women’s studies class I’m f*cked over by men." Lots of people heard her, and it set an awkward tone for the remainder of the morning!
Another year, I had three spaces available on a lottery list for a modern Europe class; one of the women on the list (of some fifteen hopefuls) was a very pretty, bubbly scantily-dressed blonde. Her name was the first name that appeared — at random — when I pulled slips of paper out of a manila envelope. After the class, two students who weren’t selected publicly accused me of rigging the lottery to pick the "hot girl", and they complained to the dean. (Who laughed them out of her office; incidentally, the "hot girl" ended up one of the top students in that particular section.)
Sigh. I’m not asking for pity, mind you; saying no and dealing with the justifiably frustrated and disappointed is part of the job description. But it’s pretty damn near my least favorite part of what I do.
Sigh
I’ve never taught, but I’ve definitely been on the side of not getting into a class I wanted to take.
I think the big dilemma, assuming you’ve fixed the class size, is precisely *how* those seats get assigned. I’ve known professors who, like you, assign them purely at random; I’ve known others that give preference to majors, or to nonmajors; some who give a heavy workload to encourage students to drop the course; some who ask for a work sample and handpick the students they would like in the course.
And the thing is, they’re all potentially “fair,” even though their outcomes are different - it just depends on which factors you think are most important. (Is it better to let everyone have a “chance” at getting into the course, even if someone who might benefit more gets shut out?)
We’re actually told, Jeff, that once the course begins, anything other than a random lottery is illegal. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but the administration has been emphatic on that point for years. I’d be very reluctant to start judging merits of students whom I don’t know.
On the other hand, it’s perfectly legal to admit students to a closed class BEFORE the class has met. Smart students often track me down well in advance, and then I can just take ‘em first come, first served.
I attended a small liberal arts college and cannot even imagine the world you’re describing. But I think it’s a powerful statement on the way in which people value learning that they will beg, borrow, plead and bribe to get into a class.
They don’t give you ANY TAs. Wow…How do you grade all those papers and tests? That’s pretty rough. I didn’t realize they were so stingy in CA community colleges with resources.
I remember the days when graduate students would help out for FREE just to get to work with a professor.
Now they’re striking to join unions.
Oh well.
>Now they’re striking to join unions.
Have you tried paying rent and buying food in CA on the monthly income that grad student TAs get in the UC system? You can’t do both. With a research assistant position (which pays a lot better) my on-campus rent was more than half my income. On-campus at my university costs maybe 1/2 to 2/3 what off-campus does, and I was very lucky to get it… there is an 18 month waiting list. Grad students can also be in a really vulnerable position if they happen to get an unscrupulous advisor… a prof can claim your research as their own, prevent you from graduating, cut off your funding (which can result in you getting kicked out of school) and often students have no recourse. Again, I’m lucky in that my advisor is actually helpful and honest. I have heard some real horror stories.
So, a grad student union isn’t as absurd as it sounds. I know the UC one basically just tries to keep wages within reason, understanding that UC doesn’t have a lot of money, and make sure that a 20-hour-per-week TA appointment stays at 20 hours. Bad enough you can barely pay rent… it shouldn’t interfere with your research and keep you in that state for another year. I promise we are not asking for much because we are indeed grateful to be here and love what we do.
I suspect that grad students TA’d for free back when housing was more reasonable. ^_^
Good luck with the grading Hugo. I’d totally TA for you if you were at my school.
I remember the days when graduate students would help out for FREE just to get to work with a professor.
Now they’re striking to join unions.
I assume that’s for FREE but with a generous stipend. Because even graduate students can’t live on scholarly zeal alone, and considering what the job market looks like these days, it’s a very bad idea to fund your graduate studies by going into debt.
I’m sorry about your frustrating first week, Hugo. Here’s hoping the rest of the semester is much better!
“I assume that’s for FREE but with a generous stipend. Because even graduate students can’t live on scholarly zeal alone, and considering what the job market looks like these days, it’s a very bad idea to fund your graduate studies by going into debt.”
NYMOM said: Well the stipend still exists (but unfortunately now it’s taxable thanks to Reagan) plus it has subsidized housing attached to it and other perks.
I mean I didn’t get paid money when I decided to return to school in my 40s trying to salvage a career after being a stay-at-home mother and p/t worker for years, while raising my family. I had to work and draw down my savings when I went back. Actually I drained my pension to keep my daughter at the same standard of living when I returned to college. I didn’t think it would be fair to make her take a dip in her living standard because I decided to return to get a degree when she was a teenager.
AND after the smoke cleared, I still didn’t get a decent career out of it. Like all investments, it’s ultimately a risk. Sometimes you lose the money you invest. It’s that simple. I’m glad I had my children but I would have liked to make more money now as well, at least replace my pension.
So it’s a little difficult for me to feel sorry for people who are 25 years my junior, have their whole lives ahead of them and are going to be making a heck of a lot more money then I ever made after they finally graduate from school in a few years.
But I’m not totally unsympathetic and have been known to throw a few dollars into their jar, even though they inconvenience me everytime they walk out just before finals.
So I’m not completely hard-hearted.
I had to work and draw down my savings when I went back.
So I take it that you did this work for FREE, just to be near to professors? Unless you did, I don’t really understand why you think graduate students should do that. Because most, although not all, of them are younger than you?
What NYMOM is not getting is that graduate students do not merely sit at the feet of the master and learn. They are expected to work as teaching assistants–that is, they are employed by the university. Why should they pay tuition for their education AND work a part-time job for free?
Or, to turn it around, why should Big U. get free labor out of its students instead of paying for it?
Hugo, I doubt that it is in fact illegal to choose students by means other than a lottery. However, it is harder for a student to sue for discrimination if names are picked out of a hat.
I’ll ask the dean about this. Following up with a colleague, I learned today that years ago there was a lawsuit (at Cal State Fullerton?) over a professor who admitted students based on an essay; the university lost the case. That’s what my colleague was told when urged to only use a lottery.
I’m not saying it’s a bad idea–it’s probably wise, although I am a bit surprised there is no policy of preference for persons with a declared major. It’s very hard to claim bias or personal preference when selection is totally random.
I actually was once a TA working for “free”; free meant that I got course credit rather than pay. There were a few introductory classes which used undergraduates in this way. The graduate students all got paid (and also had heavier duty TA jobs, mine was basically hanging out in the computer lab for a few hours a week helping students with introductory programming assignments). I’m doubting there was a day when graduate students all worked for free; if there was, it was definitely more than twenty years ago.
“So I take it that you did this work for FREE, just to be near to professors? Unless you did, I don’t really understand why you think graduate students should do that. Because most, although not all, of them are younger than you?”
NYMOM said: Because like I was at that time, they are STUDENTS, not employees of the school. The training they are getting by working for a full-fledged professor is for free, just like any other apprendice who is learning by working with a master at his craft? Right. AND generally when you get that training YOU pay for it. Yet they do get a stipend (and it’s not the college’s fault that it’s worth less, since it’s taxable now) and they get subs. housing and sometimes credit as well as other benefits to help them with their EDUCATION as they are students, not employees.
Now I understand the other side too. I’ve heard it already so there is no need to rehash it for me and it has some valid points.
But as with most things in life there are two sides to every story.
“Or, to turn it around, why should Big U. get free labor out of its students instead of paying for it?”
NYMOM said: We have undergraduate students who work at internships at hospitals, investment banks, cable news, etc., (which is considered a privilege btw for the companies to take them in with NO PAY) who don’t get paid. AND they do real work too btw. They get carfare and lunch money basically, if that.
It’s considered FREE training for your future career (plus the contacts you will make are valuable if you go into that field later) and students vie aggressively for the internships as they are limited. I mean how many times have we heard that someone going into a high level position NOW met his mentor during an internship working for the person.
Working for a famous or prestigious professor in his field has the same impact. Obviously not that you wind up in the news, but later in your career to be able to say you were a TA or lab assistant to Professor knowsitall of such and such prestigious university. This has ‘resale’ value for you later. People respect him and thus you because you worked with him.
So there are other sides to this issue as well.
My mind is not made up either way actually, but I do see that there are two sides to the issue.
“I’m doubting there was a day when graduate students all worked for free; if there was, it was definitely more than twenty years ago.”
NYMOM said: It was probably around the time when dinosaurs freely roamed around Manhattan, as most of the stories I tell are from that same era it appears. I remember it well.
mythago wrote: “Hugo, I doubt that it is in fact illegal to choose students by means other than a lottery. However, it is harder for a student to sue for discrimination if names are picked out of a hat.”
It is quite legal to choose students by mean other than a lottery - the USSC ruled on that two years ago. If Hugo wants to choose certain students over others, all he has to do is list the “factors” involved in his decision-making and justify it by stating that he is doing so in the name of “diversity.” For example, in order to create the “critical mass” argued in Gratz vs. Bollinger, he could give “extra weight” to male enrollees in the name of “diversity.”
Affirmative action is quite legal and is practiced by most all colleges and univeristies in the U.S., so IMO Hugo could abandon the lottery system for another more subjective approach, as long as he could show that he was giving preference in order to enhance the “diversity” of his students, which in turn would enhance the educational experience of all.
“Affirmative action is quite legal and is practiced by most all colleges and univeristies in the U.S., so IMO Hugo could abandon the lottery system for another more subjective approach, as long as he could show that he was giving preference in order to enhance the “diversity” of his students, which in turn would enhance the educational experience of all.”
NYMOM said: Of course if the opposite is practiced to put more women into traditionally men’s classes or fields, wouldn’t men be screaming to holy hell????
Oh well…
NYMOM said: “Of course if the opposite is practiced to put more women into traditionally men’s classes or fields, wouldn’t men be screaming to holy hell????”
I don’t think so - this has been happening for decades and while I’ve heard some minimal grumbling, I’ve not heard any “screaming to holy hell” coming from men. However, now that women are advantaged and the majority in college and university (actually since the early 1990s), I hear some well-reasoned arguments for abolishing affirmative action for women and focusing instead on men, and that seems to cause hysteria in feminist circles. Seems to me the only “screaming to holy hell” I hear is from women like you who are afraid of losing your special privileges and treatment vis-a-vis the advantages you’ve been granted due to affirmative action and other chivalrous activities.
I’ll say it again: Hugo, you can choose your students using subjective standards as long as you can list the criteria you’re using to do so and justify those choices on the basis of “diversity” and “critical mass.” Your institution might have its own specific guidelines on this, but it’s quite legal to do this in the U.S.
Of course it’s legal, but it’s much simpler to prevent and defend against lawsuits if you can prove that every professor uses a totally random method of selection. (About the best claim a student can make in that situation is ‘it was rigged,’ as Hugo’s anecdote shows, but that’s pretty feeble.) Hugo might be listing those factors at a deposition, or in arbitration or a courtroom. The school probably wants to cut things off before it would get to that point.
It’s not unusual for a company to tell its employees that they have to avoid doing a particular thing because “it’s illegal,” rather than saying “it’s legal, but our lawyers said not to do that.”
Because like I was at that time, they are STUDENTS, not employees of the school. The training they are getting by working for a full-fledged professor is for free, just like any other apprendice who is learning by working with a master at his craft? Right.
Wrong. Apprentices in trade unions do not work for free. (Their wages are substantially less than those of journeymen, naturally.) Why should a school offload its labor costs onto students?
The unpaid internship racket is relatively new, NYMOM, and I consider it pretty sinister. What has happened is that jobs that used to be filled by paid entry-level workers are now performed by unpaid interns who are forced to work for free if they want to get a foot in the door. For the most part, these are privileged students, because middle-class and below students cannot afford to accept unpaid jobs. Between their studies and their paid jobs, which they are required to take as part of their financial aid packages, they don’t have the time. Since unpaid internships are a necessary way to get your foot in the door, that means that middle-class and below students are increasingly shut out of jobs in the media, the arts, etc. This is made even worse by the new emphasis on masters’ degrees: to get a job in journalism, you often need to go to journalism school and then accept an unpaid internship. You’re supposed to pay off your J-school loans by… not having had any in the first place.
What you are suggesting is that we do the same thing with graduate school: make it accessible only to the independently wealthy. If grad students are expected to work for free, only trust-fund babies will be able to go to grad school. The financial barriers to grad school are actually much higher than those to taking unpaid internships, because while a lot of students might be able to scrape together the money to work for free for a summer, very few people are going to be able to support themselves without pay for the six to ten years that it takes to get a PhD.
I guess I don’t want a society in which the flow of ideas is controlled by people who grew up rich. And if you make independent wealth a requirement for working in academia, entertainment, the media, or the arts, that’s what happens. That strikes me as a problem for everyone, not just for people trying to put themselves through grad school.
If grad students receive generous enough stipends that they can afford to live on them, I think it’s just fine for them to be expected to T.A. In a sense, they are being compensated for T.A.ing. But that’s not usually the case. I know it’s not the case at the institution at which you work, because one of the reasons I didn’t apply there is that a professor there told me that it was impossible to support yourself on their graduate funding.
Finally, it’s pretty clear to me that TAships are not about graduate training. The number of T.A.s is determined by the needs of the professors and departments, not by the number of students who could use the work experience. T.A.s typical receive no training in pedagogy. There are no guidelines to encourage professors to pick T.A.s who could benefit from the “training” or experience. And everyone realizes that departments could not get by without T.A.s. People who argue that T.A.ships are training, in my opinion, are either disingenuous or just don’t understand how universities work.
I agree with Sally re. the unpaid internship racket, and have firsthand experience with it myself. However, at my institution, another major first tier research university like the one NYMOM works at, internships are not the realm of just privileged students, but well-connected ones. One not only needs to be able to afford to work for free, one needs to be connected to the New Girl’s Network, then modern version of the Old Boy’s Network of bygone days (yes, this is now the norm in academia). Further, only certain internship activities count towards fulfilling degree requirements, so universities have a means to promote various political agendas without blatantly doing so on campus and/or using university resources directly. They simply use the student unpaid internship system to provide the resources indirectly.
As Sally said, the unpaid intership system has become quite a racket.
>So it’s a little difficult for me to feel sorry for people who are 25 years my junior, have their whole lives ahead of them and are going to be making a heck of a lot more money then I ever made after they finally graduate from school in a few years.
That’s ok, we don’t want you feeling sorry for us, and I’m flattered that you think I’ll make a lot of money. Hope you’re right. Actually, I think it’s pretty cool you went back to grad school after raising a family. I’d rather not get into a contest over who has suffered most for their education. Many people in my dept. didn’t start grad school straight out of undergrad. A couple are in their 40s or 50s, and several more are raising families. A union for grad students if very much for them too, not just the 20-somethings.
And all that stuff that Sally said… very insightful, thanks. I’m gonna mildly disagree on TAships as training just because if you apply for academic positions, they will look askance at you if you have no teaching experience, and a TAship will count for something there. It’s more of a negative reinforcement sort of thing… having a TAship may not gain you lots of great teacher training, but NOT having had one makes you look bad.
>one needs to be connected to the New Girl’s Network
Well, I’m not at your school and I think not in your field, but every job, internship or academic position — with one exception — that I’ve gotten through a social connection, that connection has been a man. There are actually not a lot of women in my field.
Sure, you need to have some teaching experience on your C.V. But that’s not what drives the T.A. system. If it was, they’d do something like what I got as a condition of my fellowship. For one semester, I shadowed a professor. We met before each class to discuss the material. I told her how I’d teach the class, and she gave me feedback, but she actually did the teaching. I taught one day’s class, and she watched and gave me feedback. I read all the papers and wrote my own comments, then she read them, gave me feedback, and then wrote her own comments. The next semester, I taught the class myself, with my prof’s guidance. This taught me a hell of a lot about teaching, but it created more, not less work for the prof. And it is extraordinarily unusual, because T.A.s function as cheap graders and discussion-leaders, not as student teachers.
metamanda wrote: “Well, I’m not at your school and I think not in your field, but every job, internship or academic position — with one exception — that I’ve gotten through a social connection, that connection has been a man. There are actually not a lot of women in my field.”
I’m not talking about social connections, I’m talking about the professional ones, i.e., via human resource personnel, staff and administrators, both at the colleges/universities and the orgs. sponsoring the internships. And it’s very much a New Girl’s Club from my experience, and in fact, for others too who have written about the change in dynamic.
Hmm. OK, I see what you’re getting at Mr. B, though I think both kinds of connections are important. Perhaps I am underestimating the power of administrative and HR staff, but for me it’s ultimately been the people interviewing me for the position (usually a mix, though usually majority men) that decide whether I get the job or not and only then does the usually female HR person come into the picture. For my fellowship, I have no idea who judged my proposal, but judging from the handwriting on the feedback forms it was also a mix. However, the people who makes sure the checks make it into my bank account are with one exception women and I am always very nice to them.
Uh oh… maybe I’m out of the loop and don’t even realize it.
Sally, ok I see. My dept is kind of a mix, the nicer profs try to make sure their students can fulfill their requirement by TAing for them in a subject they enjoy and can competently teach, but it’s not as structured as your fellowship arrangement. Also, it doesn’t always work out perfectly. :\
“Sally, ok I see. My dept is kind of a mix, the nicer profs try to make sure their students can fulfill their requirement by TAing for them in a subject they enjoy and can competently teach, but it’s not as structured as your fellowship arrangement. Also, it doesn’t always work out perfectly.”
Well then maybe we need to work to make this happen for ALL TAs, not just a rare few whose professors happen to be great guys or like somebody. As opposed to throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. Make sure ALL professors know how they are supposed to be interacting with their TAs so it is a fully satisfying learning/teaching experience for everyone involved. Then you won’t have people thinking it’s just a run of the mill job and they are being taken advantage of…
I disagree about the unpaid internships too. Those are great opportunities for kids to work and meet people at all levels. We’ve had HBO, The Daily Show and MTV as companies kids can intern at…as well as Goldman Sachs, and even politicans.
What average kid is going to rub elbows with people and companies like this EXCEPT through an unpaid internship. Many middle and working class kids will take a summer to work at one of these unpaid internships and their parents will support it knowing that it’s a great opportunity for them. AND many internships pay carfare plus lunch money…so there are no out-of-pocket expenses for the students.
Many average students participate, not just connected ones.
You are all very wrong there.
NYMOM, I don’t want to intern with a finance company, I want to intern in politics. YOU try finding a Democratic/progressive internship that actually pays for living expenses.