Our programs developed in the era of oversupply of candidates. At stake were both quality and crowd control. We designed rules and policies, in part, to keep someone out. In most cases, it was because their academic background or dispositions were not right for the profession. But we also wanted to know if the student can follow a few rules, and if they could not, that did not speak well of their organizational skills.
The two functions – the quality control and the crowd control – got intertwined in interesting and sometimes problematic ways. For example, some of course prerequisites have firm academic grounding, because students need skills from the course A to be successful in the course B. But in other cases, it was simply a way to sequence a program, to screen out enough students early enough, so more advanced courses that require much personal attention do not get overwhelmed with too many students. And of course, most instructors want to work with more advanced, more mature students, and want someone else to work with younger, more numerous, and less prepared ones. Therefore the clear statement “they need specific knowledge and skills to take this course” has been gradually replaced with “they are too immature to take this course,” or “it would be better if they took three other courses before.”
When we had the large numbers, the excessive harshness was at least somewhat justified. After all, we wanted the most persistent and the most dedicated students. However, with smaller numbers, our requirements suddenly become even harsher. We cannot offer courses every semester, and cannot offer multiple sections of them. Suddenly, more and more students get stuck in sequences of courses or schedule conflicts. So the numbers dwindle even more, and the whole ecosystem is ratcheting itself down. I am not sure this systemic feedback loop is visible to everyone.
I was never a fan of hard course sequencing, because life gets in a way. The proportion of transfer students is steadily increasing, and those are especially hard-hit by course sequencing. The more rigidity you introduce to a system, the harsher and more exclusive the system becomes. And do I need to mention that the most vulnerable experience the unintended exclusion first? We also tend to ignore students’ work commitments and family lives. However, those are more and more important, and not exactly optional for the majority of our students. It is also reasonable to expect a certain number of errors students commit, and the imperfection of our advising support. So when one mistake throws a student a whole year back, I don’t really care whose fault it is. If we work with humans, we must build in some tolerance for errors.
It is time for a hard and honest look at our course prerequisites, and other policies. Which ones are truly academically sound, and which ones are mostly motivated by crowd control considerations? Which sequences are really justified, and which ones just sounded like a good idea back in the day? This is not an attempt to increase our enrollments, although I cannot deny I am worried about that too. But we are entering a different environment, and the systems that worked fairly well in the past may not be working as well anymore. The mantra should be – maximum flexibility without sacrificing quality.
The two functions – the quality control and the crowd control – got intertwined in interesting and sometimes problematic ways. For example, some of course prerequisites have firm academic grounding, because students need skills from the course A to be successful in the course B. But in other cases, it was simply a way to sequence a program, to screen out enough students early enough, so more advanced courses that require much personal attention do not get overwhelmed with too many students. And of course, most instructors want to work with more advanced, more mature students, and want someone else to work with younger, more numerous, and less prepared ones. Therefore the clear statement “they need specific knowledge and skills to take this course” has been gradually replaced with “they are too immature to take this course,” or “it would be better if they took three other courses before.”
When we had the large numbers, the excessive harshness was at least somewhat justified. After all, we wanted the most persistent and the most dedicated students. However, with smaller numbers, our requirements suddenly become even harsher. We cannot offer courses every semester, and cannot offer multiple sections of them. Suddenly, more and more students get stuck in sequences of courses or schedule conflicts. So the numbers dwindle even more, and the whole ecosystem is ratcheting itself down. I am not sure this systemic feedback loop is visible to everyone.
I was never a fan of hard course sequencing, because life gets in a way. The proportion of transfer students is steadily increasing, and those are especially hard-hit by course sequencing. The more rigidity you introduce to a system, the harsher and more exclusive the system becomes. And do I need to mention that the most vulnerable experience the unintended exclusion first? We also tend to ignore students’ work commitments and family lives. However, those are more and more important, and not exactly optional for the majority of our students. It is also reasonable to expect a certain number of errors students commit, and the imperfection of our advising support. So when one mistake throws a student a whole year back, I don’t really care whose fault it is. If we work with humans, we must build in some tolerance for errors.
It is time for a hard and honest look at our course prerequisites, and other policies. Which ones are truly academically sound, and which ones are mostly motivated by crowd control considerations? Which sequences are really justified, and which ones just sounded like a good idea back in the day? This is not an attempt to increase our enrollments, although I cannot deny I am worried about that too. But we are entering a different environment, and the systems that worked fairly well in the past may not be working as well anymore. The mantra should be – maximum flexibility without sacrificing quality.
Perhaps a great way to offer limited but appropriate flexibility is the "Dean's Waiver." A powerful swipe of a pen that makes the exception - e.g. the change in the sequence. Yes, some will argue about fairness (why waive her but not him), but fairness is not necessarily equal. Make the mantra real!
ReplyDeleteWe do waivers already on all levels; most happen without me. But it is problematic not only for the reasons of fairness, but also for sustainable policy environment. You want policies to mean something, or they lose credibility.
ReplyDelete