Comments on: A Crisis of Vast Quantities in Academia?

By: The horror! It’s the Satur…Sunday Roundup #7 « Confessions of a Dirt Warrior v3.0

Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:29:39 +0000

[...] Maximilian Forte at Open Anthropology (I have not read through this blog as of yet – I suck, I know it) writes a neat little post about “a crisis of vast quantities in academia”. [...]

By: Wednesday Round Up #33 « Neuroanthropology

Wednesday Round Up #33 « Neuroanthropology — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:04:34 +0000

[...] Anthropology, A Crisis of Vast Quantities in Academia? Publish or perish – academics on the production [...]

By: Maximilian Forte

Maximilian Forte — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:14:49 +0000

Excellent points again, thanks Alex. I think those really are the key issues concerning levels of reading engagement.

In terms of overall student workload, I noticed a strong contrast between undegraduate studies today and when I was an undegrad in the 1980s. Back then almost all courses lasted the entire academic year, with typically two exams, two papers, and class participation forming the basis for a grade. A course that listed only a semester was almost sneeringly called a “half course.” Flunkies took “half courses.”

More than 20 years later, virtually no course lasts the academic year, everything is a “half course.” But with one nasty change: much of the workload of the full year course has been condensed into the half course. Undegrads today are working a lot harder than when I was an undegrad — not only do they have about 60-80% more coursework, more of them are working to support themselves financially (which was rare when I was an undegrad…and I went to York, not some prestigious school for the rich). That so many of these students accomplish so much, produce such great papers, can lead stellar discussions, and often do advanced readings on their own…is quite a statement. So much for the ‘dumbing down’ of students.

I recently asked about converting my courses into full year versions (i.e., Fall and Winter), and was basically told it was a bad idea because students then have too much riding on one course, and it doesn’t accommodate winter and summer entry students. There is something unsatisfactory about those responses.

By: enkerli

enkerli — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:01:14 +0000

@Max Specifically on the number of assigned readings, it tends to be a balancing act, in a given context. There’s obviously a number of other factors: the type of readings, classroom dynamics, time in the semester… even the content of those texts may count! But there almost seems to be a kind of “formula” in terms of the number of pages per week which will be enough to keep things going without being overwhelming.
Data on required readings and student engagement must be available somewhere. Unfortunately, much of the literature in the scholarship of teaching and learning tends to be too quantitative and decontextualized for my tastes.

By: Maximilian Forte

Maximilian Forte — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:17:36 +0000

Yes I have to agree with you all on those fronts Alex. In addition, starting with your first point above, I had a change of mind since I wrote — realizing that assigning fewer readings is not the magical formula since those who don’t want to read, won’t read any amount. If I had to guess, 40% of students in any class I have had do most or all of the assigned readings, maybe 35% do some, and the remainder do none at all.

By: enkerli

enkerli — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:31:42 +0000

I should really come back to this, but reacting quickly (and late) after just skimming this short post and comments (yeah, I know…).
I tend to notice that student engagement is inversely proportional to reading load within certain bounds (a kind of z-shaped curve). There will be some engagement with overwhelming readings and there might be almost no engagement with very limited readings. But students in “engaging environments” argue for fewer readings while students in “entitlement environments” ask for more readings. (Examples only given off-record.)
The “publish or perish” system is simply unsustainable and hegemonic. It’s felt by almost everyone as a pressure from the outside but the train hasn’t stopped, yet.
Scholars at research institutions end up writing less original work (ambiguity intended) than their colleagues at teaching institutions. The logic is simple: those who merely try to fill the annual reports don’t have the luxury of exploring new topics, which is one of the main sources of original scholarship. Of course, there’s also the issue of time-commitment, but I think this one is overblown and has some associations to a notion of privilege.

By: » Ethical “grounds of being” In Harmonium: Being in the main the musings of a Symbolic Anthropologist

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:56:21 +0000

[...] “position”. In my opinion, this ground of being has led to what Max Forte calls A Crisis of Vast Quantities in Academia; a phrase I quite like. I feel, however, that this ground of being, while an inevitable outgrowth [...]

By: Maximilian Forte

Maximilian Forte — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:46:05 +0000

That is possible Brian, and an interesting set of observations. In the narrow confines of where I work there is actually considerable anxiety about appearing to be generous with grades, and I sometimes feel that the pressure put on us has been to deflate grades (which I think is just as bad). Moreover, a system seems to be in place that alerts administrators to possible grade inflation — so if a class in the first year of a program achieves a “B” average, that raises alarms. Administrators can reject the grades, or scale them downwards. But what if the teacher is really great, and the students were highly motivated? This is just scratching the surface of debates we have, and I must confess that now I would prefer a system without any grades whatsoever. It is possible, but probably not very practical (not that I am a fan of practicality).

By: Brian Johnson

Brian Johnson — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:32:11 +0000

As a recent anthro/soc graduate, I just wanted to offer some of my own observations on the “assigned reading” half of the equation, and see if you’ve noticed the same:

My first two undergrad years were spent at a fairly large (30,000 students) U.S. university, and in retrospect it seems that the reading : discussion ratio was, indeed, heavily skewed toward the former. Also, it is my perception that grade-inflation was pervasive at that school.
My last two years were at a much smaller (pop. 1,500) private college, and the prevailing pedagogy there explicitly favored “slow reading,” and extensive in-class discussion. Grading was less forgiving as well.

So, perhaps conforming to the norm of the “industrialization of intellect” has become more of a necessity at those institutions that must constantly impress the public that funds them, which they accomplish by showing off big numbers, with inflated grades to mask a drop-off in the quality of what they “produce”?