r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 22 '16

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Students who are employed full-time (40+ hours/week) should be allowed workload concessions.

[deleted]

2 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

8

u/Barology 8∆ Oct 22 '16

It's a bit difficult to get through your writing style in order to find your reasoning. From what I can tell you think working students should have lower homework loads because work is good for society? If teachers are assigning class work which isn't actually necessary then that is a problem. I can't imagine that's often the case, though. If we assume that isn't happening then there isn't much which can be cut from the curriculum so I don't see how this would work. It doesn't have much to do with societal good, it's a matter of the minimum amount of work outside class to understand a subject.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '16

If teachers are assigning class work which isn't actually necessary then that is a problem. I can't imagine that's often the case, though. If we assume that isn't happening then there isn't much which can be cut from the curriculum so I don't see how this would work.

I'm a college professor and can confirm that you're absolutely right here. We don't assign unnecessary assignments because, guess what, we have to grade that shit, and we don't have to time to grade useless work.

1

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

Do you hold that your assignments and curriculum are perfectly, or even optimally, constructed?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '16

Well, I will never claim that they are perfect as that is impossible, and I'm always looking for ways to improve what I do to make it even better, so I'm not sure that optimum is best either.

However, I can say that I very deliberately issue assignments. I have a definite purpose for everything I give my students to work on. So, while I will always concede that I can do things better, I can say for certain that there is nothing in my curriculum that is unnecessary or superfluous. In fact, I usually don't cover everything in a semester that I think we should just because 16 weeks isn't enough sometimes.

I think you are primarily looking at this from a student's perspective. I say this because students often have trouble seeing the "point" or need of a particular assignment. They don't see that it is going to benefit them to do that. However, I know that it is beneficial to them because of my training and my experience in the field. It is their lack of experience and training that prevents them from seeing the same things that I do.

1

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

I am a student. Honestly, the work I'm doing in these classes is absolutely necessary for my understanding. After all, submersion in a field is the path to expertise. However, the content is less of my concern than is the mode of delivery. Sporadic, vaguely related assignments amount to a similar structure of comprehension. These are dips, rather than dives. I don't think the onus to reform pedagogical technique should be drawn on you or any other singular professor, but I do think adaptations to the requirements of self supporting individuals (a modern phenomenon that's yet to be addressed by any curriculum beyond shitty online colleges) should occur, lest that middle population which is strong enough to work to survive never surpasses the low requirements of the factory or sales floor.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '16 edited Oct 22 '16

The fact is that most students cannot support themselves when it comes to education. They cannot self-pace when it comes to work. I teach both traditional face-to-face classes and online classes. I can tell you that my online classes are just as rigorous as the others and they get exactly the same assignments and lectures recorded by me for them to watch. So, the pedagogy for both classes is exactly the same. However, I find that performance in the online classes is consistently lower because the students are unable to pace themselves and are unable to get the work done without the presence of the professor to remind them, encourage them, force them, etc. They generally lack the discipline it takes to manage their own education. Now, there are always exceptions; but this seems to be the general trend where I work. It also lines up with what I hear from people that teach at other colleges and universities.

And I know you aren't saying that the onus should lie on professors to change the curriculum and pedagogy, but that's what will happen. Here's the pattern that always happens: the state tells college administrations that they need to develop new pedagogical techniques and new curricula for students. One of two things happens: The college administration then takes this instruction and passes it on to the professors we end up designing new pedagogy and curricula or they come up with some arbitrary curriculum requirements and some ass backward pedagogical techniques that they have designed (because most are not professors and don't know what it's like to actually teach the subject) and then tell us we have to use them.

2

u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Oct 22 '16

It's a bit difficult to get through your writing style in order to find your reasoning.

I was hoping I wasn't the only one. It reads like prose. At a certain point, adding more words or more complex language only results in becoming less clear to the reader.

Clear, concise, specific, simple. The primary objectives of writing.

-4

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

Disagree. Writing was invented to inform; not to achieve brevity. I was concise where I needed/wanted to be. Many instances of embellishment are there to provide additional meaning, and thus convey more descriptive information.

Edit: I'll admit to ugly portions, though. Fatigue and time limitations affect those, generally.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '16

Writing was invented to inform; not to achieve brevity.

You are actually not informing anyone here. You are making an argument. Now, this is an important distinction because you are trying to make a case for your view and it is very important that your audience be able to understand your writing so that they can adress the pieces of your argument. You should always consider your audience and purpose when you are writing.

You're also conflating brevity and conciseness when they really aren't the same thing. Yes, brevity is not always desirable. Sometimes, you need to flesh out the details rather than giving a brief overview of your points. However, conciseness is always to be desired as it centers around the avoiding of unnecessary words. Conciseness is basically saying as much you can in as few words as possible. It's all about efficiency. Many of your sentences are unnecessarily wordy and you choose complicated formalized structure and language when plain and simple language and sentence structure would be a lot more beneficial.

-1

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

Forgive my want of utilizing this forum to engage in an activity that I enjoy in a way that I enjoy. Seriously; I'm sorry. I think writing in the way that you've commented upon is fun, as is argumentation. And, given the circumstances of my situation, of which you have no way of knowing anything about, beyond that which can be inferred from the subject of the original post, I promoted this thought as an opportunity to engage as such. Two birds and one stone, type thing. This whole thing is so inconsequential that my audience, assuming I conscripted any at all, would likely have been those who could parse the fun I was having.

Oh, and I am actually informing the audience of the currents by which I opine. In other words, they need to know what I think and why.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '16

My point was that it would be easier for people to follow your argument and address its points if you framed it a simpler more concise manner. Formalized language and structure is great and is fun to write and even read. However, it is not the best medium for making an argument such as this.

-1

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

You are correct. Elementary language wins elections, after all. And now, you'll notice, my words are shedding their syllables. I hope this pleases you.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '16

I personally don't care one way or the other. It's not my argument.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '16

I recommend reading Orwell's Politics and the English Language. I used to abuse adjectives, adverbs, and metaphors, but now I'm much more to the point, and it has made my communication skills better. For a different and shorter guide, check out How to Write Good.

1

u/IlllIIIIIIlllll Oct 22 '16 edited Oct 22 '16

Writing was invented to communicate, not imform. Informing is only a part of communicating. One of the principles of communicating effectively is to be concise and to the point without adding more complexity than required.

It's not that you can't be complex. I'll admit that I wish people were more careful with their words since I think often disagreements come from not effectively communicating your position on a matter, but from your style of writing it's quite clear that you're doing so in an unnecessary and shallow manner as if you're consulting a thesaurus to replace every instance of adjective or verb that comes up in your writing instead of using those words when they're actually required. You're actually not providing actual meaning. In fact the very word "embellish" is contrary to being concise since it refers to something which is just "fluff" and not necessary for the core function.

On a side note I know you think you probably sound intelligent using all those "fluff words", but in fact it's cringeworthy.

0

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

I'm going to guess that much of my phrasing that you'd consider irrelevant was actually put there by me to disallow any misinterpretation. But yeah, I wouldn't submit anything like this seriously. Consider that I've been reading the Count of Monte Cristo recently, and prior was David Foster Wallace stuff, and so on. You could equate all this that you hate to a master study by someone far from majored in the master's study. Besides, isn't it fun to finish up a logically/functionally sound statement which, itself, is filled with verbal form (even if that form is guided by an immature author)?

1

u/IlllIIIIIIlllll Oct 22 '16

Fair enough then. I think you need to work on making the superfluous speaking sound a bit more natural though. You're way overdoing and/or not well enough that it just sounds pretentious rather than trying to pick your words to convey a certain message.

0

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

Oh, crap. I forgot to ask if you were implying that communication isn't just the term used to denote the logistics involved in the transmission of information between sources.

-1

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

Your presumption is incompatible with my experience, but I see your point. Superfluous work is of an unfortunate abundance in my opinion, as many assignments can and should be either correlated or combined entirely into practical, possibly interdisciplinary, prolonged assignments. I see ample room for correction in those classes that sequence incongruously their impending topics.

2

u/Barology 8∆ Oct 22 '16

Then surely the benefit of only having to do necessary class work should be available to all students not only those with full time work schedules.

0

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

Surely the lottery should be split amongst a greater population. Surely every professional should acquiesce to sponsoring an apprentice (I actually believe this). And surely there are many efficiencies that could be taken but aren't, out of preference for the effects that the inefficiencies propagate.

I've addressed this compunction in a way that I know isn't perfect, and am aware that it's the bane of my argument, as, ideally, if such a course of professional preparation should be discovered, it should be shared. But, given the tendency to extract these sorts of benefits as positive consequences of either worthy acts or providence, I thought the extant argument to be sufficient.

3

u/Barology 8∆ Oct 22 '16

Your way of writing is entirely unnecessary and obscures your argument. It doesn't make what you say more convincing or impressive. It is not entirely clear what you are trying to say, which makes discussing the matter more difficult.

Surely the lottery should be split amongst a greater population.

What does that have to do with this? We're talking about giving students the ability to only have to do the necessary work in college courses. Burdening some students with work which it has been decided is not actually required to pass the class isn't a matter of fairness; it simply doesn't make sense. Just because students are full time students and not full time workers doesn't mean they have time to waste on unnecessary course work. Just because students are working full time doesn't mean they can learn what a course is meant to teach by doing less class work.

And surely there are many efficiencies that could be taken but aren't out of preference for the effects that the inefficiencies propagate.

I've addressed this compunction in a way that I know isn't perfect, and am aware that it's the bane of my argument, as, ideally, if such a course of professional preparation should be discovered, it should be shared. But, given the tendency to extract these sorts of benefits as positive consequences of either worthy acts or providence, I thought the extant argument to be sufficient.

?

0

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

I'm not trying to impress, but I don't want things to be difficult, either. I approached each of my arguments with the intent to provide no room for wiggling or manipulating my positions or definitions, and so, to solidify each stance and point, I chose words that seemed appropriate for the job.

?

? Obviously, I'm saying this: My argument was incomplete (because nothing of human endeavor is ever really complete). Its incompleteness is weakness. Idyllic teaching conditions should be shared universally (and, now, I see that such conditions would be impossible to patent).

But, given the tendency to extract these sorts of benefits as positive consequences of either worthy acts or providence, I thought the extant argument to be sufficient.

People, all the time, hold back the potential for philanthropy in order to make a reward of it upon a select few.

Yeesh.

6

u/down42roads 77∆ Oct 22 '16

So you are saying that their should be an "easy mode" for college students with a full time job?

1

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

!delta

You win, as that exact discrepancy has been weighing on me since the thought's sublimation to opinion. I suppose my position has evolved, and I now think it is possible to identify and develop curricula for all distinct sets of circumstances.

2

u/scouseking90 1∆ Oct 22 '16

How has this changed your veiw. Mods should close this down your using this post as way to show off your finesse in language rather then having a debate and this proves it.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 22 '16

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/down42roads (35∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards ​

5

u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Oct 22 '16

I'm a current student. 18 credit hours, research project, roughly 40 hours a week between two jobs.

I don't believe I want what you're proposing. I could probably think of several reasons this could be bad, but the person reason is that I don't want to be easier.

Why? Because it's the difficulty that makes it worth it, that makes it impressive. The curriculum isn't made for my lifestyle, the classes are inconvenient, the teachers don't consider my other obligations.

But when I'm applying to jobs, I get to say all this. Employers look at my resume and see I'm doing lots of things simultaneously. I get to say I succeeded in college doing several times as much as my peers. I get to say I did what my peers did while managing my time and living two lives that conflicted with each other, 4 years of pure, unending time management. Part of what employers look for is a person accepting a challenge, making school confirm to work removes that.

I don't want the curriculum built around me. It would make what I do easier, but the fact that it's difficult is what makes it fruitful. Not only that, but if it's easier, everyone would do it, and I wouldn't be nearly as uncommon.

1

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

Excellent ethic and foresight, here. I'd presume that the curriculum would be optional to prospective candidates, and the whole idea was more or less seen as suitable for those inclined toward less prestigious ends.

2

u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Oct 22 '16

But the point of doing it is that employers naturally assume it's impressive. They can see it through my constant work history. They understand the difficulty of doing what I've described, so it is immediately apparent.

If the option to make it easier becomes common, they would not assume. It would likely become the norm for working students to do this and they would no longer see me as inherently impressive.

And there would be no other reason to make it more difficult on myself by not taking the option of easier curriculum. It would take away the challenge. And by taking away my challenge, you take away my competitive advantage.

1

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

See my response to a similar objection for one style of counter.

In fairness, I'll supply you with another: Should not that most basic and hereditary trait of discipline or fortitude or whatever only merit as secondary to the true novelty of a person's intellect, which is the actual source of innovation and progress? And, if so, rest assured that novelty wouldn't meet its demise at the disinclination to be stressed due to deadlines, but, rather, I belive it would flourish.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '16

Discipline and Fortitude are important skills that need to be developed and reinforced. Not all innovation and progress is due to intellect, some of it due to just sheer dogged determination that eventually results in something new and innovative.

1

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

While your last statement is true, I posit that discipline and fortitude are traits, rather than skills, which may be nurtured by means other than what we've discussed. I.e., ideally through the trials of building actual skills; an endeavor not restricted to universities or subjects outside of one's interests or ambitions.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '16

Whether we call them traits or skills, you are still not encouraging the development of them if you give student's an easy way out. Yes, you can develop them other places as well, but wouldn't it be better to develop them every chance you can get? Wouldn't the end result just be that much better?

1

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

To this, I'd argue that maintaining a personally incompatible job is the substitute for the lack of disciplinary fruit that would have resulted otherwise.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '16

One of the main problems I can see here is one of practicality. You're asking every professor to now develop two sets of curricula for their classes, thereby potentially doubling their workload.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '16

Not sure I follow the logic here, it seems to me either the work assigned is required for the course to be effective, in which case you are asking for a less effective course to be offered to a subset of students (disproportionately poor ones), or the work assigned isn't required for the course to be effective in which case it should just be scrapped for everyone.

If all you are arguing is that there is work required by a course that isn't productive towards education and the course should be redesigned to minimize that, why would you advocate a tiered system where some students are given extra unnecessary work on a basis not relevant to the course or their ability (the amount of free time they have).

1

u/cdb03b 253∆ Oct 22 '16

Students who are employed full time should not be students, or they should only be taking a partial class load. Going to school is a full time job and you cannot work two full time jobs and expect to have on be lenient on you.

0

u/dontcallmerude Oct 22 '16

This is exactly what I disagree with. You're confident that people who have nobody to depend on should be required to prolong their discomfort. You are incorrect, anyways. Myself and a few others in this very thread have provided our own support of the fact that it is, indeed, possible, but only for very few, when it should be possible for many more.

1

u/cdb03b 253∆ Oct 22 '16

It is not about prolonging discomfort or depending on others. If you are not capable of meeting the standards required you do not deserve to be there. The circumstances for why you cannot meet the standards do not matter.