Ed Broadbent: Opposing Academic Expresson, Freedoms at the University of Ottawa

Quote:

In the Board's view, a university disciplining a professor for giving A+ grades to all of his students regardless of the merits of their work is not a matter that necessarily raises either academic freedom or civil liberties issues.

Exactly. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "academic freedom", which enshrines faculty rights to [i]research[/i], not to course delivery. It's only the ultra-privelege of tenured academics that lets them believe (often unopposed) that "academic freedom" means that anything they do is, de facto, perfect.

Anyway, why should any of this be a problem for Rancourt? He can teach students out of his basement if he wants. It's not about the grades or the credits or the "worthless piece of paper", right? It's all about the learning! So what's he need a big old hidebound University for anyway? It would only get in the way of the learning.

I don't like the thread title because it represents a conclusion not an examination or discussion. I think Broadbent deserves a discussion that can start with an examination rather than from this rather offensive conclusion.

Previous babble discussion on Denis Rancourt

University of Ottawa vs. activist prof Denis Rancourt

Nice interview of Prof. Rancourt by Derrick O'Keefe:

I agree with Snert.  This has nothing to do with academic freedom.

What strikes me as funniest about this whole debate around Rancourt is that the progressives seem to think that important course management and grading decisions should NOT be made by the Senate (an accountable, elected committee with student representation) but rather by unaccountable, unelected individuals according to whatever their gut feeling tells them.

Me, I think the elected Senate is more appropriate.  Anyone who continues to support the idea that this elected Senate should be replaced by unaccountable individuals is really ready to sacrifice a lot in the name of this one particular case.  And I remain confident that if Rancourt wanted to turn a Women's Studies course into a Home Economics course, empowered by his inaccurate understanding of "academic freedom", he'd have no supporters here.

I think the Senate should also decide, by majority vote, what lecturers may say while on campus - but they should strictly allow them to silently think whatever they want.

In that way, freedom can truly become academic.

Snert wrote:

 You seem to be implying that university professors are being gagged by the tyranny of the majority.

No, Snert. The danger stems from the tyranny of the minority. Business owners, military machines, elite politicians - telling universities what to produce, when to jump, and to what altitude - and starving them to death if they don't comply. Most get the message without brutal reminders. Occasionally, brutal reminders are needed. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

Quote:

No, Snert. The danger stems from the tyranny of the minority. Business owners, military machines, elite politicians - telling universities what to produce, when to jump, and to what altitude - and starving them to death if they don't comply.

Ah, I see. So the UofO's Senate has either been bought and paid for, or else they're quaking in their boots at the possibility of losing funding. Clearly they're corrupt, either way, and that's why they've oppressed poor Rancourt.

You're a poor loser, Unionist, though I'll give you credit for fighting well past the point where most people would stop.

I'm curious, though: do you really believe that an elected Senate made up of students, staff and faculty is MORE corruptible than one unaccountable individual would be? And is this why you're lobbying to have as much authority as possible put into the hands of that one individual?

Um Snert, can you please try to confine yourself to one (1) straw man per one (1) post? I'm only human, after all.

Quote:

Um Snert, can you please try to confine yourself to one (1) straw man per one (1) post? I'm only human, after all.

It's not a straw man. You oppose letting the Senate make course management decisions. You would prefer to see those decisions made by individuals who are neither elected, accountable, nor representative of students. Feel free to deny this, but I trust that our readers can read.

The following is from the rabble.ca interview linked to above by Catchfire.

JesseFreeston for rabble.ca wrote:

 

Why is it important to you to not grade your students?

DR: With grades students learn to guess the professor's mind and to obey. It is a very sophisticated machinery, whereby the natural desire to learn, the intrinsic motivation to want to learn something because you are interested in the thing itself, is destroyed. Grades are the carrot and stick that shape obedient employees and that prepare students for the higher level indoctrinations of graduate and professional schools. The only way to develop independent thinking in the classroom is to give freedom, to break the power relationship by removing the instrument of power....

F: Do you see a role for grading anywhere in the educational system?

DR: The big distinction we have to make is between learning skills, and education. When it comes to learning skills, well, you have to learn the skill. If you're a surgeon, you have to learn how to operate, and in fact, a lot of medical schools have done away with grades completely as they're able to teach very specific skills without using grades.

For the other part of education, the creative thinking side, all the research shows that grades are anti-educational. As soon as you make a student into a machine that is looking for higher grades, they are trying to guess what the professor wants rather than looking at the phenomenon, looking at the material in order to understand it themselves. That's a very clearly demonstrated fact, it's well known, in fact what I'm doing is nothing new, with regards to grading. All the cognitive psychologists know this, that grading is a tool of coercion in order to make obedient people, it is a carrot and stick mechanism. It's not about personal development, learning, creativity or understanding complicated concepts.

Brilliant. Rancourt further points out that several Ivy League schools now offer simply pass/fail rather than the usual grading system. Credibility, which is the argument that the drone/Dean put forward, has nothing to do with grading in the traditional manner.

"There is nothing in my job description, or in the documents that define what the university is about, that says that we have a responsibility to rank students for employers. In fact, all of the documents say the opposite; that it's about education, that it's about learning, that it's about development. If you decide that it's about education, then you have to optimize education, and grading doesn't do that."

Rancourt has also drawn attention to the slavishly Zionist position of the University President, former "liberal" politician Alan Rock, and his efforts to silence dissenters. Politics is also a factor here in the warfare being carried out against Rancourt.

Timebandit wrote:

 A university can't just stop grading students, all degrees would be meaningless. Rancourt is being unreasonable.

And how about telling me what the meaning of a B.A. is? Either you get one, or you don't. That's called pass/fail. That's what Rancourt wanted to do and they wouldn't let him. Do you think B.A. certificates should have GPAs inscribed on them - names of courses, exam results, term paper results? A little curve showing relative standing? Maybe staple them all there in one big file to be examined by prospective employers? Make them more "meaningful"?

Have you read the previous thread about Rancourt? I strongly suggest looking through some of the background materials, before you condemn this academic with decades of experience as "unreasonable" and more interested in "getting into fights" than teaching. Blame the victim much?

Wow. What a worthless contribution.

Unionist wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

 A university can't just stop grading students, all degrees would be meaningless. Rancourt is being unreasonable.

And how about telling me what the meaning of a B.A. is? Either you get one, or you don't. That's called pass/fail. That's what Rancourt wanted to do and they wouldn't let him. Do you think B.A. certificates should have GPAs inscribed on them - names of courses, exam results, term paper results? A little curve showing relative standing? Maybe staple them all there in one big file to be examined by prospective employers? Make them more "meaningful"?

Have you read the previous thread about Rancourt? I strongly suggest looking through some of the background materials, before you condemn this academic with decades of experience as "unreasonable" and more interested in "getting into fights" than teaching. Blame the victim much?

It's only blaming the victim if you accept that he is, actually, a victim.  I'm not so convinced he's a victim of anything more than his own pugnacious attitude.

Getting a BA or not is not the point.  Where you are ranked, how well you understand the course materials, what courses you've taken and the level of work you've accomplished may not be recorded on the sheepskin, but they're part of your transcripts and this is presented and factored in for any post-grad programs one might apply to.  Just as your high school grades are taken into account in your application to an undergrad program. 

Besides which, I just think it's wrong that the student who works his or her ass off in school and does well should get the same grade as some schmuck who phones it in.  It diminishes the achievement.

ETA:  If Rancourt doesn't want to work within the system, then he shouldn't.  But you can't have your cake (in his case, tenured position, salary and pension) and eat it, too. 

To get into Rancourt's 4th year course there would be prerequisites. So, BillBC's point about "easy to get into" etc. doesn't hold up.

Try again.

I don't know much about this issue. I do know there was very little Academic Freedom when I was a student years ago. Profs got into trouble for lots of things. You couldn't talk about lots of things. That Natives came accross a landbridge from Eurasia, something most anthropoligists now believe, was verboten to mention because it denied their creation myths. This was as bad as the Monkey Trial but nobody would talk about it. Anything "sexist" was a no no. An anthro prof I had wouldn't show slides the Venus stauettes because he was afraid of getting into trouble with the PC sexism police. This didn't just affect profs. The Students Union got sued because they had a raffle poster with a woman in a bikini in it. The program director of the campus radio station blacklisted a band because they once performed with a scantily clad female. I don't think it's better now. A religious studies prof I spoke with recently said she's afraid to discuss Islam in comparative religion classes. With other religions, like Christianity, they basically treat holy texts as literature made-up by people, but when they try this with the Quran they get death threats. I don't know about hard sciences, but there is no academic freedom in the social sciences.

Triphop wrote:

I don't know much about this issue.

Agreed. Try reading all of this thread and the previous one and the interview as well. Pay particular attention to the points Rancourt makes about grading, what its purpose is, education, what its purpose is, and so on.

To me, it seems as though Rancourt was taken out for political issues with the university administration (as well as being a professional - professionals are supposed to be people who are smart enough but also well trusted enough to run the machine, and the university's role is often to churn these people out) as well as rejecting the prescribed pedagogical methods.  As a student, I do think Rancourt has some good points regarding pedagogy, and I think that academic freedom goes beyond simply what to research (within the narrow confines of the university-industrial complex) - it should include how things are taught as well.

Quote:

You'll have to substantiate this claim. What course? etc.Of course, if you're just making stuff up, then carry on. lol.

Quote:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt]Two ten year old brothers[/url] were deregistered from SCI 1101 in January 2006. The University of Ottawa stated the students were deregistered because they did not meet the criteria for enrolment in the course, while the deregistered individuals' mother cited age discrimination. Rancourt publicly supported the mother's initiative to file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as minors must file a complaint to the tribunal through their parent or guardians[

You're welcome.

Too bad about the ten year olds.  They both would have got A+  Quite an achievement at that age....

Obviously a lot of babblers are hung up on this A+ thing that if anything is serving as a useful diversion from the points Rancourt was hoping to make by his pedagogy. Perhaps instead of questions about whether this practice is practical, or whether or not U of O undergraduates are stupider than Harvard undergraduates (btw in my experience, that claim is emphatically false), we could try to address the very salient point Rancourt makes in Derrick's interview. Beltov cited it above and I cited it in the previous thread on Rancourt:

Quote:

"There is nothing in my job description, or in the documents that define what the university is about, that says that we have a responsibility to rank students for employers. In fact, all of the documents say the opposite; that it's about education, that it's about learning, that it's about development. If you decide that it's about education, then you have to optimize education, and grading doesn't do that."

Specifically, what do we make of the dissonance between what the University claims is the purpose of a professor, and its refusal to address the real problems profs like Rancourt (and other less "pugnacious" profs) see in a system which ranks students for potential employers?

The truth is, university professors have far more professional autonomy (which, by the way, is the proper term for it, not "academic freedom") in the classroom than any of us will ever have in our workplace (unless, of course, we're professors).

But course management is the job of the institution, via an elected, cross-representational committee, not of individuals going on their gut feelings.

I reiterate my amusement at seeing the progressives arguing that important academic decisions about course management should be the privelege of one already priveleged individual rather than of an elected group of faculty, staff and students.  Srsly.  Look at what you're rooting for.

Quote:

Specifically, what do we make of the dissonance between what the University claims is the purpose of a professor, and its refusal to address the real problems profs like Rancourt (and other less "pugnacious" profs) see in a system which ranks students for potential employers?

First of all, Rancourt is being disingenuous. His job description also does not say "Is responsible for all matters of course management" either. So, please. Give us a break.

But regarding a genuine belief that some or all courses should be graded differently, that can be brought to the Senate for consideration.

Do you trust an elected body of staff, faculty and students to decide something like this? Yes or no?

Forget it, Catchfire. You actually have people in this thread who believe that universities should rank their products for employers. It would be like arguing with some who claims that families should rank their children for the job market. There actually is no basis for a conversation here. My only disappointment (in the sense of surprise) so far is TB's reluctance to read about Rancourt before making Snert-like utterances.

There is also no formalized pedogogy mandated by the senate, board of governors or faculties of any major university I know of.

ETA: and I would also question how much light there is between the binaries you've so usefully named "what" and "how." I wonder, if the Senate advised me to change the way I teach the course material I've developed for the university courses I'm responsible for, if I could keep the same material. I'd probably just give up the course if that were the case, but the prospect of such a thing happening is so alien to me.