The Hardest Class You Ever Had

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I just finished up my coursework for the semester. While Organic I was a comparative breeze, Organic II was a bitch. Honestly, the tests were more of a monster than the actual course load.

Here were the grade breakdowns (all tests were MC):

80-100-A
62-79-B
46-61: C
40-46: D

While the baseline material itself wasn't exceptionally difficult, there were so many exceptions to the rules, and exceptions to exceptions, that the tests ended up as absolute minefields.

With that said, I've heard even worse things about Biochem, and I'm sure that those of you with or pursuing advanced Math/Science degrees have had nightmare courses as well.

What class was it that kicked your ass the hardest?

[ThaVirus]

I'm not an abstract thinker either. That's probably another reason I struggled with Comp.

Say what you mean, mother****er!

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by ping2000

A class in political philosophy where the entire semester was focused on Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit. Consistently referenced as one of the hardest books to read on the planet. Sentences that were 12 pages long. This is the book that can cause brain tumors from strain.

We read large chunks of Phenomenology in my basic Lit Theory class in grad school. Hegel is a terrible writer, but the Master-Slave dialectic and the dialectic itself are tremendously valuable concepts that I used consistently while teaching.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I'm not an abstract thinker either. That's probably another reason I struggled with Comp.

Say what you mean, mother****er!

If you had a good Comp instructor that should be the primary focus of the course.

College Comp is about clarity, concision, support, and vividness. Far too often students ramble on for a paragraph thinking that they are thinking abstractly when they are really just vague. The beauty of precise writing is that it actually allows you to be far more descriptive because you can fit more information in the same space.

I have a lot of students who think making heavy use of a thesaurus and using purple prose that their lazy high school English teachers praised for the vocab (often laced with malapropisms) means that they're excellent writers.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I'm well acquainted w/ the responsibilities of tenure track faculty and the financial interests behind many hiring decisions. However, given the often horrendous speaking abilities of some of the professors, I think that most college students would far prefer instructional faculty that can communicate clearly, but faculty would rather have someone who has the possibility to bring in a great deal of grant funding through their research.

While the two aren't diametrically opposed, there are often cases where that happens.

I'll point out that schools that emphasize teaching and de-emphasize research do not generate better student outcomes than schools that have a balanced teaching and research mission. Sure there are confounding factors, but in our current socio-economic system, the balanced teaching and research approach is the educational model of choice for students in technical fields considering cost, the quality of instruction, and student outcomes.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by prhom

That IS a dick move. My favorite test memory was in Fluid Mechanics. They handed out the tests and this guy next to me puts his name on the top and starts flipping through the test sheet by sheet. I figure he's just sizing it up and deciding where to start. He gets to the end, mumbles something, calmly stands up and starts walking to the prof's desk. By now everyone is watching to see what he's doing. He reaches the desk, places the test on the desk and just walks out! Never seen anything like it. Most people just wouldn't show up at all if they were that unprepared.

We give skills tests to job candidates at my company, and I had a candidate do that once. The funny thing is that he had some souped-up turbocharged resume that was really impressive, and the test sliced through that fakery like it was a samurai sword.

[Rain Man]

I have to say through all this discussion that weed-out classes are a really good thing. I think the concept of the "Gentleman's C" really dilutes the power of a degree. While a college degree is obviously the best way to build one's skills (at least in my field), having a degree isn't a guarantee that someone has those skills, and that's unfortunate for everyone.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by cdcox

I'll point out that schools that emphasize teaching and de-emphasize research do not generate better student outcomes than schools that have a balanced teaching and research mission. Sure there are confounding factors, but in our current socio-economic system, the balanced teaching and research approach is the educational model of choice for students in technical fields considering cost, the quality of instruction, and student outcomes.

It's not a matter of de-emphasizing research, but seeking candidates for their research skills alone who are poor communicators is a recipe for disaster for the students, as you often end up with horror stories as illustrated in this thread.

[cdcox]

In our UG program, I coordinate a class that prepares students to pass the Fundamentals of Engineers exam, which is an external board exam that is a step toward professional registration. The class essentially functions as a cumulative exam for our degree program. I've had several students that have had to repeat that class to graduate, some multiple times. Passing the class is not an extremely high bar, but it at least ensures some minimum level of competency as students walk out the door.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I have to say through all this discussion that weed-out classes are a really good thing. I think the concept of the "Gentleman's C" really dilutes the power of a degree. While a college degree is obviously the best way to build one's skills (at least in my field), having a degree isn't a guarantee that someone has those skills, and that's unfortunate for everyone.

You're absolutely right about the degree.

Here is something that bothers me about classes structured like the one I took: I just managed to cobble an A out of it, but someone could sit through that entire semester, get a 46% in the course, and end up with a C. Sure, that isn't going to look great on a transcript, but given the nature of Organic as a weed out class for med students in particular, many schools will take that candidate with a C because of the assumption that Organic is hard.

What worries me isn't the difficulty of the weed-out class itself, but how you get to that difficulty. Questions like the one I posted earlier are certainly difficult, but I think they are terrible metrics for actually evaluating knowledge, but because the class sizes are so large, instructors are forced to give MC tests rather than grade an exam from 300-400 students.

[BigRedChief]

Physics with lab.

Had to design the strongest bridge possible with the parameters and tools he gave us. Had to hold X amount of weight. What he didn't tell you is that you had to be perfect to achieve his goal in the class.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by cdcox

In our UG program, I coordinate a class that prepares students to pass the Fundamentals of Engineers exam, which is an external board exam that is a step toward professional registration. The class essentially functions as a cumulative exam for our degree program. I've had several students that have had to repeat that class to graduate, some multiple times. Passing the class is not an extremely high bar, but it at least ensures some minimum level of competency as students walk out the door.

That's pretty cool.

Is that the new name for the old "Engineer In Training" exam? I never took it because my career field didn't require it, and I've since regretted not taking it. But at the time it was a situation where it would be bad to fail it and there was nothing to gain by taking it.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

It's not a matter of de-emphasizing research, but seeking candidates for their research skills alone who are poor communicators is a recipe for disaster for the students, as you often end up with horror stories as illustrated in this thread.

My point is that schools that de-emphasize research and presumably have better communicators as faculty as a result, do not get better results.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

That's pretty cool.

Is that the new name for the old "Engineer In Training" exam? I never took it because my career field didn't require it, and I've since regretted not taking it. But at the time it was a situation where it would be bad to fail it and there was nothing to gain by taking it.

Yep. You would not have failed it.

[bowener]

Originally Posted by ping2000

A class in political philosophy where the entire semester was focused on Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit. Consistently referenced as one of the hardest books to read on the planet. Sentences that were 12 pages long. This is the book that can cause brain tumors from strain.

I was actually coming in here to post this very same thing. Hegel can be such a bitch to read and comprehend. Too ****ing dense to read more than a few pages without wanting to gouge your eyes out. The funny thing is, one of my favorite books I've read is a break down of Hegelian philosophy and how Marx flipped it on its head. It is written by Charles Taylor I believe.

Second most difficult class would be stats or possibly a high level phil course that covered only Kant (taught by Robert Johnson), which isn't terrible, but it was taught to us as if we already had a full understanding of his work, which the majority of us did not. We spent the second half of the semester pouring over an unpublished manuscript by a Harvard professor that was best buds with our professor.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by cdcox

My point is that schools that de-emphasize research and presumably have better communicators as faculty as a result, do not get better results.

This is breaking down into a chicken-egg argument.

I could easily point out that Tier-I research institutions, Public Ivies and the like generally attract the most motivated students, and thus, those likely to get better results regardless.

Conversely, schools with the lowest faculty-student ratios, and thus, the most one-on-one communication tend to have better educational outcomes, less student stress and anxiety (and more satisfaction) because they are able to establish a rapport with the instructor and they become more emotionally invested than as a face in the crowd. Additionally, clear enunciation and effective communication are discrete.

In a college course, you can be a clear speaker but not a good communicator.