What has caused this change in higher education? Have we changed curriculum? Have students changed professors' expectations? Actually, the real problem with modern education, I believe, is that professors have become more and more lazy. There are dedicated students committed to reading every page of the textbook, going to every test review, and studying hours for every quiz or exam no matter when or where we look. However, the methods of teaching are changing constantly. Decades ago students were taught in class how to do math and physics; they were taught history and psychology. The professors were not just educated on what their subject of teaching is, but how to use it. Nowadays, we see more and more professors relying on textbooks to teach students. Classes have become less of a place of lecture and more of a place of review. Students aren't able to rely on their professors for knowledge, rather they must rely on the textbooks and online resources.
Arguably the in class lectures and the information in the textbook teach the same things, so one could argue that that doesn't change anything, and that students acquire the same knowledge either way. Now, while I believe that college level education should be a good combination of both in class lecture and reading, I also believe the emphasis and focus should be on the lecture. Only there do you get to learn the practical application of what you're learning; only there you are able to test your knowledge and refine your skills; and only there are you able to sift out and separate the most important and least important information. There is so much information in a textbook that often isn't used in class, isn't part of the curriculum, and/or isn't used in exams. This means that the good students now aren't the ones who come to class and pay attention, put forth effort to learn, and come to master the subject being taught, but are, rather, the ones who have the most time for reading, the ones with the best reading retention, and the ones best at sifting out what they think is important information. Those students will test well based off of their knowledge and not on their ability to use that information in a practical application. That means the more classes that use this method of teaching bring about those who are the best at obtaining knowledge through reading and NOT those who are most proficient at using that knowledge.
So why are we limelighting those who retain the most information through reading and test well, but not those who show proficiency in applying the information? This is where the mention of teachers' laziness comes into play. Firstly, in order for a teacher to best teach a class the application of information and help students individually progress in each field, it requires a lot of preparation. Powerpoints, lecture notes, and them reading the textbook they require of their students. It also would require the teacher to create an exam that tests the students' ability to apply the information instead of something that can just be done on a scantron. However, teachers are required to ensure their students know the material well enough that the majority of students can pass the class and get around a B or B+ average. In order to remain lazy but ensure students are able to still be testable, we see more and more professors assigning reading assignments and requiring students to teach themselves the material, and then they test the students on what they read and not what they can do. Lectures can then be a review of material where the professor has to prepare more for clarifying questions, and less for application questions and concept questions that come from teaching new material.
Not only does this style of assignment reading and self teaching done by professors hurt the potential learning of applicable skills by students, but it also makes students question the professor's expertise and skill in that field. If a professor can't effectively teach and show students they know the material, and show an deep understanding of their field in class, students are less likely to ask questions or go to review sessions and feel forced to learn for themselves. In fields such as history and philosophy it may not be as detrimental to push so much reading onto students, but in fields that require more hands on applications and calculations, or mental analysis, most people, if not all, will progress and have a higher chance of succeeding when they are shown how to do it. For example, I have had two different professors for my computer programming class due to me failing the first time around. My first professor required we learn how to program and type up code by reading the textbook. Most skills in the book were not used in the required programs he had us make in class and we had to try and figure out which information in the textbook was most important and most likely to be used. In class "lectures" were just powerpoints where we learned about the history of programming, the concepts of programming, and what programming is comparable to in the world. Programming isn't much of a conceptual field and is mostly about precise writing, simple math, and problem solving. He never typed up code, tested programs, or helped us learn how to troubleshoot code errors in class. When it came to doing the homework labs I was left guessing which skill in the book he wanted me to use, and when I ran into a coding error I would be stuck; I didn't know how to troubleshoot and I didn't know what possible things could cause the error.
This is how our quizzes were daily. Never had specific code.
After failing the class I of course had to take it again but I decided to go with a different professor to see if there was a different teaching style available. This professor required minimal reading and went over every required skill in class. He typed up code for the class and with the class. He would have the class collectively suggest ideas for the code of the program we were building in class and we would test if it would work. If it didn't work we would, as a class, troubleshoot and learn potential issues that would cause the error. He would also show us how he, as a professional and knowledgeable teacher in the field, would suggest we do it. He would go over examples from our homework and help us get started on the right foot. He would answer any and all questions we had while making sure we understood how to get the answers ourselves. Not only did I pass the class this time around, I got an A. More importantly, I knew how to code! My tests weren't written tests with multiple choices, but were application tests where I would have to build a working program. I was able to confidently ask him questions trusting he knew the answer. I would dare say students who got a B in the second teacher's class were better at programming than those who got an A in the first.
To summarize, the more lazy teachers become, the more meaningless degrees become in terms of determining qualifications and abilities. Students learn more information and less skills. If you were to build a house, wouldn't you rather watch and learn from people actually building a house instead of sitting in a class learning about the history of construction the theories behind the design? Wouldn't you rather learn how to use the construction equipment hands on instead of learning how the motors on equipment being used works? Applicable information in universities is endangered and teachers who aren't ONLY book smart are dying out. Skilled professionals in universities are disappearing and we as students are suffering for it. Universities need to focus less on grades and testability and shift focus to the ability to apply and do. The new way of education suppresses creativity and ingenuity. Progress as a society and in technology will stop if we continue to be taught what to think and what to remember instead of how to think for ourselves and how to imagine.
