Customer Reviews

Generation X Goes to College: An Eye-Opening Account of Teaching in Postmodern America

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I taught part time for several years at a major state university, and full time for two years at the community college level. I last taught almost a decade ago. I found much, though not all, of the author's account of his experiences to be consistent with what I experienced.

The author believes that most students have the consumerist attitude that because they're the ones paying, it is the teacher's responsibility to teach them, not their responsibility to learn. I would put it a little differently. The overwhelming majority of my students were quite indifferent to whether they learned anything. Their consumerist attitude wasn't so much about trading money for learning as it was trading effort for grades. They wanted to pay the least in effort for the highest grades they could get. Why do 50% of the reading if you can get the same grade by doing 10%? Why torture yourself writing a term paper if you can obtain one over the Internet? Why learn the material you're to be tested on if you can just review old tests that your fraternity keeps on file for this instructor? To put more effort into a class than you absolutely have to would be as pointless to them as paying $2 for a loaf of bread that costs $1. Learning doesn't enter into it.

The author laments the way the TV generation students need to be constantly entertained, to have their micro attention spans indulged. That was somewhat true when I was teaching, and I think it might well have gotten worse since. A friend of mine once made an interesting point about this. He noted that if you talk to students, or if you listen to the conversations they have with each other, when they have anything positive to say about a teacher, by far the most common term of praise you'll hear is "funny." At least 75% of the time, and probably more, you'll hear, "Oh, that's a great class. He's so funny!" "You should take a class with so-and-so. He's really funny!" Etc.

The author feels that students and their evaluations are far too influential in determining such things as tenure decisions, and hence that instructors know to suck up to students by giving them everything they want. In my limited experience, I did not find this to be a significant issue. In fact, at one institution, a committee had to decide whether to hire me on permanently after I had completed a one year assignment with them, and I was quite surprised when they mentioned to me that they had never thought to even look at my student evaluations.

The author laments the extreme grade inflation of recent years, and the way that students feel entitled to high grades for mediocre work. That fits my experience completely. The student attitude seems to be that adequate work deserves an A+. If you are going to give anything less than 100% of the available points to a student on an assignment, you had better be able to cite egregious errors in their work. If I told someone they had gotten a B or even an A- on a paper, the most common response was a surprised or angry "What was wrong with it! "

The author attributes some of the negative attitudes he encounters to the versions of "postmodernism" and such that have filtered down to the student level. I tend to agree. Things were already headed in that direction when I was teaching, and what I have heard since then leads me to believe they've gotten worse. For many students, there is no "truth," no one can possibly be more intelligent or more learned than anyone else, and it is ridiculous and offensive for anyone, including a teacher, to pass judgment on other people by something like giving them grades for their work. Indeed, even for many "educators" (using the term loosely), college is far more about providing therapy and boosting the self-esteem of the students and indoctrinating them with some nebulous version of cultural relativism than it is about traditional notions of learning. One of the worst things you can do to a student-sure to raise hackles now since it's so unheard of-is to state or imply that they're wrong about something. All opinions are equal, after all, and their opinions are just as "true for them" as yours are "true for you." Apparently it's better that students be socialized to be thin-skinned ignoramuses than that they have "Western logic" and "linear thinking" imposed on them.

While I mostly sympathized with the author's complaints, I did wish he could have found a way to maintain high standards and teach the way he felt was best instead of giving in to the pressures he perceived. In spite of all he says that I largely agree with, I genuinely liked the vast majority of my students. You certainly don't get the impression he does. Yes, there are a high number of students who have absolutely no business in an institution of higher learning until they grow up. But there are also a handful of motivated students with positive attitudes about learning, and considerably more "fence-straddlers" whom a skilled teacher can inspire into the "good student" category. I always felt that I had to work on improving my teaching and on getting through to more people in any way I could. Whether I was 1% or 99% responsible for their learning didn't matter; I still wanted to do the best job I was capable of doing. Yes, it would be nice if more students would cooperate in the process, but you work with what you've got.

I wish the author could have warmed to that challenge more.

One day a colleague loaned me a copy of "Generation X Goes to College", and ruined my night. Desensitized by long exposure to poor students, impelled by my own need to survive, and inundated with propaganda from the community colleges, I had begun to doubt everything I knew. Community colleges give you the best possible education. An A in Chemistry 101 from one is just as good as an A in Chemistry 101 at Cal Tech. Yeah, sure. Lazy, unmotivated students who find "1984" incomprehensible do better at universities than top high school graduates. OK, I believe it. The most highly qualified college instructor has a master's degree from a second-rate university. People with Ph.Ds from top schools are stupid and bad teachers because, well, they just are. Right. Research makes you dumb. Excellence is elitism. Bad is good. Lies are truth. I didn't fight it any more. I had gotten comfortable, or at least, less uncomfortable. As I gave lazy, unintelligent students As for memorizing and regurgitating a few facts, I was happy in the sure expectation of being rewarded with the immoderate praise I routinely find on my teaching reviews. I pushed away the knowledge that I had been co- opted. Sacks' book woke me up, reminded me that excellence is not elitism, and lies are not truth, and made me too angry to stop reading until I finished every page.

Sacks has written an important and courageous book, but one that did not go nearly far enough. Sacks deserves praise for exposing the scandalous truth about the exceedingly poor quality of most community college education, but his analysis of the reasons for this "dumbing down" focuses almost entirely on the least guilty: the students. Like any other, the most recent generation of students have virtues to balance their faults. The pursuit of excellence in learning is not one of those virtues, but how could it be? They attend institutions where eighteen year olds without experience of higher education dictate who shall teach what, and how; and where literature in modern English is pronounced "too advanced" for adult college undergraduates. (When do they get to Shakespeare? Graduate school?)

Throughout this book, Sacks continually misses the biggest target of all. The substitution of "lite learning" for substance and comprehension may be initiated by administrations at the behest of students, but it occurs with the total complicity of the tenured faculty. The culpability of the faculty at The College permeates Sacks' book, and yet they escape the meticulous examination of their motives to which he subjects students and administrators: Why? Obviously Sacks has discovered what his colleagues certainly know; if you shut up and cater to administration interests the rewards are generous. Tenured faculty roll in to work at 10 am or head out at 1 pm, and don't come in at all some days; any unattractive assignment (too early, too late, too close to the weekend) is shuffled off onto one of the army of part-timers who rush off at the end of class to another college. Though Sacks complains bitterly about his poor pay, he surely enjoys the long, lazy summer vacations in Europe, the six weeks at Christmas and the week at Easter. No doubt he likes the twenty hour work weeks, the sabbaticals and the load bank leaves (teach six classes instead of five and take a semester off with full pay every two and half years to do whatever you like). Sacks' friend Chris summarizes the reason that tenured community college faculty are unwilling to challenge the status quo: "Instructors get three months off, work half days, they take life easy. So if you can smile at your students and be happy, you can have all that too."

It's also hard to understand how Sacks could have overlooked the huge role that part-time faculty play in consumer- oriented education since they probably teach around half the classes at his institution. Part-time faculty don't ever have the protection of tenure, often cannot afford to get even one poor review, and must always cater to student demands for easy classes and good grades. Students become accustomed to the light workload imposed of necessity by part-time faculty, then when they encounter a demanding professor, they are naturally resentful and resistant. Of course, The College saves lots of money by paying the part-time faculty somewhere around a quarter as much per class as full-time faculty. These savings pay for the sabbaticals, load bank leaves, and light work schedules enjoyed by the full-time faculty, including Sacks. Perhaps that's why he never got around to mentioning part-time faculty.

Ultimately this is a cynical and self-centered book. It's loud in condemnation of the practices that have hurt its author, but silent on even worse practices that benefit him. Students, administrators and Sacks' colleagues are equally self-serving. Students want to get good grades for very little work. Administrators want high enrollments which increase their own power and rewards: the "dumbing down" and grade inflation necessary to achieve high levels of retention is not their problem. The tenured full-time faculty long ago abandoned their integrity in favor of light workloads and copious free time paid for by overworked part-time faculty, so predictably, when they have to choose between educational quality and their perquisites, quality is forgotten. Given his own obvious self-interest, I cannot understand why Sacks finds this so amazing. Still, at least someone has broken the silence about the deterioration of quality at the community colleges, and by extension at the universities into which they feed. These colleges cost the taxpayers a fortune, and it is clear that we are not getting a good return on our investment.

Everyone with an interest in the present and future of higher education in America will find this book to be at least interesting, and for many, dismaying and perhaps frightening. Most college teachers, I think, will find many things to which they can relate. I found the chronicle of Sacks's college teaching experience so similar to the kinds of things I have experienced as an educator that I couldn't put the book down.

The first part of the book is a tale of Sacks's experience teaching journalism at "a large suburban community college in the West," which he refers to only as "The College." Prior to being hired there, he was a Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalist. For various reasons, he had doubts about his future in that profession, and when a teaching job presented itself, he decided to give it a try. Whatever ideals he had about the teaching profession were quickly replaced by "confusion and bewilderment" brought on by the behavior and attitudes of Generation X students.

Sacks began teaching with the assumptions that students would read the assigned material, take notes, attend class, and turn assignments in on time. He also assumed that "C" represented average work. He very quickly learned that not only were these assumptions unfounded, but that in order to achieve tenure, he would have to play a different game. He came to realize that what these students wanted, for the most part, was to be entertained rather than educated. And that they believed that just by paying tuition they were entitled to a grade of "B" or higher whether or not they did any significant work. If these conditions were not met, he would receive negative student evaluations. And student evaluations were the main evidence cited in tenure decisions.

In discussions with colleagues he discovered that there was tacit agreement that this was the prevalent situation on campus, and that if he wanted to succeed as a teacher his student evaluations would have to improve. He was constantly admonished to "teach to the evaluations." When he changed his methods to become more entertaining (described in a chapter called "The Sandbox Experiment"), and in particular when he inflated his grades to a B, rather than a C, average, his evaluations improved dramatically.

Along the way, he encountered (either in his own classes or those of colleagues) students who asked such questions as "Do we have to read the text?" and "Why are colleges trying to force this stuff down our throats and trying to make us think when our minds and opinions are already formed?" He gradually came to see that a vicious circle existed: high academic standards meant higher attrition rates which meant budget cuts which meant loss of faculty jobs. The key to success was to ward off student failure in any way that worked.

Part 2 of the book is a more general discussion of the relation between higher education and the phenomenon of postmodernism. Sacks is quick to point out that he is not an expert in the philosophical foundations of the latter. Nevertheless, his explanation is reasonably clear, and he draws a pretty convincing picture of a generation in which skepticism and critical thought is replaced on the one hand by paranoia and distrust, and by credulousness on the other (e.g., belief in UFOs, astrology, etc.), in which "truth" is merely a social construct, everyone is entitled to succeed (where success is defined by standard of living), and in which anti-intellectualism is a virtue.

In the final chapter, Sacks makes some recommendations as to what might be done to help rectify what he obviously sees as a dangerous situation. He realizes that merely to perpuate teaching strategies that don't work in a postmodern world, even when augmented by the latest technology (an important point), will not suffice. The focus of education must shift from what you learn to how one uses that knowledge--or in Sack's words, "any given course would be one in learning how to do something, and at the same time...thinking about what you're doing, wondering why you're doing it, and imagining new ways of doing it." The role of the teacher would shift from being a "transmitter of knowledge" to that of an "expert consultant," who "[guides] students in the use of information-gathering tools, i.e., helping them learn how to learn," and "[helps] students imagine new ways of looking at knowledge, while prodding them to appreciate subtle complexities about a discipline not obtainable from machines and databases."

Sacks realizes that simply to adjust the role of the teacher as above isn't enough, however. For him the key question is the survival of higher education as a meaningful institution in our culture against the "onslaught of hyperconsumerism and amusement." Grade inflation is an obvious place to begin work, and Sacks suggests some positive steps institutions might take to combat it. The use of student evaluations in tenure decisions also needs to be scrutinized. Further, Sacks suggests that performance assessment (he cites Alverno College as an example where this has been used with success) be tried as an alternative, or at least a supplement, to traditional grading. Finally, he thinks that America ought to look more seriously at the idea that a universal college education maybe isn't for everybody after all, and that some sort of "comprehensive, national system of vocational and technical education" ought to be tried.

The debate between modernists and postmodernists will continue in spite of books like this, until postmodernism has run its course or until some new synthesis is reached. But Sacks has undeniably put his finger on a real crisis in current higher education. This is a book that should not be passed by lightly, regardless of one's philosophical position on the fate of modernism.

As a adjunct instructor in the humanities, I found the book to be right on target. Sacks' description of student behavior matches with what I have experienced at a major state university and two community colleges. Growing numbers of students are rude and inconsiderate. Consumerism, as Sacks points out, is running rampant in higher education. Pay money, get a degree. In fact, I know of several deans and other adminstrators who have said that the number one job of colleges is keeping the customer satisfied. Of course, earning a college education cannot work this way.

The most striking thing about the book's description is that the general student apathy which Sacks reports is pervasive: from community colleges to large state universities to private colleges. Of course, Sacks's observations, taken by themselves, are merely anecdotal. But when dozens, if not hundreds, of instructors report similar behavior (as I read and heard from other instructors), it illustrates that something is truly wrong. Instructors who give in to inflated grades, low standards, and multiple-choice exams (and I know many who do) are also to blame. If Orwell's 1984 is too difficult for college freshmen, then something is wrong in the high schools. (I remember reading it in 8th grade)

To dismiss Sacks' observations as mere stereotypes simply misses his main points: 1) Not everyone has a right to a college degree (it must be earned) 2) Education institutions should not be run like fast food restaurants (learning how to think critically is not like buying a Big Mac).

I'm a Director of Teaching Effectiveness at a reasonably solid western university. Out of pure devilishness I suppose, I selected this irreverent, "politically incorrect" book for a faculty book-discussion group. The story features a highly accomplished journalist-turned-college teacher, and he soon finds himself in trouble with his undergraduate classes by receiving low student evaluations. This leads to a career in jeopardy as revealed from reviews by colleagues and administrators. The college, which Sacks mercifully keeps anonymous, has no solid way to help him to improve his teaching. Instead he is evaluated, humiliated, and advised to mend his ways-or else. Sacks does so and with a vengeance that culminates in the telling of his story.

This book would be an excellent read after a study of the book, Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years by William Perry. It is apparent that the kind of thinking Sacks presumed for his freshmen simply was not a viable expectation. His experience is actually typical of new professors who have developed high thinking levels over time in graduate school or industry without even knowing it. The result is an expectation that new students will quickly rise to high levels if only they have the will, and a belief that the professor was never as apparently bumbling as a freshman as her/his new charges seem to be. The fact is, most of us were just as bad then as our students are today! There are two ways to deal with the problem: (1) be willing to learn how to teach freshmen or (2) blame the students as unwilling to learn. Option two became the road traveled, and the view along it is a fascinating study because the quest becomes not one of learning to teach better, but rather of learning how to get better evaluations. Sacks is brutally honest about his motive and his methods. His colleagues, administrators and even his students become willing, albeit unknowing, accomplices. To be fair, some of what Sacks did in his quest to improve his evaluations really did improve his ability to reach freshmen, but overall this is a study in what happens when every party involved can con themselves into throwing reason and ethics to the four winds.

Sacks proves what most advocates for student evaluations will deny--that evaluations can be manipulated by attending to affective traits without attending to improvement of learning. Further, they can be manipulated not just over one lecture, as revealed by the infamous "Dr. Fox study," but over enough years to obtain tenure. How can this be? In accord with what most experts of student evaluations have found, most college administrators and faculty review committees don't understand the meaning of evaluations, have never read the research literature on them, and therefore misuse them terribly. Sacks gives us a view of the tyranny imposed when summative evaluations are misused by those whose authority comes from job titles rather than expertise.

The second half of the book involves Sacks' attempts to explain parts of his experience in terms of postmodern influence on higher education. The writing style changes abruptly in a way that mimics some academic journals (although many references cited come from newspapers and magazines). Personally, this just didn't work for me, even though I'm no fan of postmodernism. I'd have awarded this five stars if this second section had simply been left out.

The book served its purpose well, and I was gratified that the faculty here caught on to what was happening in the classroom far better than did the characters portrayed. Think of this as a case study that has superb lessons, some probably unintended. I'd suggest every faculty developer try a similar discussion group with this book.

I read with great interest, "Generation X goes to College." Having been recently downsized from a job, I thought that I would return to college and acquire skills that would be useful in a future job hunt. FAT CHANCE!!!

Never before has the adage "College education is something that people are willing to pay for and not get" rang true.

The reaer from San Diego is right on the money. I wish that San Diego would write a book. The tenured faculty the people responsible for the "dumbing down" and frankly, they don't care.

Instead, I got teachers who frequently did't come to class, did personal business in class on class time, and often did not keep posted office hours.

I hope the reader in San Diego does write a book. A book that escribes how easy full-time faculty have it, and how little they do to deserve it. The taxpayers would revoult.

I had teachers who would never read my papers and would just put an "A" at the top of the paper. I took foreign language classes and never had oral practice, and for this, I have a 4.0 GPA.

The students and taxpayers are the biggest losers of this scandal called "education."

I have to confess I really enjoyed reading this book, in a darkly comedic/carthitic way. But I also had to laugh at Sacks' obvious naivte in the initial section as well. I mean, assigning some of the seminal works of Noam Chomsky to a Freshman Intro to Journalism course? I love & avidly read Chomsky, but then I have an MA in German Studies from Rice University. So I can certainly tell you that kind of material is best left to a undergraduate Junior or Senior seminar! No small wonder that lesson went over like a lead balloon in his freshman intro course...Teaching is like a lot of things--truly excellent teachers make it look SOO EASY, when in fact it's anything but. Sacks' discussion of PoMo vs. Mo is a bit superficial, but not wholly without merit, I'll allow. He should do a bit more reading on the shortcomings of classical MO, because PoMo is sometimes the necessary corrective. Anyway,I myself taught High School German one year; I too complained bitterly about my students at the time, but I also realize I failed to connect with them; I can't blame my on my ex-students what is more easily explained by my own inexperience and mistakes and poor planing and execution--and neither can Sacks. Yes, like Sacks' students mine were rude and inconsiderate, didn't share my passion for the subject matter, etc. I know I treated my profs with deference & respect, but my clearest memories are of upper division courses filled with fellow academic majors who WANTED to be there. Sacks is in the main describing survey courses EVERYONE is compelled to take, so I'm not convinced his criticism applies as widely as he thinks it does, though perhaps as a criticism of the wisdom of compulsory survey courses in general he has something to say. I am cautious to praise this book due to my own guilty conscience and personal intellectual conceits & vanities. Sacks' is at his best asking important, thought-provoking questions, even if his own attempts at answers do, I think, fall short of the mark.

Like the author, I teach at a subsidized, (more or less) open-enrollment school, where likewise I have encountered an increasingly consumerist mentality among students. They register for courses and expect grades in return. They evaluate us anonymously with no redress possible; we, on the other hand, are subject to challenge at every juncture. Like the author, I have done well by being a crowd-pleaser, and fortunately have achieved considerable seniority plus a credible record in my field, to the point where I can express my views openly--a privilege denied many of my junior colleagues.

If state legislators, chancellors, campus presidents, and faculty committees want so-called higher education to continue on its present path toward oblivion, then they only have to stick to the status quo--it's working. If, on the other hand, they want to put some meaning behind their glorious pronouncements about the impending, new century, then the best thing they can do is turn the process back on its right side. Reading this book might give them some inspiration in that direction.

Incidentally, what drew me to this book was a sympathetic review in _Thought and Action_, the higher-ed journal of the National Education Association, which is hardly a bastion of conservative thought.

One of my coworkers and friends lent me this book, and it blew me away. Our department was made up of four Gen-Xers and several baby boomers - so we were coping with "Gen Y", not Gen X.

I recognize some of these characters from my own college follies (one of my favorite professors was considered "arrogant" because he demanded such things of students as reading the NY Times and watching the news regularly!)... yet agree with other reviews that the poor attention spans and consumerist attitudes have only gotten worse. I blame SpongeBob.

I wonder if there's something else going on besides what Sacks writes about - with this idea of the "quarter century crisis", perhaps adolescence and its ambivalence and passive-aggressiveness, is lasting longer. The persistently bad economy isn't promising students anything great after graduation - at least Gen Xers had the dot.com world and the raging Dow to motivate them.

Meanwhile, this "grade inflation" is not starting in college - it's going back to high school and earlier. If the state of Wisconsin can happily inflate how well their educational system is doing, how morally hard is it to coach kids to do well on the California Achievement Test or PSAT? Meanwhile, high school students in Europe and Great Britain are graduating with two years more experience and knowledge than American kids the same age and "rank".

Postmodernist thinking has definitely chipped away at the idea of reverence for elders, leaders or experts. It's also hurt these kids' sense of their own capabilities and weaknesses. When everyone is considered "special," but in a bland sort of way, like a preschool video game where "everyone is a winner," why wouldn't teenagers only do enough to "get by" and then still expect A grades? Meanwhile, deep down, these kids know that they have yet to be really tested, or challenged - and while some of them go on to relish learning, others avoid facing their own inadequacies. You *must* face your inadequacies and take chances (whether you win or screw up) to grow! And if the school systems and colleges aren't making them face facts, and really learn - wow, just consider what sort of graduates we're feeding into every sector of society, from government to corporate America.

Over and over, I was shocked to see students at a so-called "socially progressive" school (it wasn't Antioch, but you get the drift) avoid taking on any real responsibility or burden for positive social change. Students would whine about the lack of action in the classroom or on campus, then back down when challenged or encouraged to use the resources at their disposal! Students would "talk the talk" but shirk responsibility or creative risk-taking, and that was saddest of all - if you can't take chances in college, and expand your academic and social boundaries, where else will you do it?

I am a college instructor with twelve years teaching experience. This remarkably insightful and honest tome, written in a light, journalistic style, exposes the ugly realities of being a college professor: Immature students who crave nothing but entertainment, weak-willed educational bureaucracies that promote pandering to America's consumer ethos, and instructors who try to save their sanity--and their jobs--by becoming unwilling participants in the Kafka-esque circus known as "higher education." This book will stand as a written monument to all college faculty that have had to endure the silliness and irrationality of dealing with an educational ethos where "you never piss off the customer" and "the customer is always right." Is this a depressing book to read? Yes, especially if you're an experienced professor. However, it is a classic in its own time, and a "keeper" for any veteran academic.