01 March 2012

Keeping Myself Going As They Keep The Game Going

The past couple of days have just been crazy.  I just started at a community college that operates on the trimester system.  That, and the work I'm doing at my other community college has been keeping me busy, if not rolling in dough.

I can't say I love either school. Then again, I can't say I love any school at this point. I'm not bitter at not being re-hired at York; rather, I feel it is a sort of "dues" I paid for some things I've learned.   What I know now probably won't help me to get a job in another school, or anywhere else for that matter.  But I am glad to have learned it, if sad that I have to know it.

What I have learned is this:  Most academic institutions, for all of their pretensions of serving some higher cause like bringing enlightenment to the human race, are really nothing more than corrupt, poorly-run businesses.  They will bring in the students that they believe will bring them the most money.


That is why, in contrast to what their self-serving propaganda says, they don't take very many, if at all, bright kids from poor backgrounds, or highly-motivated people who've just gotten away from substances they abused or spouses that abused them.  What they admit, instead, are the ones who have more loan (or other kinds of) money than skill or talent.  Even at the schools that don't have open-admissions policies, you will find scores, even hundreds or thousands, of students who have guaranteed loans or whose tuition and fees are being paid by some program or another, but who have virtually no chance of making the grades they need.  

Along with those students, you will also find international students--for whom, at many institutions, tuition is even higher than it is for out-of-state residents.  For many of them, tuition is being paid by the governments of their countries but whose level of English will get them through, at most, a telephone directory.  Those students are admitted on the basis of Test of English as a Foreign Language, a.k.a. TOEFL, scores they "earned" in countries where cheating on exams is considered about as much an offense as spitting on the sidewalk, if it's not openly encouraged. They then "compensate" for their lack of English proficiency by going into majors and programs that require more numerical or technical than linguistic skill.  Then they "pass", or even "do well" with, shall we say, some help from their friends.  

If you catch such a student in a plagiarism, if you're lucky, you'll get a lecture about how that student's cultural values are different, and that you as an educator must be tolerant and understanding, and help that student find his way in this harsh, unforgiving system.  If you're not lucky, you might find yourself in a hearing over your supposed cultural insensitivity, and if you're not tenured or on the tenure track, there's a good chance you won't get hired for the upcoming term.

Right now, I have one class full of students who don't understand anything I say beyond "Good evening."  Don't get me wrong: They seem like nice enough people.  But I simply don't see how they're going to complete much of anything even in that community college, which has an open-admissions policy.

Next year, that college and others will most likely admit even more such students than were admitted last year or in other previous years.  And that is what those schools will continue to do as long as other governments are willing to pay to send students here, and as long as those who graduated high school without any real skills have access to loan or grant money.  Actually, the students themselves don't have access to the money, as it's (in most cases) paid directly to the schools, which charge students "processing fees" that can amount to as much as twenty percent of the loan.


Being one of the people who has to know what I've described really sucks sometimes.  The academic administrators who are complicit in it really must know how to "compartmentalize;" otherwise, how could they sleep or look themselves in the mirror?  Many other faculty members know of what I speak:  I've heard some say the same things.  What I don't understand, though, is why the ones who have tenure don't speak up about it.  In fact, most tenured faculty members I've seen don't speak up about much of anything. Maybe the ability to do so was beaten out of them.


But, as I said, I am thankful that I know what I've mentioned.  For one thing, it helps to make me all but immune, at this point in my life, to any sort of institutional loyalty, and helps me to remember why the only loyalties I want to have are those to people I love, to the truth and whatever moral values and principles I am learning from it.  Those things outlast institutions, anyway.


For another, knowing what I've learned has shown me the fallacy of "working within" for "change."  As long as you are working for someone (or some group of people,  which is what an institution is) whose motivation is money, there is simply no way to keep a job except to aid that end.  And, when you cooperate in such a way, they want more of the same.  That's how you end up teaching more students with fewer skills for less money (in real dollars, anyway) with each passing year.  And, to paraphrase someone who writes better than I ever could, if you're not stupid or full of yourself, you can't fail to see that it's not doing the students--or you--any good.   


If knowing what I've said in this post makes leads me not to love--or feel any loyalty to--any school or other institution, it makes me value education more than I ever did.  Real education, that is:  It's as much a survival skill as anything is.

5 comments:

  1. The schools are happy to suck on the federal student loan teat. Hell, I will not be surprised if they start enrolling cats and dogs who display some sort of skill.

    "Can your cat figure out that you are controlling the laser pointer? Yes. Let's enroll him in physics 110."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow. Great post, Dona. I have never worked in academics, but have had a corporate career, and the people in charge there are every bit as venal and arrogant and useless to the outside world as your college administrators. And just as in the academic realm, anyone trying to question the system or improve it from within is going to be "phased out" rather than appreciated for their efforts.

    Also, your comments about loyalty to institutions tie in with something that's been bothering me lately. People have way too much respect for institutions generally today.

    As an example, people trust governments or corporations to pay their pensions 20, 30, or 40 years from now (those lucky enough to have pensions, anyway.) But they would never accept a promise from an individual to pay part of their compensation over such a long time line. So if they don't trust individuals to that extent, why would they trust institutions-- which are, after all, made up of individuals? It doesn't make sense. I see it as a case of worshipping false Gods, as the Old Testament would put it. We've turned away from family and neighborhood ties, and loyalty to our principles and our God, and shifted our allegiance towards faceless institutions. And now we're paying the price.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting comments you made about ESL sudents: this does not only happen at the post-secondary level.

    Some 25 years ago, I went to a private school for high school. This school used to have very high academic standards and a good reputation.

    Alas, by the mid-1980s, the administration discovered how much extra tuition revenue could be generated by admitting students who did not speak/understand English. (Oddly, *I* had to pass a full battery of entrace exams, including an English competencey test, despite that being the only language that I then spoke/understood.)

    Needless to say, the fomerly high academic standards began to slide and the school's reputation went along with them. I am not longer a proud alumnus.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nando--I have two cats. I'm sure they'd have a better chance of passing some courses than some of my students. I say that, not out of disrespect for the students, but out of anger toward those who are stringing them along.

    Whittaker--You have encapsulated much of my thinking about society and economics. It's actually one of the reasons I'm looking to do other thing. I don't expect to retire because I can't think of any organization (whether a corporation, government or other entity) who will be around long enough for me to collect a pension.

    What I find interesting is that as people become more "educated" (i.e., spend more time in school and get more diplomas or degrees), they trust institutions more and have less meaningful relationships with individuals. I always expected the reverse--or, at least, for more educated people to be less trustful of institutions. Perhaps that is a result of having seen demonstrations against the Vietnam War and for Civil Rights when I was a child. Did I draw the wrong conclusions from them?

    7:51--Now there's a question for me to explore: Why do we have to prove our competence in our native language when people who don't speak it are given preference? You and I have already answered, at least in part, the second half of the question: Students who don't speak/understand English bring in more revenue. But why are native speakers penalized at the same time?

    This situation reminds me of something else I discovered when I was working with the Teachers and Writers program. Often, I did my workshops with Special Education students because the schools paid for programs like the one in which I worked with special education money. Those schools were, as often as not, in low-income areas where the kids' parents didn't speak English or there was some sort of dysfunction in the home. It's easier to get those kids classified as Special Ed, which brings in grant money (from governments and foundations, mainly) that teaching "normal" kids doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree that many institutions are driven by profit more than by the loftier goals of educating society, benefiting the students individually and collectively, etc. And of course, admitting international students who come from wealthy families yet who clearly don't have the capacity to participate well in the classroom indicates that money plays a big factor in deciding who gets a seat in the classroom.

    In the case of plagiarism, one cannot always fault the students, for corruption and cheating is so rampant in their respective societies that it is taken for granted.

    I am speaking from personal experience: during one particular year while teaching English overseas, I gave my students a writing assignment. From the number of mistakes their compositions had, I could tell that the majority of the class wrote original work, but there were a couple flawless hand-ins, and after typing a few words into Google I knew their sources.

    Students in this country, when asked to write something, often do plagiarize, sometimes because they or their families have the means to lessen the problems it might cause, or even clear the problem entirely off the record. And even more, often the teachers themselves do not realize that the composition is not original, because their control of the language is weak or they do not realize that the students could not ever write so well. (Or perhaps both.) So for me it is no surprise to hear internationals playing the same tricks stateside as they do back in their homelands.

    ReplyDelete