"Confessions of a <sciences> washout"

[David Warde-Farley]

For those of you who don't read Slashdot (and thos who do but missed it)
there's an interesting piece linked from there called "Confessions of an
Engineering Washout", written by an engineering student who caved under
the pressure and moved to the liberal arts where his friends were doing
much less work, getting better instruction, and generally having a
better time. He suggests that the at times daunting workload and poor
student experience can be blamed for the decreasing enrolment numbers in
engineering, specifically.

While I personally don't think UofT is anywhere near as bad as what this
guy is describing (even in Engineering), many of this guy's complaints
are very similar to experiences I've heard recounted to me by undergrads
in our own department. It's short and worth the read.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092105B.html

[Mike C]

Post by David Warde-Farley
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092105B.html

One thing I like about UofT CS, and I think that seperates us
'SmartyPants U' are the lecturers. Most professors are too busy with
their research to really care about anything undergraduate. Having staff
fully devoted to teaching makes for a better learning experience, I
don't think anyone really cares how many papers the person teaching them
has published, so long as they can communicate the material properly,
and don't answer their questions with smugness.

One course that comes to mind was ECE385, taught by the (in)famous
cyborg. His attitude toward the course material was bloody irritating.
He rarely spoke in class about material that might help us with the labs
or tests, it was almost as though explaining how to write a device
driver was beneath him. It might well be, but sometimes Professors like
this need to be reminded that undergraduate tuition is a funding source
for their research and is ultimately their paycheck.

All this in contrast to CS lecturers who I find to be enthusiastic about
the course material, and are usually available for discussion outside of
class/office hours.

[Tristan Miller]

Greetings.

Post by Mike C

Post by David Warde-Farley
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092105B.html

One thing I like about UofT CS, and I think that seperates us
'SmartyPants U' are the lecturers. Most professors are too busy with
their research to really care about anything undergraduate. Having staff
fully devoted to teaching makes for a better learning experience, I
don't think anyone really cares how many papers the person teaching them
has published, so long as they can communicate the material properly,
and don't answer their questions with smugness.
One course that comes to mind was ECE385, taught by the (in)famous
cyborg. His attitude toward the course material was bloody irritating.
He rarely spoke in class about material that might help us with the labs
or tests, it was almost as though explaining how to write a device
driver was beneath him. It might well be, but sometimes Professors like
this need to be reminded that undergraduate tuition is a funding source
for their research and is ultimately their paycheck.

Is it? Professors as famous as he probably pull in enough money from
government and other third-party research grants that they don't need to
resort to university funds at all. This might be one reason for their
cavalier attitude to teaching -- that is, they teach only because it's
part of their contract, not because it's a source of income. Or it could
simply be pedagogical incompetence. Remember that most people become
professors because they excel at research, not because they excel at
teaching.

Regards,
Tristan

[David Warde-Farley]

Post by Tristan Miller
Is it? Professors as famous as he probably pull in enough money from
government and other third-party research grants that they don't need to
resort to university funds at all.

His research is certainly interesting, but I really wonder if his
benefactors have ever had a sufficiently lengthy conversation with him...

Post by Tristan Miller
Remember that most people become
professors because they excel at research, not because they excel at
teaching.

That's addressed a couple of times in the original article, I think.
It's a problem. While there are professors who make a genuine effort to
teach well and improve their teaching (several of whom are recipients of
the CSSU Teaching Awards), it really is only a job requirement on paper.
The department has addressed this partially, as Mike noted, with
dedicated lecturers, and that decision is laudable; I don't know anyone
who I would trust to explain computability better than François Pitt.
But the fact remains that outstanding research will get a professor
tenure ten times quicker than teaching excellence, and I don't think
that's about to change any time soon.

[Andrew Park]

Post by Tristan Miller
Is it? Professors as famous as he probably pull in enough money from
government and other third-party research grants that they don't need to
resort to university funds at all.

His research is certainly interesting, but I really wonder if his benefactors
have ever had a sufficiently lengthy conversation with him...

They sure do. Prof. Mann has a great voice in his field. Believe or
not he is very much involved in the community (of his field). I've seen
him with his Ph.D. students, he is very personable and believe or not
have great passion for teaching.

He is just a different teacher from Dr. Francois Pitt who is first a
teacher and then a reseracher. If Dr. Pitt is interactive teacher, Dr.
Mann is non-interactive teacher, but certainly will provide the way and
the tools needed if one wishes to learn. Personally I learn better that
way, but I do realize that many others do not.

Post by Tristan Miller
Remember that most people become
professors because they excel at research, not because they excel at
teaching.

While this may be true, I thought engineering professor's salaries
are actually shifted based on students' feedback (as per my engineer
friend's testimony). So there is some level of motivation for them to
teach well. :)

Andrew Park

________________________________________________________________________
GnuPG Signature www.cdf.utoronto.ca/~apark/public_key.txt
________________________________________________________________________

[Mike C]

Post by Andrew Park
He is just a different teacher from Dr. Francois Pitt who is first a
teacher and then a reseracher. If Dr. Pitt is interactive teacher, Dr.
Mann is non-interactive teacher, but certainly will provide the way and
the tools needed if one wishes to learn. Personally I learn better that
way, but I do realize that many others do not.

A non-interactive teacher? Exactly what does that mean? If I take a job
and then tell my boss I'm going to be 'non-interactive' at it, I
wouldn't last very long. Starting now I'm going to be a non-interactive
student, I'm going to act like I'm better than undergraduate work and
not do anything. Hopefully people on newsgroups will defend my
ridiculous approach, I might even be lucky enough to draw a salary for
it one day.

You can use any term to describe it, the fact is that he has no respect
for undergraduates and altogether doesn't do his job (when it comes
teaching undergrad courses). I'm sure he's a genious, but he signed up
to be a professor, which by definition has a teaching component. If he
wants to do research only, fine, but then he shouldn't be at a University.

We have non-interactive teachers already, they're called textbooks. The
whole point of classes is to provide interactive learning. If you prefer
a lack of interaction, you are free to stay at home.

I'm reminded of when I go into coffee shops and there's an (obvious)
liberal arts major behind the counter. I get nothing but a sense of
apathy, I can almost see the words coming out of their mouths "I'm so
much better than this, I'm only here till i get my big break, I hate
having to serve you, you should be serving me."

[Andrew Park]

A non-interactive teacher? Exactly what does that mean? If I take a job and

It means someone who can create an environment where a person is free to
experiment, free to roam about the subject matter and taking sensible
approach may indeed get you a good grade. At the end of the course some
people with really creative mind got good grades. I, however, failed to
earn good mark because I missed a few quizzes and did miserably in our
final project due to missed objectives. But the argument being made
here is the fact that "teaching" is not necessarily in one form (guiding
students through knowledge and creating check points to see whehter
students digested the knowledge or not.) Creating an interesting learning
environment and giving stuents every chance to work away at a project
(but limiting the scope enough that the experiment will not broaden
beyond the scope of the course or student's capabilities) might get them
the knowledge that they never really expected. That's just different
type of teaching - and that is my argument.

Now you're arguing that perhaps it is not suited for University or as
your example indicates, a job situation (I may choose to disagree with
the latter but maybe not the former) and to that I say it is up to
students to figure out via the means of teacher feedback and by voicing
their opinions.

We have non-interactive teachers already, they're called textbooks. The whole

Sure, textbooks will be fine, but I definitely enjoy projects better.
And if someone wants to grant me incentive to do that (in terms of
providing valuable grades to fulfill my graduation requirement) that's
even better.

Andrew Park

________________________________________________________________________
GnuPG Signature www.cdf.utoronto.ca/~apark/public_key.txt
________________________________________________________________________

[Mike C]

Post by Andrew Park

A non-interactive teacher? Exactly what does that mean? If I take a job and

It means someone who can create an environment where a person is free to
experiment, free to roam about the subject matter and taking sensible
approach may indeed get you a good grade. At the end of the course some
people with really creative mind got good grades. I, however, failed to
earn good mark because I missed a few quizzes and did miserably in our
final project due to missed objectives. But the argument being made
here is the fact that "teaching" is not necessarily in one form (guiding
students through knowledge and creating check points to see whehter
students digested the knowledge or not.) Creating an interesting learning
environment and giving stuents every chance to work away at a project
(but limiting the scope enough that the experiment will not broaden
beyond the scope of the course or student's capabilities) might get them
the knowledge that they never really expected. That's just different
type of teaching - and that is my argument.

A lot more can be said about learning environment, and which is better
and what-not. I don't really want to get into this, my main issue with
this course, and the one that needs addressing is the vague expectations.

At the absolute very least I would like to know what I need to learn to
do well on the exam. Someone from this years class would be more
qualified to comment on the current state of things, for all I know it
might have improved. But he has tenure, so its probably worsened.

On a side note, check out www.funtain.ca, he makes 6 figures to play
with water toys. What a screwed up Universe.

[David Warde-Farley]

Post by Andrew Park
They sure do. Prof. Mann has a great voice in his field. Believe or
not he is very much involved in the community (of his field). I've seen
him with his Ph.D. students, he is very personable and believe or not
have great passion for teaching.

I was mostly referring to his inability to stay on topic. Even outside
of classroom situations he seems remarkably scatterbrained.

Post by Andrew Park
He is just a different teacher from Dr. Francois Pitt who is first a
teacher and then a reseracher. If Dr. Pitt is interactive teacher, Dr.
Mann is non-interactive teacher, but certainly will provide the way and
the tools needed if one wishes to learn. Personally I learn better that
way, but I do realize that many others do not.

I would think you would be in the slim minority of people who can learn
anything about ECE385's subject material from rants about "Free Source"
and Wikipedia.

[Andrew Park]

I was mostly referring to his inability to stay on topic. Even outside of
classroom situations he seems remarkably scatterbrained.

I understand where you are coming from. :) But borrowing from the
famous movie Shrek

"Ogres are like onions ... Onions have layers and Ogres have layers"

There is a depth of layers that one must go through to know any other
person. In case of Dr. Mann, such layer may be deeper than other people.

I had a chance to work with him since I wanted to work on some real
interesting projects. After the encounter, I have to somewhat disagree
with your statement. He is intelligent and will provide valuable input
to the topic that his Ph. D. students was raising and even when the
conversation had gotten lengthy, they conversed until a clear direction
was chosen. But again, I can understand where you are coming from
because the context in which you look at Dr. Mann is important. Once I
saw him at AC (Athletic Centre) and the conversations with him there was
completely different from my conversations with him in his lab.

I would think you would be in the slim minority of people who can learn
anything about ECE385's subject material from rants about "Free Source" and
Wikipedia.

Somehow... I feel good about this statment.. HAHAHA :) In any case, I
guess I am lucky. But I like to point out that many other fellows in
that class also showed much enjoyment and they evidenced it by walking
around like a cyborg (eye pieces that they created.. personally I would
not go that far, but people make different choices) :)

Andrew Park

________________________________________________________________________
GnuPG Signature www.cdf.utoronto.ca/~apark/public_key.txt
________________________________________________________________________

[g3parham]

Here's another good one from Slashdot I had bookmarked...

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/23/2051220&tid=146&tid
=156

Post by David Warde-Farley
For those of you who don't read Slashdot (and thos who do but missed it)
there's an interesting piece linked from there called "Confessions of an
Engineering Washout", written by an engineering student who caved under
the pressure and moved to the liberal arts where his friends were doing
much less work, getting better instruction, and generally having a
better time. He suggests that the at times daunting workload and poor
student experience can be blamed for the decreasing enrolment numbers in
engineering, specifically.
While I personally don't think UofT is anywhere near as bad as what this
guy is describing (even in Engineering), many of this guy's complaints
are very similar to experiences I've heard recounted to me by undergrads
in our own department. It's short and worth the read.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092105B.html
--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Henry Zaccak]

Post by David Warde-Farley
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092105B.html

This just summed up my 3 of my 4 years of University...hahah

I remember taking CSC165 for fun when it was the first time ever
offered.... what a mistake. Class averages were always in the 30-40%
and they final course average was a D- (and thats after numerous
increases to peoples marks).

Ohh this also reminds me of all the TA's I had that couldnt speak
English. I think the CS dept. has filter them out to non-personal
contact with students... but other depts have not yet.

All my friends in Arts have now graduated while about 80% the people I
know in science and Eng. take an extra year and about 50% of those take
more then just 5 years. (I'm not including PEY in this)

Thanks for a good read.

Cheers,
Henry

[David Warde-Farley]

Post by Henry Zaccak
I remember taking CSC165 for fun when it was the first time ever
offered.... what a mistake. Class averages were always in the 30-40%
and they final course average was a D- (and thats after numerous
increases to peoples marks).

When a class average is that low in a sufficiently large class, I think
it's safe to say that the students _aren't_ the problem. A friend of
mine took MAT135 this summer when it was administered and taught by
several incompetent grad students (one of whom had a tenuous grasp of
the English language on top of being a completely ineffective instructor
-- I witnessed this firsthand). The test averages were consistently
between 35% and 45% and the final course average (after applying the
minimum amount of adjustment possible, I'm assuming) was a D+. I'm
guessing that almost half the class failed; some of the material they
were presenting on tests were things that MAT137 students would cringe at.

Post by Henry Zaccak
Ohh this also reminds me of all the TA's I had that couldnt speak
English. I think the CS dept. has filter them out to non-personal
contact with students... but other depts have not yet.

They haven't as of last year. Probably because of union guarantees, mostly.

Post by Henry Zaccak
All my friends in Arts have now graduated while about 80% the people I
know in science and Eng. take an extra year and about 50% of those take
more then just 5 years. (I'm not including PEY in this)

Ah, UofT. Home of the victory lap.

[Mike Guerzhoy]

Post by David Warde-Farley
For those of you who don't read Slashdot (and thos who do but missed it)
there's an interesting piece linked from there called "Confessions of an
Engineering Washout", written by an engineering student who caved under
the pressure and moved to the liberal arts where his friends were doing
much less work, getting better instruction, and generally having a
better time. He suggests that the at times daunting workload and poor
student experience can be blamed for the decreasing enrolment numbers in
engineering, specifically.
While I personally don't think UofT is anywhere near as bad as what this
guy is describing (even in Engineering), many of this guy's complaints
are very similar to experiences I've heard recounted to me by undergrads
in our own department. It's short and worth the read.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092105B.html

I don't know. From all the CS courses I've taken only two were clearly
bad. It's true some TAs are better than others, but what can you do,
except maybe skip the tutorials.

The rest of the article ... if you 1)have no interest in engineering
2)are irritated by chemistry experiments 3)can party for four years in
college an then become an investment banker and make lots of money, you
should take a lot less than a semester and a couple of weeks to
understand that maybe taking engineering isn't a good idea for you. I'm
just saing.

[Viv]

Post by David Warde-Farley
For those of you who don't read Slashdot (and thos who do but missed it)
there's an interesting piece linked from there called "Confessions of an
Engineering Washout", written by an engineering student who caved under
the pressure and moved to the liberal arts where his friends were doing
much less work, getting better instruction, and generally having a
better time. He suggests that the at times daunting workload and poor
student experience can be blamed for the decreasing enrolment numbers in
engineering, specifically.
While I personally don't think UofT is anywhere near as bad as what this
guy is describing (even in Engineering), many of this guy's complaints
are very similar to experiences I've heard recounted to me by undergrads
in our own department. It's short and worth the read.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092105B.html

Another interesting piece on US universities.

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/051010crat_atlarge