Regarding NYU chemistry prof’s firing after complaints about grades

[Stevicus]

NYU professor fired after students complained about grades is as bad as it sounds (nbcnews.com)

Quite a number of issues being raised in this article. A widely respected organic chemistry prof at NYU was fired after 82 of his 350 students signed a petition complaining about his class. Among the complaints were that the course was too difficult, the professor had a condescending tone, and there was a lack of extra credit opportunities. There was a high percentage of students withdrawing from the course, and a high percentage with low grades, reflecting the professor's alleged failure to “to make students’ learning and well-being a priority.”

Universities have taught students that they are paying customers, and as everyone knows, the customer is always right.

When I found out that Maitland Jones Jr., a widely respected New York University organic chemistry professor, had been dismissed from his position after 82 of his 350 students signed a petition complaining about his class, I empathized with him. Teaching at all levels is a complicated job. The law of averages dictates that some of Jones’ students were bound to emerge from his course displeased with their experience.

According to this dissatisfied contingent, the course was too difficult and the professor aggravated these difficulties in several ways, from his condescending tone to the lack of extra credit opportunities. The petition reportedly stated that a large number withdrew from the course and a high percentage received low grades, all of which, the petition said, reflected Jones’ failure “to make students’ learning and well-being a priority.”

Of course, there are two sides to this story. Jones has denied the accusations, and there are surely details and nuances we can’t know just from reading about it in the news. But we do know that broader circumstances undergird this particular campus controversy, chief among them the pandemic’s viselike grip on students’ mental health. Yet an older problem — nearly half a century in the making — is likely contributing to the battle between Jones and some of his students, battles echoing in classrooms across the country.


The commodification of education, or the idea that schools are marketplaces and students are paying customers, has infected schools from the kindergarten to the collegiate levels. If a credentialed, published and award-winning teacher with an international reputation as an expert chemist can, despite faculty and student support, be terminated over a relatively small handful of student complaints about grades, there is very little hope for the future of teachers, students and education.

I can’t pretend to know what went on in the science course that inspired so much ire. But as a college professor in a different field, I’ve certainly been on the receiving end of complaints about grades. And so have many, many of my colleagues.

In a typical example, one student I had approached me at the end of the semester to tell me why he deserved an A when, mathematically, his grades had produced a B. He pointed out that his friend in the course had received an A, and he felt he deserved one, too. In declining the student’s request, I was helped by having no reason to think my bosses would side with him.

I actually think it’s great when students advocate for themselves. And I certainly don’t blame my students for contesting their grades, even when their requests aren’t grounded in reality. After all, their universities have, in fact, taught them that they and their families are paying customers, and as everyone knows, the customer is always right.

When education is viewed as a commodity instead of a set of skills that must be earned and practiced to allow one to perform a certain job, since knowledge can’t be bought, it makes sense that some students feel entitled to dictate the outcomes of their experiences.

Over my 17 years as an educator, I’ve seen parents and students threaten faculty members and administrators with their tuition dollars over an array of perceived infractions, including policies as basic as expectations for attendance. Some students who fail their programs still believe that they should graduate with their degrees of choice. The expectation is that they will get exactly what they want — after all, they paid for it.

In this context, it also makes sense that administrators might fire a professor when a subset of students raises a stink. With an unprecedented decline in student enrollments, there’s a fragile bottom line to protect.

There’s no way to know whether the complaints against Jones are legitimate. The law of averages also dictates that at least a few of his students were right to complain. Students should ask questions if something about what’s going on in the classroom is off. Students should protest when they experience academic inequities or abusive faculty members.

But treating education as a product to be bought and consumed is another thing entirely. The Atlantic pointed to U.S. News & World Report’s launch of college rankings in 1983 as having created an environment in which institutions “compete to convince the best students to buy their product.” Over the same time, skyrocketing tuition means the cost and value of higher education have come to the forefront of parents’ and students’ minds.

So we also need to look at the broader institution. Did the chemistry department proceed as though nothing had changed across the past two years? Would it have made sense to offer this course at a different time or with newly erected safeguards to ensure student success in the current climate, such as more prerequisites?

...

Professors as well as students are living in a post-pandemic reality that we’re still clumsily navigating. But university administrators need to start by recognizing the purpose of their programs and faculties. Faculty members aren’t commodities, and programs aren’t products. Education isn’t a raw material with a return policy.

Some points raised in this article relate to the pandemic and the effects it has had on education, but it seems the key point is the commodification of education in that students and parents are shelling out big bucks for an education and don't believe they're getting their money's worth.

Regarding the financial aspects, it appears that the cost of tuition has risen at a rate far greater than that of inflation: 1970 vs. 2020: How working through college has changed - Intelligent

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 1970-71 academic year, the average in-state tuition and fees for one year at a public non-profit university was $394. By the 2020-21 academic year, that amount jumped to $10,560, an increase of 2,580%.

During the same period, tuition and fees at private institutions jumped by a similarly astronomical 2,107%, from $1,706 in 1970, to $37,650 in 2020. Between 1970 and 2020, the dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.87% annually, resulting in a cumulative price increase of about 567% during the last 50 years.

The trouble is, the rise in income—particularly minimum wage—hasn’t even come close to keeping pace with the increase in college tuition.

Between 1970 and 2020, the federal minimum wage rose from $1.60 per hour to $7.25 per hour, representing a more modest increase of 353%.

So, by charging more money for tuition, the colleges and universities are sending the message that they believe the quality has improved far more than what one would expect 50 years ago. They're also saying that a college degree is worth more now than it was 50 years ago.

Of course, back in 1970, only about half of the population had just a high school diploma, compared to 90% today. (Percentage of U.S. population who have completed high school 1960-2021 | Statista)

Only about 10% of the population had a college degree in 1970, as opposed to 37.5% in 2020 (Educational attainment in the U.S. 1960-2021 | Statista).

The article here also mentions an unprecedented decline in student enrollments, so we see the supply has gone up, and the demand seems to be going down.

Is the price of tuition even worth what one gets in return, even assuming a student works hard and gets good grades?

We've all heard the old trope about people spending loads of money to gain an art history degree, only to end up working as a barista at Starbucks. Should they be given their money back? At the very least, perhaps colleges should be required to warn students if they're taking a useless degree.

50 years ago, just having a college degree itself was considered an accomplishment worthy of gainful employment at an administrative/executive level - even if it was in a useless field like art history.

Have the standards for college admission become too lax? Is there an incentive for colleges to let in marginal students just to take their money? Doesn't this compromise academic integrity and ethics?

And what about this professor and the students complaining about their grades?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't know enough about this specific professor's case to form an opinion on it, but generally, almost every classmate I had in college agreed that a condescending or hostile tone from a professor was alienating, unhelpful, and not conducive to a good learning environment. If almost a quarter of a class file a petition to complain about a professor, then chances are that there's a flaw with the way he teaches or that, at the very least, he and his students are incompatible in an academic environment.

One of the things I have come to believe is that teaching is almost as much about social interaction and being able to reach students as it is about having sufficient knowledge. Some of the best scientists in the world are also poor educators, so they would make bad professors. There have been some debates about the inability of a lot of academic writing to effectively relay knowledge, too, which further highlights that being knowledgeable doesn't always mean being good at teaching or explaining academic material.

 

[The Hammer]

And what about this professor and the students complaining about their grades?

Skipping everything else.

What I was told when being taught to be an instructor in the military, was that if too many students are failing tests, or failing out of your class. Than that is a failure on you as a professor/instructor to make the subject matter clear enough, or made the tests too hard.

There has to be a balance struck between difficulty, and student ability.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't know enough about this specific professor's case to form an opinion on it, but generally, almost every classmate I had in college agreed that a condescending or hostile tone from a professor was alienating, unhelpful, and not conducive to a good learning environment. If almost a quarter of a class file a petition to complain about a professor, then chances are that there's a flaw with the way he teaches or that, at the very least, he and his students are incompatible in an academic environment.

One of the things I have come to believe is that teaching is almost as much about social interaction and being able to reach students as it is about having sufficient knowledge. Some of the best scientists in the world are also poor educators, so they would make bad professors. There have been some debates about the inability of a lot of academic writing to effectively relay knowledge, too, which further highlights that being knowledgeable doesn't always mean being good at teaching or explaining academic material.

I think of some professors such as John Houseman's character of Professor Kingsfield in "The Paper Chase" (both movie and TV series). The idea of a tough but fair professor molding young minds, even if it means dressing them down a bit or deflating their egos, it's supposedly meant for their own betterment. Or at least, that was the philosophy at work.

I agree that some professors may be brilliant in their field, but perhaps not too good at teaching or imparting their knowledge. Or they might be better if they taught small graduate seminars as opposed to introductory undergrad courses with 350 students. I would also wonder if there were any teaching assistants or tutoring services available.

 

[Estro Felino]

In other words, in the seventies university was affordable and now has turned into something for the wealthy?

So the university in the United States is about elitist people complaining about professors who are trying to teach them something.

Because in many European countries University is gratis and is based upon merit. Not upon money.

 

[exchemist]

NYU professor fired after students complained about grades is as bad as it sounds (nbcnews.com)

Quite a number of issues being raised in this article. A widely respected organic chemistry prof at NYU was fired after 82 of his 350 students signed a petition complaining about his class. Among the complaints were that the course was too difficult, the professor had a condescending tone, and there was a lack of extra credit opportunities. There was a high percentage of students withdrawing from the course, and a high percentage with low grades, reflecting the professor's alleged failure to “to make students’ learning and well-being a priority.”















Some points raised in this article relate to the pandemic and the effects it has had on education, but it seems the key point is the commodification of education in that students and parents are shelling out big bucks for an education and don't believe they're getting their money's worth.

Regarding the financial aspects, it appears that the cost of tuition has risen at a rate far greater than that of inflation: 1970 vs. 2020: How working through college has changed - Intelligent



View attachment 67344

So, by charging more money for tuition, the colleges and universities are sending the message that they believe the quality has improved far more than what one would expect 50 years ago. They're also saying that a college degree is worth more now than it was 50 years ago.

Of course, back in 1970, only about half of the population had just a high school diploma, compared to 90% today. (Percentage of U.S. population who have completed high school 1960-2021 | Statista)

Only about 10% of the population had a college degree in 1970, as opposed to 37.5% in 2020 (Educational attainment in the U.S. 1960-2021 | Statista).

The article here also mentions an unprecedented decline in student enrollments, so we see the supply has gone up, and the demand seems to be going down.

Is the price of tuition even worth what one gets in return, even assuming a student works hard and gets good grades?

We've all heard the old trope about people spending loads of money to gain an art history degree, only to end up working as a barista at Starbucks. Should they be given their money back? At the very least, perhaps colleges should be required to warn students if they're taking a useless degree.

50 years ago, just having a college degree itself was considered an accomplishment worthy of gainful employment at an administrative/executive level - even if it was in a useless field like art history.

Have the standards for college admission become too lax? Is there an incentive for colleges to let in marginal students just to take their money? Doesn't this compromise academic integrity and ethics?

And what about this professor and the students complaining about their grades?

It all depends whether you think a university exists to teach children (a school, basically) or to develop knowledge for humanity. When I went to university it was definitely the latter. The lecturers were researchers who devoted part of their time to passing on their knowledge. It was up to us, the students, to get as much as we could out of them. There was no expectation that they were trained professional teachers. Some were good lecturers and some were not. Some were friendly tutors and some made you feel an idiot. In fact, some of the latter, though demanding, were actually the people from whom one could learn the most, if one could take the pressure. It was a university, dammit, and we were supposed to be grown men and women. I vividly remember the shock of my first term, discovering I was in a different league and having to scramble to stay with the pace.

But I think I read that this guy is in his eighties and probably doesn't care much about style. In fact one issue seems to be that many of the people taking his course were medics, who wanted to just tick the box for organic chemistry and were pretty slack as students, hence all the whining about bad grades. He probably sensed this and rather despised them, as they weren't really interested in his subject.

 

[Stevicus]

In other words, in the seventies university was affordable and now has turned into something for the wealthy?

So the university in the United States is about elitist people complaining about professors who are trying to teach them something.

Because in many European countries University is gratis and is based upon merit. Not upon money.

They're not always wealthy, as many might get loans or other forms of financial aid. The university doesn't care where they get the money from, just as long as they get it. Then the students get saddled with huge debts guaranteed by the government, though the recent student loan forgiveness program did raise some hackles.

Some states are better than others, at least in terms of in-state tuition at public universities. Private universities can be more selective and more expensive.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think of some professors such as John Houseman's character of Professor Kingsfield in "The Paper Chase" (both movie and TV series). The idea of a tough but fair professor molding young minds, even if it means dressing them down a bit or deflating their egos, it's supposedly meant for their own betterment. Or at least, that was the philosophy at work.

I agree that some professors may be brilliant in their field, but perhaps not too good at teaching or imparting their knowledge. Or they might be better if they taught small graduate seminars as opposed to introductory undergrad courses with 350 students. I would also wonder if there were any teaching assistants or tutoring services available.

I had a few really harsh professors at university, and they were all former generals in the military. Their military MO transferred directly to their teaching methods, and while they were quite strict, I never felt they were unfair or rude. They were more like a tough father figure than a vindictive or condescending authority figure. None of them ever had enough problems with students to be petitioned against or the like.

On the other hand, there was a professor who, despite being lenient with grades, was vulgar, rude, and uninterested in passing his knowledge so much as jotting it down on a whiteboard and yelling at anyone who didn't abide his vulgarity. He had to resign due to the sheer amount of student complaints against him.

Harshness by itself isn't necessarily a hindrance to education, in my opinion. In some cultures, it's even a way to show encouragement in a lot of situations. But harshness that becomes discouraging and poisons the academic setting or otherwise becomes detrimental to learning is when problems start to happen.

 

[Stevicus]

It all depends whether you think a university exists to teach children (a school, basically) or to develop knowledge for humanity. When I went to university it was definitely the latter. The lecturers were researchers who devoted part of their time to passing on their knowledge. It was up to us, the students, to get as much as we could out of them. There was no expectation that they were trained professional teachers. Some were good lecturers and some were not. Some were friendly tutors and some made you feel an idiot. In fact, some of the latter, though demanding, were actually the people from whom one could learn the most, if one could take the pressure. It was a university, dammit, and we were supposed to be grown men and women. I vividly remember the shock of my first term, discovering I was in a different league and having to scramble to stay with the pace.

But I think I read that this guy is in his eighties and probably doesn't care much about stye. In fact one issue seems to be that many of the people taking his course were medics, who wanted to just tick the box for organic chemistry and were pretty slack as students, hence all the whining about bad grades. He probably sensed this and rather despised them, as they weren't really interested in his subject.

I think that's part of what may be at issue, at least in terms of conflicting ideas about the goals of education, whether it's to teach children or to develop knowledge for humanity. I think much of our culture is very money, business, and career-oriented, where kids are encouraged decide what they want to be and then embark on a course of study directed towards that goal. The process itself seems more of an afterthought from that perspective.

Are many of them even there to learn about humanity or to gain knowledge just for knowledge's sake? Or are they just there to gain job skills in the hope that it will get them a better-paying job when it's over? Have universities turned into glorified trade schools rather than what they might have been originally intended to be?

 

[exchemist]

I think that's part of what may be at issue, at least in terms of conflicting ideas about the goals of education, whether it's to teach children or to develop knowledge for humanity. I think much of our culture is very money, business, and career-oriented, where kids are encouraged decide what they want to be and then embark on a course of study directed towards that goal. The process itself seems more of an afterthought from that perspective.

Are many of them even there to learn about humanity or to gain knowledge just for knowledge's sake? Or are they just there to gain job skills in the hope that it will get them a better-paying job when it's over? Have universities turned into glorified trade schools rather than what they might have been originally intended to be?

Exactly. Of course when you pay so much, you expect to be treated like a customer. Whereas when I went, the state paid the tuition (in those days only 25% of people went on to university.) And the world in general was less commercial. So expectations were rather different.

 

[QuestioningMind]

NYU professor fired after students complained about grades is as bad as it sounds (nbcnews.com)

Quite a number of issues being raised in this article. A widely respected organic chemistry prof at NYU was fired after 82 of his 350 students signed a petition complaining about his class. Among the complaints were that the course was too difficult, the professor had a condescending tone, and there was a lack of extra credit opportunities. There was a high percentage of students withdrawing from the course, and a high percentage with low grades, reflecting the professor's alleged failure to “to make students’ learning and well-being a priority.”















Some points raised in this article relate to the pandemic and the effects it has had on education, but it seems the key point is the commodification of education in that students and parents are shelling out big bucks for an education and don't believe they're getting their money's worth.

Regarding the financial aspects, it appears that the cost of tuition has risen at a rate far greater than that of inflation: 1970 vs. 2020: How working through college has changed - Intelligent



View attachment 67344

So, by charging more money for tuition, the colleges and universities are sending the message that they believe the quality has improved far more than what one would expect 50 years ago. They're also saying that a college degree is worth more now than it was 50 years ago.

Of course, back in 1970, only about half of the population had just a high school diploma, compared to 90% today. (Percentage of U.S. population who have completed high school 1960-2021 | Statista)

Only about 10% of the population had a college degree in 1970, as opposed to 37.5% in 2020 (Educational attainment in the U.S. 1960-2021 | Statista).

The article here also mentions an unprecedented decline in student enrollments, so we see the supply has gone up, and the demand seems to be going down.

Is the price of tuition even worth what one gets in return, even assuming a student works hard and gets good grades?

We've all heard the old trope about people spending loads of money to gain an art history degree, only to end up working as a barista at Starbucks. Should they be given their money back? At the very least, perhaps colleges should be required to warn students if they're taking a useless degree.

50 years ago, just having a college degree itself was considered an accomplishment worthy of gainful employment at an administrative/executive level - even if it was in a useless field like art history.

Have the standards for college admission become too lax? Is there an incentive for colleges to let in marginal students just to take their money? Doesn't this compromise academic integrity and ethics?

And what about this professor and the students complaining about their grades?

The man may be a genius chemist, but that doesn't necessarily translate into him being a good teacher. A teacher has to do more than simply regurgitate information. A teacher needs to recognize that students learn in different ways and that a one-size-fits-all method isn't sufficient, especially if people are spending huge amounts of money for an education.

It's common for a certain percentage of lazy students to complain that it was the teacher who didn't do enough to effectively teach the class, but when close to 25% of students make the claim it sounds like there might be a genuine issue. People learn by asking questions and if a teacher is condescending every time a person asks a question, people fail to ask and fail to learn.

 

[Twilight Hue]

NYU professor fired after students complained about grades is as bad as it sounds (nbcnews.com)

Quite a number of issues being raised in this article. A widely respected organic chemistry prof at NYU was fired after 82 of his 350 students signed a petition complaining about his class. Among the complaints were that the course was too difficult, the professor had a condescending tone, and there was a lack of extra credit opportunities. There was a high percentage of students withdrawing from the course, and a high percentage with low grades, reflecting the professor's alleged failure to “to make students’ learning and well-being a priority.”















Some points raised in this article relate to the pandemic and the effects it has had on education, but it seems the key point is the commodification of education in that students and parents are shelling out big bucks for an education and don't believe they're getting their money's worth.

Regarding the financial aspects, it appears that the cost of tuition has risen at a rate far greater than that of inflation: 1970 vs. 2020: How working through college has changed - Intelligent



View attachment 67344

So, by charging more money for tuition, the colleges and universities are sending the message that they believe the quality has improved far more than what one would expect 50 years ago. They're also saying that a college degree is worth more now than it was 50 years ago.

Of course, back in 1970, only about half of the population had just a high school diploma, compared to 90% today. (Percentage of U.S. population who have completed high school 1960-2021 | Statista)

Only about 10% of the population had a college degree in 1970, as opposed to 37.5% in 2020 (Educational attainment in the U.S. 1960-2021 | Statista).

The article here also mentions an unprecedented decline in student enrollments, so we see the supply has gone up, and the demand seems to be going down.

Is the price of tuition even worth what one gets in return, even assuming a student works hard and gets good grades?

We've all heard the old trope about people spending loads of money to gain an art history degree, only to end up working as a barista at Starbucks. Should they be given their money back? At the very least, perhaps colleges should be required to warn students if they're taking a useless degree.

50 years ago, just having a college degree itself was considered an accomplishment worthy of gainful employment at an administrative/executive level - even if it was in a useless field like art history.

Have the standards for college admission become too lax? Is there an incentive for colleges to let in marginal students just to take their money? Doesn't this compromise academic integrity and ethics?

And what about this professor and the students complaining about their grades?

Maybe the professor is a stout perfectionist , only wanting to see the creme ala the creme come out of his class.

At the end of the day, it's the quality and not the quantity that is important for the best graduates.

 

[Stevicus]

The man may be a genius chemist, but that doesn't necessarily translate into him being a good teacher. A teacher has to do more than simply regurgitate information. A teacher needs to recognize that students learn in different ways and that a one-size-fits-all method isn't sufficient, especially if people are spending huge amounts of money for an education.

It's common for a certain percentage of lazy students to complain that it was the teacher who didn't do enough to effectively teach the class, but when close to 25% of students make the claim it sounds like there might be a genuine issue. People learn by asking questions and if a teacher is condescending every time a person asks a question, people fail to ask and fail to learn.

It's hard to tell, depending on what class it is and what the prerequisites are. Some of it may also depend on how much education a student has prior to taking the class. Students from inner city schools might be at a disadvantage compared to those who went to suburban private schools. That wouldn't necessarily be the students' fault, but it wouldn't be the professor's fault either. But part of the tuition bill would also include advisors, counselors, tutors, and other resources to help students succeed. So, this could just as much an institutional failure as much as anything else.