College professor: "Hey idiots, I quit."

you will feel peace. I have done the same thing- not from a well-paying job, but from a job i felt to be morally bankrupt- I was dealing with people on public assistance. My director was shocked- but supportive- took me a while, but I found another job- stayed at the other one until I was hired- 8 kids, disabled husband, had to go it slow- but what a feeling. I'm going without health care for 3 months, but I feel like I have the courage of my convictions. As my kids say, Rock on!

What a self-important a$$hole. Boohoo! Poor me; some of my colleagues are jerks and some of my students are unfit! By that logic, everyone should quit their jobs.

Sorry, P, but the view -- accurate if unconfirmed by objective measurement -- is that most of his colleagues are jerks and nearly all of his students are unfit.

Self-important, perhaps. Sometimes walking away is the only ethical action.

Color me overly cynical, but I long ago gave up on the idea of finding a job that I loved, or finding fulfillment through my work. Whatever idealism I might've had about employment was burned away by the Corps. I don't have the best job in the world, but it pays decently, has decent hours & benefits, & doesn't stress/burn me out too much. That's good enough for me.

As for higher education...I saw some of what "John Smith" describes, but it wasn't the dominant theme of my college experience. Perhaps this is 'cuz I majored in a technical discipline rather than liberal arts. Or perhaps my college was overly stodgy.

"Many of my colleagues think of the day they receive tenure as the last official day they have to produce research. They consider research as a burden, not as a labor of love that complements teaching."

Well, the reason for that is that most institutions -- lib arts schools, not just research universities -- expect a lot of publishing. It's largely about the length of one's CV (academic speak for "resume"; CV = "curriculum vitae," "course of one's life"), and then perhaps the quality of those publications. Teaching really is secondary, committee service way third and mentoring is unquantifiable.

So my friends in academia and I try to publish anything and everything any journal or publishing house will take (of which there are too many), and so scholarship is not a joy and neither is most of it really advancing knowledge. It's about filling some (usually but not always) unstated quota. Because it's so easy to publish, much publishing is expected of all. Because it's easy to quantify publications, publications become an easy measure of achievement and thus important. (Were I king, no one from any departments of science or math would EVER sit on tenure review committees.)

So yes, we make jokes about never writing again once we get tenure (although few of us will or do follow through on that). The truth is, by the time we're tenured we've published as much as most scholars of a generation ago did in their entire lifetimes -- except that with the pressure were under, we've done it by age 35 or so and little of it is worth reading. The books and the articles in journals are tucked safely away in a few libraries here and there, never really to be perused again, but it's on the list, and it looks like an accomplishment. You're not really writing for your peers to increase and develop knowledge in your discipline; you're showing your peers in your field that you put something together good enough to impress two anonymous peer reviewers, likely the only ones who will ever read it.

The real problem is that the entire liberal arts curriculum was never meant as a generic foundation for more detailed learning. Nor was it meant to be a 'forum for the exchange of ideas.' It was simply a way to keep aristocrats mentally busy so they wouldn't turn into privileged degenerates.

The kids who have specific talents (engineering, auto mechanics, medicine, music) should begin their specialized training at age 14, so they can finish by age 25 instead of 35 or 40. Kids who don't show specific talents should just start work at age 14, from which they can find their specific talents by experience and experiment.

I have a friend who teaches at a large University in North Texas, but I won't name which one. He often talks of life as a professor, and from what he's told me, he could have written this. So, say what you will about the author of this letter, but he's expressing truth. He even has experienced Andy's "Do I have to know this for the final?" moment, many times.

"It was simply a way to keep aristocrats mentally busy so they wouldn't turn into privileged degenerates."

Uh...not quite.

and then to have some kid in the back raise his hand and ask, 'Do we have to know this for the final?'

I know the feeling, and it reminds me of something I read years ago:

Then Jesus took His disciples up the mountain, and gathering them around Him, He taught them saying:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are the meek.

Blessed are they that mourn.

Blessed are the merciful.

Blessed are the they who search for justice.

Blessed are you who suffer.

Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is great in heaven.

Remember what I am telling you."

Then Simon Peter said, "Do we have to write this down?"

And Andrew said, "Are we supposed to know this stuff?"

And James said, "Will we have a test on it?"

And Phillip said, "Can I borrow a pencil?"

And Bartholomew said, "Do we have to turn this in?"

And John said, "The other disciples didn't have to learn this!"

And Matthew said, "When do we get out of here?"

And Judas said, "What does this have to do with the real world?"

And the other disciples likewise.

Then one of the pharisees who were present asked to see Jesus' lesson plan and inquired of Jesus His terminal objectives in the cognitive domain.

And Jesus wept...

If ill-prepared students show up your classroom you have two options:

1) Get all condescending and annoyed at having to teach such ignoramus barbarians

2) Try to teach them what they CAN actually learn, even though you can't get them anywhere even close to the level of understanding you want them to have, and you probably won't ever get them to share your respect for an intellectual life.

I would suggest that this professor try a job at an urban commuter campus before he jumps to conclusions about the root of the problems he's encountering. He will find his non-privileged, non-coddled students just as grade-obsessed, just as ill-prepared and just as impatient with the life of the mind as his liberal arts kiddies, but for entirely different reasons.

The best lie includes enough truth that the falsehood will be swallowed whole. This professor's complaint meets that test.

I have many friends who pursued a career in academia. There thinking was that there is too much kissing up and politics in business, and then they find out there is just as much on college campuses. I do not know this man, and I guess I think what he did took guts. But his kind of idealism is better suited to a college campus than it is to the business world. It is a lot easier to be impractical on a college campus than in an office. My two cents.

I teach at a campus in way south Texas and find that most of my students are first-generation college students. Most of them want to be there. Of course, many of them are lazy because they had poor study skills from high school. Also, many of them are juggling a lot of stuff that the coddled set doesn't: children, illnesses of parents and grandparents (where they are the caregivers), full-time jobs and sharing transportation with other family members.

I get really frustrated when they don't know simple things such as how to use articles (a, an, the) or prepositions. But then I realize that many of them grew up in bilingual homes and understand where the confusion comes from. So, I set aside a day to explain this stuff, if it is a problem, and it seems to help.

I have great, supportive colleagues and love what I do.

But maybe my happiness stems from this being my second career. In 2001, I left my job as a journalist (where I made very good money), went to grad school and lived like a student (at age 40), all so I could teach at the college level.

I can understand that writer's frustration, but I truly see myself as staying here until I retire (hopefully by age 65) and hope to continue inspiring young people.

I think it's a gift to be able to switch careers. It's risky, but ultimately a wonderful thing.

(BTW, hi Rod, it's Donna, your former co-worker from South Florida. ;) )

I didn't have the learning skills to make it through College, I regret that I was unable to even survive one year. i was a disappointment to my family (all my siblings got degrees). What is sad is the fact that the professor gave up!

I tried my best, I failed. If I went to school today I would still fail. But it doesn't mean that I am stupid or lazy. Some of us just can't make it through the stress of College.

I think the professor is lazy, not brave. I couldn't hold up with a minimal unit load of six. My son held up with a unit load of 10 and worked full time. My daughter is the same as me and chose work over school because of the stress. If the professor would think of all the kids who want to learn instead of his own ego, maybe he would have seen that the need to t4each is as great as the need to learn.

This line "I teach high school. I know exactly what he's talking about. The kids are lazy and want something for nothing. " has me totally POd.

When our daughter was in high school she had one tough semester in algebra and had to take a summer school class to catch back up. She took the class at the nearest public high school. First day of class the teacher came in late and said to the kids pretty exactly what Robin writes above. Our daughter was stunned. Here she was with a full-time summer job taking summer school in the mornings, an honors student in every other subject, and she's being told she's lazy by a teacher who doesn't know her from Adam. A teacher like Robin. The other kids in her class took it in stride, they'd already been beaten into submission by teachers like this clown.

Now I'm very proud of my daughter's achievements. High-school graduate with honors, passed 3 AP exams on her way into college. BA in philosophy, 2 years in Peace Corps, MA in International Relations, speaks three languages fluently, three more proficiently. The difference between her and those other kids in summer school: NOTHING.

So Robin get out. Get out now. Whether explicit or not your attitude is poisoning you and your students. You're teaching your students to hate learning as much as you distain them. You're teaching your kids that educated people are bitter and resentful. Get out now before you do any more damage to yourself or your students.

Connie: It depends on what your children will be getting out of college.

If you are looking for a real lib. education, there's St. John's College and a host of small Catholic schools.

Who knows, 5-10 years down the road, the need for a college education may become much less.

Professor Smith should try being an above average student these days. While it is not my intention to be a braggard, my wife and I were both labeled as, "curve busters" while pursuing our undergraduate degrees.

My wife was an Accounting and Finance major, so most of her examinations were in the form of simulated problems that required both calculation and analysis. As she got into the upper level courses, it got to the point that a group of students went to the division chair and asked that my wife's test scores be excluded from the grading pool.

I, on the other hand, majored in History and Political Science. The faculty in my departments had agreed that all examinations would be in the form of written essays. I was repeatedly called out by other students because I would turn in ten to fifteen pages per assignment, compared with the class average of three pages. One day I stopped by a proffessor's office to discuss an assignment, and he said, "you will not believe what I was just asked to do by one of your classmates. I was asked if I would consider not comparing all the other papers to your's when assigning grades."

As I said before, it is not my intention to brag, or to imply that either my wife or I are somehow super intelligent. I don't think we are. And as you can tell from some of the forced grammar and unusual syntactical form in this post, my writing is by no means first class.

I can also relate to professor Smith's contention that many students are brain washed when it comes to politics; although, I have to say that the condition is not unique to liberals.

I decided, after a couple of years in the, "real world" that I wanted to go to law school. I wasn't interested in working for a large firm, so I applied and was accepted at a local state school. However, I didn't make it through the first semester, primarily becuase I grew tired of being lectured to by twenty one year old kids of both political persausions who thought they had the world figured out. And no, I am not trying to say that I didn't also think highly of myself at that age, but at least I could discuss Burke, Oakeshott, Hobbes, Jefferson, etc. to justify my generally left-of-center positions. These kids would just regurgitate their talking points and then start calling one another fascists and baby killers.

However, I do not think that it is entirely fair to place all of the blame on these kids. Rather, I think much of the blame should be directed at their parents and society. A good number of them grow up never having come into contact with anyone of a differing economic, social, or political background or standing in life. They grow up in homogenous suburbs and attend schools with people who look and behave exactly like them.

We have a nice collection of anecdotal views here, including mine in previous posts. I'd like to offer a somewhat (and only somewhat) wider and objective view. Please note and remember: I have a trade school cert and a high school degree, nothing more. Caveat: my field is IT, and my remarks are for that field only.

The perennial question is an either-or question: a company wants someone who will fit in, or it wants someone who will do the work and meet a high standard of quality. I've worked for both types of companies in my 33 years of working.

A hiring manager in the former type will depend on first- and sometimes second-tier filtering based on superficial criteria. Clerks will wade through resumes or skill test results, and send along only those who are at or above a threshold the manager has set (sometimes, and I want to say often, arbitrarily). For this type, an applicant should not waste time applying without at least a bachelor's degree.

The latter type will advertise and actually mean "degree or equivalent experience". They will screen applicants on a detailed basis not practical from reading a resume. They will take the time to find qualified applicants, and send them along to the departments where the actual work is done, to be interviewed by three or four people over the course of an entire day.

I have worked for companies of the former type. They tend to have little difficulty keeping up with turnover, though their on-the-floor managers also tend to complain more about skills, quality and work ethic.

I currently work for a company of the latter type. It is heavily staffed with contractors, who also know they'll be the first to go if layoffs are needed. In the meantime, we permanent staff see periodic pleas from HR for referrals and recommendations for certain skill sets. It's not because those skills are not being taught (mainframe skills being an exception to that), but because degrees in them are a dime a dozen, and quality is only a small proportion of that volume. We see a vast majority of contractors from foreign lands. I have no firsthand view concerning that disproportion, except indirectly from knowing the quality standards of my company: If they (we) are hiring foreign nationals, it's because US citizens are not getting hired by the contracting firms, or because they are not passing the quality standards of my company.

After 30+ years of college teaching in the sciences, I am also ready to move on. It's not just a matter of inadequate K-12 preparation, an increasingly non-existent work ethic, pitifully inept study habits, or a total lack of student motivation ... although I have seen a steady decline along each of those dimensions. On top of all that, I am now seeing instances of an anti-intellectual attitude that defy comprehension. I can only try to describe it with some anecdotes. Last term I asked my students for open-ended course feedback halfway through the semester: I was offering a new course for the first time, and I sincerely wanted to know how it was going.

Among many reasonable suggestions, I received a complaint about the fact that I expected students to purchase the required textbook. This student felt that it was my job to present all the required information during lectures, in which case no one should need to purchase the textbook. According to this individual, students are already paying enough in tuition (never mind it is almost always their parents footing the bill), so it should be enough to attend class without any additional investment in the educational process. This bizarre antipathy toward textbooks surfaced in one other comment from another student who complained about the fact that I was giving open-book quizzes and tests. This student claimed that all the open-book testing discriminated against students who chose not to the buy the required textbook. It was blatant discrimination!

I'm not making this up - and I'm also quite certain these comments were not intended to be a joke.

I’m not sure exactly when textbooks became a controversial teaching device. But on reflection, I realize that this is just a logical progression in widespread student attitudes toward textbooks. I've understood for many years now that most students do not bother with required reading assignments unless they are forced to do so via daily quizzes or other "motivational teaching practices" which I do use in classes aimed at freshmen. I believe students should feel insulted by this tactic after their freshman year (if not before).

For far too many students, getting through college seems to be all about negotiating the various hoops and hurdles with the least amount of effort. A precious handful are genuinely involved in learning - the difference is obvious. And perhaps the others could be inspired and transformed by a charismatic professor. But research institutions do not put a lot of stock in charisma during the tenure process, so my institution is probably not the best place for undergraduates who need massive doses of inspiration. To be honest, the best and brightest seem to come equipped with their own internal reasons for being there. So how much of my time and energy should be about compensating for all the shortcomings of the students who perceive nothing but annoying hoops and hurdles?

Am I just burned out? Probably. All those years on the front lines of higher education in a public university is bound to take a toll. But the curve of diminishing returns is not all about me. The rewards of teaching are still out there - they're just increasingly overpowered by all the various downward spirals.So I've had enough. Good luck to the next generation of professors out there. You'll need it.