Class Participation and SMU
So Jac posted this documentary of SMU (made by SMU) about the issue of class participation. Or at least it meanders around this issue and never actually gets a point. I suppose it tried to find some balance in the entire thing by showing both the pro and con side (and sticking some predictable ‘think about it’ on the video site), but seriously, if you want to fit something as broad as ‘class participation’ into a 15 minute documentary, everything is going to turn out shallow. Pick one aspect of class participation and run with it, not fit the 5W’s into the whole thing.
I’m reacting a bit more aggressively than I should be doing, which is something much to my surprise… I guess this whole participation thing is something that I do take grave issue with, and the assumptions that people have about it. I don’t like the Singaporean way of thinking that speaking up in class = good thing for ‘personal growth’, whatever that means, because we’re still falling behind this idea that we’re obliged to do something not because of interest, but because we’ve gotten this assumption that class participation means… what do they call it? A better interview spot?
We’re paralleling this whole Science/Arts debate all over again. The general idea is that taking Science leaves one open for more opportunities while Arts closes them. So we take Science, not because we are genuinely interested in Biology or Chemistry, but because there’s always this threat that in the event you really, really want to be a rocket scientist, you don’t have to look back and say, ‘WELL, SHIT’. (I’m of the opinion that if you’re not interested in physics at 15, you sure as hell aren’t going to be interested in physics at 30, but there are always the obvious exceptions, etc etc).
I get it, I really do. My issue is that they’ve generalized ’speaking up’ so broadly it hurts to look at it. Has SMU actually read any data that shows a correlation between speaking up in class and doing well in interviews? Have they done any research that shows that speaking in class is a skill that, when successfully taught, that can be generalized to any situation? Have they done any research to show how reliable their assumptions are in determining why people don’t speak up in class? Do they really fare any worse or better, in a personal sense? Have they done any research that shows that SMU cranks out ‘different and/or better people’ (whatever that still means) than NUS or NTU? Have these people done any research whatsoever that the sole skill in speaking up actually influences their graduates’ hiring rate? (I also like the irony that, according to the SMU Wikipedia page, that all the statistics showing SMU to be the better school stems from SMU itself, and not a independent organization. Also, one of the links are dead.)
And the laughable surveys with the funny looking balloons are just… so incredulous to take seriously. What was the question asked? What was the sample size? Who were the people surveyed? Did you check for any bias, or did you just run around the school yelling for opinions and compiling them in Microsoft Excel? There were so many things they left out (partially because, yet again, it’s only 15 minutes. I don’t know if they were doing this on their own watch or maybe it was some class assignment thing, but whatever) that you just cannot take the data seriously.
I especially liked the bits where they interviewed professors and students alike, and everyone just pulled these assumptions out of their ass (I guess that’s why they call it assumptions) and threw their own theories as to why kids don’t like to speak up (DATA, PEOPLE, DATA. You have a damn Psychology department; get your information there!). I especially like the complete contradiction at the end where ‘being yourself’ means ‘if you’re introverted, you still gotta bypass that shit and SPEAK UP’, as if talking is some sort of inherent personality trait in everyone THAT NEEDS TO BLOOM LIKE A PRETTY FLOWER. I got so furious with Mr. American Professor Who Was Talking with Kirpal Singh because he spouted so much nonsense I wanted to punch my screen in (of course, this is only a matter of personal opinion and experience, and absolutely nothing to do with his pretentiousness).
… And yet again, we still hold America as the epitome of progress and whatnot. I don’t get the Singaporean system, quite honestly. We adopt a British education system for the first 12 years and then you except the students to automatically adjust to a system that is so radically and structurally different (read “Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System” by Ralph H. Turner if you’re interested in the differences between the American and British systems of education. In short, education is not an independent faction and is generated by the cultural values in any given society) in university. You cannot expect us to be raised in a culture founded on elite values (nitpick with me about this and I swear I will cut you) and then suddenly say ‘okay, we’re all equal and we always need to stay on our toes and be competitive!’ and expect us to change our ideas like that. I feel SMU seems to have meshed these two ideas together, except now you’ve generated a student population that competes with the world while believing themselves to be superior to their own people. Not exactly a good thing to discriminate against your own, sweets.
Yes, the professors can blast away on their high horses that Singaporean culture prohibits kids from speaking up, but I ask again: where is the data? Is there a correlation between being obedient and not speaking up in class? This in itself even seems to operate on the assumption that speaking up in a classroom environment automatically constitutes challenge. What about comments? Questions? The latter was addressed (albeit briefly) in the documentary, and this already shows that it’s not about ‘traditional culture values’. It’s ‘we’re afraid to look stupid’ - a societal value. Is SMU going to change a societal value by implementing an system exclusive to themselves?
I want to share my own experiences in studying in an American institution. If any of you know me, I was born an American, and predominantly raised in Singapore for most of my life. I do consider myself more Singaporean than American. As usual, there is always the obligatory disclaimer that these are my opinions and my experiences, and it cannot be generalized to anyone else. My TL;DR thoughts are my own.
Class participation, to me, is a load of bullshit. That’s the short answer. There is the extremely long, long, LONG answer behind the cut, so be warned.
I talked a lot during my time in JC, especially during GP. I don’t know if that influenced my A1, or if it did influence it at all, but what I do know is that my personality has changed a lot since then - when I was a loudmouthed bitch - and now, where I don’t talk at all in class. As with any assertive personality, I had lots of opinions and I wasn’t afraid to share them. I didn’t bat down arguments, and chose to engage in them. I took up leadership positions, and maybe it was because of that I self-monitored myself and developed this personality that was not my own.
Looking back on my character as the leader - needing to placate others that this is the right decision, being bossy, direct, and gaining the favour of those in a high position than myself - are not qualities that I desire any longer in my character. If one were to take these leadership qualities out of the context of work and applied them in real life, the resulting personality is simply undesirable. It shows a lack of sensitivity and empathy to others. I know of acquaintances that excelled in group work and yet had the emotional depth of a spoon (I try to stay away from them). I don’t want to be these people. I don’t want to be a loudmouthed, opinionated person who thinks their answer is the right one, or to think just because I’m speaking up, it makes me a better person. It didn’t, quite frankly, and speaking up made me a worse person in hindsight.
I’ve pretty much withdrawn back (or regressed, if you consider extroversion to be a ’superior’ trait to introversion) into a more calm and stable character. I like to function as the observer instead of being the mouthpiece. As I entered university, I started to get insanely nervous when talking in class - something that I never had before when I was in JC - and I couldn’t think on my feet. I’m not spontaneous - I never have been - and this is something that I struggle with all the time when I’m posed questions in class (or in any public environment): I clam up. I stutter; I beat around the bush; I embarrass myself. This isn’t something that can be changed in a fortnight or in any class environment. I’m a firm believer that there are inherent personality traits that can influence your behaviour and is consistent over time. Spontaneity isn’t something (I feel) that can be developed.
I think it’s really ridiculous that the one of the professors in the documentary said ‘there are no stupid questions’. I’m just astounded at how he thought that the students’ self-esteem revolves around the teacher’s approval. The teacher may not think your questions are stupid (or at least he tries to hide it), but that doesn’t mean your classmates share the same idea.
Case in point: Brian. Whenever he asked a question or commented on something the TA said, the class will collectively sigh in exasperation. I have heard comments about getting Brian to ’shut up’, or ‘is an asshole’, or ‘how the hell does our TA stand that guy’? I’m sure Singaporeans are never this rude.
I also don’t agree with the idea that people learn more when participating. It’s also a common idea in OSU (at least with the teachers I’ve interacted with so far), but whenever people start talking you notice the people around you stop taking notes, as if the question or comment is unimportant. The sad thing is that it is unimportant, really. You’re not going to be tested on this; why do you want to go the extra mile to take dictation?
Case in point: I had a class that was predominantly centered around ‘thinking how language death affects the world’ and not heavily content based. In place of an examination we had a class debate instead, and we were to give presentations as class assignments. The fact that because it wasn’t content based and more about developing your own opinions, half the class never showed up. It didn’t even require a lot of thought in the first place - language death causes a loss of culture, ideas, etc - and that was what I came away with. If the professor isn’t talking, you’re not learning.
Which brings me to the entire point that Mr. America spouted. I have to quote this guy verbatim because I’m just that exasperated.
Number one:
… We, in America, do talk more. We don’t accept what everyone says to us. If I am a student sitting in a class I don’t simply accept what my professor says because he’s the professor-
(Oh editors. Please let him finish his crazy and not cut so abruptly to Kirpal! Although I think Kirpal has his own brand of crazy too, but I’ve indirectly mentioned him already.)
Number two:
… But I think that in a perfect world if we are truly doing an excellent job of teaching, we generate a level of enthusiasm, we generate a level of participation in class that’s irrepressible, and marking becomes irrelevant. Students who are going to jump in and say, ‘hey, wait a minute, prof, I think that’s absolute rubbish, and here’s why.’ Because they get excited about what we’re talking about-
And more editing. Oh well. Anyway. He seems to be operating on this logic:
1. All class discussions must contain a challenge to what the professor is teaching,
2. Class discussion is representative of your level of enthusiasm,
3. Therefore, challenging what the professor is saying is representative of your enthusiasm.
I think we can see the unsoundness of what this line of thinking implies. I’ll leave you up to that, because I’ll get my spleen ruptured if I dare even try to touch this. To be fair, he may have been quoted out of context because of the editing, so I’ll give him that.
(I must say the whole ‘marking becomes irrelevant’ thing opens up a new can of wank altogether. I say it’s just lazy.)
What my experience has taught me is that the professor knows more than you do. That’s the entire purpose of teaching: to impart knowledge. You cannot come into a Psychology class and proclaim, ‘I think video games influences aggression’; you don’t have the data and research knowledge the professor has.
The best professors, I believe, impart to you the knowledge required to make your own decisions. That was the sole reason why I fell in love with my History 331 class. Schools of thought are not new in any medium, and you have to find where you stand in the arena. A professor isn’t supposed to push onto you what he believes, because if he is intelligent enough, he should concede that there are other schools of thought that can explain this better. This is really the entire principal of what psychology is founded upon. There are multiple schools of thought (cognitive, behavioural, biological, psychoanalytical, etc), and all who teach Psych agree that it is a combination of all that possibly influence our behaviour.
If all you’re doing in class is challenging what the professor says, then I think it says something about the professor.
And this idea that enthusiasm must be reflected in how much you open your mouth in class is a very disconcerting notion, in my opinion. I don’t have to talk about it on end - in the classroom or outside the classroom - to proclaim my love for it. Psychology is my major, and I love it to bits, but I don’t go around saying ‘DID YOU KNOW THIS STUDY SHOWED THAT…’. People will kick me. On occasion, yes I do, particularly when a study is striking or when I’ve turned temporarily fanatical, but I don’t need to spout my knowledge to my friends who have a complete disinterest in this. I have other things to talk about.
This was insanely, insanely longer than I expected it to be. I guess I do have a lot to say on this subject, and I do scoff at the idea that class participation is the end-all to education. So… there you have it. My thoughts on yaoi SMU and the system on which it was founded upon.
3 Responses to “Class Participation and SMU”
Hey also came here from that video link blog.
Look…. profs may be right, but you can challenge them. Some subjects are debatable enough to do so. You don’t have to care about data etc., data isn’t always right either. With your video game example, I can very well argue that video games do promote aggression without being backed up by any statistics in class.. sure the prof can refute me, but that isn’t the point. It would have been a very strong contribution. I can shut up for the rest of the class if I chose to, and the prof will still remember that one comment.
Challenging the prof is part of the class. Its not high school were the teacher is always right. If a prof explains a theory or some case study… you can challenge it all you want…. its not a fact and its not fully proven. Also it can be challenged without statistics since if the challenge is valid tests can be done afterwards.
Also it doesn’t say anything about the prof, he is just teaching whatever is currently known. It doesn’t say anything about his own intellectual capacity or about his knowledge of his subject if you challenge the theories he explains.
Your studying psych…. don’t you ever feel you want to challenge the theories and see what happens in the discussion? Sure the studies will prove something, but don’t you ever challenge the prof pointing out what they have missed or what could be wrong about it?
To make a final point. Challenging things brings about change. If you go through life without challenging authority, you won’t really succeed big. Challenging a prof is part of this, and there are opportunities to do so…. asking him a relevant question so that the has to explore another field to which the theory should apply is already a challenge….
after uni, its about challenging your boss. If he is a good leader he will recognize constructive criticism.
P.S
why do people always complain…. its really not helping… I bet if class participation would be gone and the 10-20% of the grade assigned somewhere else, people would complain again.
Keith:
Thank you very much for the compliment.
My 2 cents on this whole thing: Class participations sure do have lots of cons, but the pros outweigh them. Indeed, quality of learning in class gets a rung down sometimes, but I cant deny class part. makes class more interesting too, and i have indeed seen introverts becoming more vocal and daring.
I don’t deny that class participation does make for lively discussion, but then again, debates are always another available medium. As I mentioned before, I don’t find anything wrong with being introverted, and being ‘vocal and daring’ are not characteristics which I find are useful (or positive, for that matter). Introverts being vocal doesn’t necessarily impact their entire personality - it just means that they talk more in class than they would like to. From my own experience, the ability to speak up can be easily shed once you’re done with it. Looking for personality changes simply because someone has been speaking up more is erroneous, in my opinion.
I’ve always been of the opinion that university is for learning, and well, talking about your opinions and all that can always be saved with your friends. If SMU generates poor quality learning, then I doubt it is a place I want to go to.
I do not want employees who too sit down in their claustrophobic cubicle space and keep to themselves and not voice out their intelligent considerations during meetings. I would rather a noisy, loud, sometimes ineffective but still churn out that 1 time stroke of genius suggestion or highlighting of a blind spot the whole boardroom misses.
It is an idealized (and simplified) situation to hope that your boss wants everyone to voice out their opinions and contribute to the company as a whole, but you and I would know that this isn’t the common case. I don’t know much about company structure itself, but I would suspect that efficiency and generating revenue are two things on the top of any company’s list. There are so many other factors that affect this ’stroke of genius’ - are you looking for some idea that is accepted by the entire boardroom? Does everyone actually think this idea is good? What about boardroom politics - do you have people there that will just criticize everything you say? This, also, seems to come with the assumption that verbal ability is correlated with your intelligence, something which is entirely not the case. It is not possible for SMU graduates to rise to the ranks to CEO immediately upon graduation and then completely turn around company structure. The idea of turning around company structure in itself will be difficult, with people resistant to change or having to layoff employees.
Additionally, compliance and obedience are aggressive forces in the whole boss-employee relationship. Groupthink is just one side of this idea of conformity, and this isn’t just limited to people with ‘traditional Asian values’. If the boss doesn’t like you, you’re never getting promoted, and if you’re employed by a boss who has been described as Machiavellian or authoritarian, then speaking up is not going to do you a bit of good at all.
C.:
Look…. profs may be right, but you can challenge them. Some subjects are debatable enough to do so. You don’t have to care about data etc., data isn’t always right either.
Permit me while I gawk at we ‘don’t have to care about data’. Yes, data is never completely right and it is never the ‘end-all’ to all debates, especially in the field of psychology, but we do enough to make it reliable and valid to the best of our ability. Some data is better than no data. That’s the whole idea of clinical trials; of experiments; of dissertations; of theses. If you had a hypothetical construct that said this pink pill could cure cancer without any data and wanted to administer this to human subjects, no one is going to take you seriously.
Yes, there is always an element of subjectivity surrounding any subject, but I’ve consistently repeated that the professor should know enough to impart to you the knowledge to form your own opinions. In the classroom that is all fine and dandy to beat around opinions around some abstract concept, but data is always necessary.
With your video game example, I can very well argue that video games do promote aggression without being backed up by any statistics in class.. sure the prof can refute me, but that isn’t the point. It would have been a very strong contribution. I can shut up for the rest of the class if I chose to, and the prof will still remember that one comment.
This sentence seems to say that you’re speaking up simply to make an impression on the professor. Secondly, you also seem to assume that your contribution will be loud and impactful enough to make the professor ‘remember’. I don’t think this is supposed to the case here - a university is meant for learning, not for pulling assumptions and making ‘contributions’ that factor little in the real world. The professor can refute your argument because he has the necessary data to do so, which is entirely the point of learning - to understand where you went wrong, and additionally, the professor should also impart to you the weaknesses in that data or study. I’ve already mentioned the whole idea of balance, and challenging the professor all the time is reflective on the capabilities of the professor.
Challenging the prof is part of the class. Its not high school were the teacher is always right.
A statement that challenging the professor is part of the class doesn’t bring any new information to me whatsoever, and this is an argument which I have addressed already in my article. You seem to subscribe to the idea which SMU blindly subscribes to as well - everything that was taught before university constituted no challenge, and the fact that challenging the professor in class seems to be representative of your own intelligence and enthusiasm. I’ve already mentioned (quite exhaustively) that this isn’t the case.
If a prof explains a theory or some case study… you can challenge it all you want…. its not a fact and its not fully proven.
Without going into the details how a case study is so incredibly, wildly different from theory, I understand what you’re trying to say. Abstract concepts are debatable; theories are debatable. This brings back my entire point of data - the need to prove your theory. But since you’ve established in your argument that one doesn’t have to care about data, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. It seems to me that you’re saying challenging theories (verbally) are everything, and nothing else matters.
Also it can be challenged without statistics since if the challenge is valid tests can be done afterwards. Also it doesn’t say anything about the prof, he is just teaching whatever is currently known. It doesn’t say anything about his own intellectual capacity or about his knowledge of his subject if you challenge the theories he explains.
You are contradicting yourself. If the challenge can be tested, that is the entire point of collecting data and experimenting, but you just said that data isn’t necessary. You seem to be subscribing to the view that there is always a black-and-white area in subjects, which I have already mentioned that isn’t the case. There will always be arguments that refute any given study, which the professor should have the relevant knowledge to impart to you, or at least understand that there are weaknesses in this theory - once again, the idea of balance. This is how theories are revised, or how experiments are conducted to challenge it - once again, data.
Your studying psych…. don’t you ever feel you want to challenge the theories and see what happens in the discussion? Sure the studies will prove something, but don’t you ever challenge the prof pointing out what they have missed or what could be wrong about it?
I do not know what your major is, but please don’t assume that theories in Psychology have never gone unchallenged. I have already mentioned in my article that I know there are different aspects in Psychology that can explain a certain behaviour, and I know that there are better explanations out there, and the professors do too. Studies about human behaviour have been experimented on, replicated, modified and refuted. Siegmund Freud’s psychoanalytic view was evolved through experiments and understanding that dreams weren’t all about repressed sexuality. Theories evolve through experiments, through data, and not through one’s verbal assumptions in the classroom. And hey, my professors taught me that.
Challenging things brings about change.
I would like to ask you to apply this mantra of ‘challenging brings about change’ in the political arena in Singapore before you do anything else.
If you go through life without challenging authority, you won’t really succeed big. Challenging a prof is part of this, and there are opportunities to do so…. asking him a relevant question so that the has to explore another field to which the theory should apply is already a challenge…. after uni, its about challenging your boss. If he is a good leader he will recognize constructive criticism.
Again, more assumptions, and I have already mentioned this in my article. Is there a correlation between speaking up in class and speaking up in ‘life’? Is there a correlation between speaking up and success? Is there a equivalence in viewing teachers as an authority figure and holding bosses up to the same measuring stick? Your ideas are theoretical, presumptive and generalized. I’m not saying that one has to sit down passively and absorb everything, but the fact that one needs to consistently challenge the professor is not an indication of learning at all.
I’ve already touched on this in my response to Keith above, and I will reiterate that this is an oversimplified view of the workplace. The idea is ‘if he is a good leader’ - does ‘good leader’ constitute allowing your employees to speak up in the workspace and make the entire process inefficient? What is the definition of a ‘good leader’, anyway? It’s like ‘intelligence’, whatever that still means. The idea that merit alone gets one somewhere in life is also simplified and generalized, especially in Singapore. There are so many other variables that gets one promoted - politics, racism, stereotyping - something that Singapore (quite obviously) never addresses.
why do people always complain…. its really not helping… I bet if class participation would be gone and the 10-20% of the grade assigned somewhere else, people would complain again.
I’d like to point out the irony in your defense in being open to ‘challenge’ and yet complain how people criticize the school system.
That is all.
Hi Elaine, you have an amazing blog and interesting thoughts. I came to this page from a comment in a video link of this episode.
My 2 cents on this whole thing: Class participations sure do have lots of cons, but the pros outweigh them. Indeed, quality of learning in class gets a rung down sometimes, but I cant deny class part. makes class more interesting too, and i have indeed seen introverts becoming more vocal and daring.
Now, i put myself in the shoes of a employer. I do not want employees who too sit down in their claustrophobic cubicle space and keep to themselves and not voice out their intelligent considerations during meetings. I would rather a noisy, loud, sometimes ineffective but still churn out that 1 time stroke of genius suggestion or highlighting of a blind spot the whole boardroom misses. Communicate, Articulate and Invigorate. That is what SMU wants to bring to Singapore.
For now Singaporeans may still seem too new to all this; explaining for some silly participations. but once they get to year 4, everything falls into place. We will figure out whats useful to say, and whats better to dump. That will help definitely when entering the workforce.
continue on the great work!