Where ignorance is bliss, / 'Tis folly to be wise
—Thomas Gray
It sometimes appears as though Ohio University's main goal in the education of its students is the retention of ignorance. When the Vice President for University Advancement (whatever the hell that is), Leonard Raley, refers to President Robert Glidden solely as "fundraiser-in-chief," it makes one wonder whether OU administrators care about how much you learn in five years, or how much of an alumni donation you can make in 25.
The modern, corporate university functions as this: graduate as many students as possible, preferably in business and technology-related fields, using the fewest number of full-time professors as possible, in order to save money to invest in athletic programs, which supposedly generate the most donated revenue. What does this entail for we students? Four-hundred person classes, part-time professors who have to work at two or three colleges, and $800,000-turf improvements to Peden Stadium.
But of course, the administration would never outright state that education is of least priority at OU. Instead, they have formulated a plan. A plan that says much and means nothing. A plan endearingly referred to as "engaged learning."
I recently acquired a contraband copy of Ohio Today, a magazine for alumni and friends (possible donors), detailing not only this so-called "engaged learning," but also the astounding triumphs of some of its implementers. The article details the phenomenal success of Debb Thorne, a Sociology 101 professor, who, in an act nothing less than superhuman, knows the name of every one of her nearly 400 students. While I in no way wish to diminish the extraordinary effort of Thorne (she meets with all of her students over coffee), the question emerges: should Thorne's dedication be expected of all professors?
Thorne's accomplishments exemplify the engaged learning environment espoused by Provost Stephen Kopp. Apparently, "cynics" do not believe that students can learn in a large class situation; Kopp, however, quickly and conveniently buries this idea in an unmarked grave. He argues, "Engaged learning has far more to do with the predominant organizing principle for the course and curriculum than the seating capacity of the room." If I interpret this statement correctly, it means, "abstract words that reflect our corporate mentality and bureaucratic organization will save our little tuition-paying money-generators from feeling ripped-off." The article further states, "the organizing principle and an intentional plan for learning transcends not only class size but class content, whether the subject is social science or computer science." Given the conclusion that content does matter brings bright hope for a future in which someday we will discuss Dante's Inferno in Morton 201; possibly we can even re-enact it, with the people in the back of the class in Purgatory, the people in the front of the class frozen in ice and the feeling that we're all in hell.
If Thorne can hold the interest of 400 students, I shudder to think what she can do in a class one tenth that size. But should we hold her as the standard by which we should judge all professors? Professors who have to juggle professional and personal commitments? Professors without the greatest ability to recollect names? Professors who are simply better thinkers than teachers, making them crucial to society but not necessarily the classroom? There are professors on this campus who unintentionally bore a class of 30; do we really dare place them in a class of 300?
The concept of engaged learning dates back at least to Socrates, who had the propensity for stopping people on the street and asking them questions in order to promote dialectical discourse. But Socrates tended to engage small groups of people, usually individually; the one time he confronted 501 people (a jury of Athenian citizens), they put him to death. Ergo, if Socrates, the inventor of "engaged learning" and one of the wisest individuals ever to live, could not teach 500 people at a time, we cannot expect anyone else to manage to the task.
According to Kopp, engaged learning in large classes will prepare us for a modern-day work place; apparently a place where ignorance is bliss but we can get along together well enough to do our jobs. But I remain a "cynic," or, I believe more appropriately, a "skeptic;" one more inclined to agree with John Wilmot, who, in "The Disabled Debauchee," wrote, "being good for nothing else, be wise." Wisdom, or education for that matter, is not gained in a class with 400 other students; if education is the goal of OU, as the charter states, then I recommend the administration cease traveling to China, walk across the street to Alden and open a book. It's cheaper, and they may even learn something.
Wells is a senior. Send him an e-mail at robert.addington@ohiou.edu.
17 Archives
Wells Addington
200305301609midsize.jpg
Wells Addington
