The Problem with Academia: Part I

A lot of my friends in academia recognize that I'm not a typical academic in a lot of ways. One of the biggest ways I am atypical is that I don't really like the way the academic game is played. This will be the first of probably several posts "exposing" (or complaining about) aspects of academia.

The first round of complaints deals with publishing, or how you get rewarded in academia. In the real world, you can get published if there are enough people interested in what you have to say. In the academic world, that is largely irrelevant. To get published in academia, you have to say something that no one has said before.

This may not be a bad idea in the hard sciences, where it is all about discovery. Even in the social sciences, if you get new data you can often say something new. It causes some difficulties in other disciplines, though. If I am researching political theory, I am expected to come up with something that hasn't been said in the last 2500 years of political theory. This leaves me with two broad options: either I can say something so specific that no one really cares (but, hey, it's at least "new") or I can something utterly ridiculous (but new). That is how you get published in academia.

Even this wouldn't be so bad, except that in order to advance in academia, you have to publish. If you don't have a certain amount of publications in your first 7 years as a professor, you lose your job. So, in order to keep my job, I have to come up with either ridiculous things or things that no one cares about.

Granted, occasionally there are authentically good new ideas that come out of this process. Those individuals deserve to be the academic rock stars. I may be able to come up with one of those things myself, but it is doubtful. Instead, I must publish something no one cares about, or come out with something that is ridiculous that I don't actually believe (but try unsuccessfully to defend). That is my chosen career.

What's sad is that this ridiculous process is widely recognized as being ridiculous among academics. We joke about it in private conversations at conferences. And yet the ridiculousness is so enshrined that we can only mock it behind its back. Reform is just a dream.

How useful are IQ tests as a measure of intelligence?

While observing some of our incoming freshmen take "placement exams" yesterday, I was reminded of an academic study in which I participated back in the late 1990s. They wanted to compare IQ scores of perceived intelligent people given different test formats and different testing atmospheres. So I took I think 10 different tests over two weeks in different settings.

I ended up with an unusually high range of scores. They ranged from 111 to 155. Most of the tests concluded I was in the high 120s to mid 130s.

First a note on what these scores supposedly mean. According to most scoring models, the scores designed to measure what percentile of the overall population you are more intelligent than. A score of 100 is average. A 111 puts me at smarter than about 75% of the population. A 155 places me smarter than 99.9% of the population. There is quite a difference between those two numbers. According to one I am smart enough to survive college and according to the other I am a genius.

So, how did I end up with such a wide range of scores? There were three variations in the tests that impacted me in particular: time, distraction, and spacial reasoning. I did much better in untimed tests than timed ones. I did much better when there was little distraction than when there was a lot. Finally, I have a really low spacial reasoning iq.

My 111 score involved a timed test, with a large spatial reasoning component, and there were children playing loudly outside the window. My 155 score was an untimed test with no spatial reasoning component and a soft piano concerto playing in the background. Arguably, neither of those scenarios are good measures of my working intelligence. While I would like to do all of my thinking without time pressures and having classical piano in the background, that isn't real life.

The reason I talk about this is that admission to gifted programs in school are frequently tied to iq tests. I didn't get into the gifted program in elementary school, in spite of being widely recognized as the smartest kid in my class. My sister was admitted, and she will be the first to tell you that I have a much higher iq than her (although she more than crushes me with eq).

The accuracy and legitimacy of iq tests worry me, especially for aspies. It is my impression (which may be wrong) that aspies have "specialized intelligence". We tend to be exceptional at some things and bad at others, even if they are somewhat related. Immanuel Kant, for example, was probably an aspie (he's been dead for a while, but based on everything I've read about him, he fits every criteria). He was arguably one of the greatest philosophers in world history. Yet, in spite of his clear genius, there were certain fields of study he just could not do. I wonder what his iq score would have been when he was 9 years old. Would Kant have been "tracked" with the average or below average kids? (I was until about 4th grade.) How much genius are we missing because we don't really know how to measure this type of specialized intelligence?

I'm not sure if there is a point to all this rambling. It's just something I've been thinking about the last couple days. If you can figure out the point to my rambling, please comment so as to help other readers and myself.

just submitted my first article

Those of you who have consistently read my blog the last few months know that I have struggled with my lack of academic publishing. (For newer readers interested in how I beat myself up, here is a link to one of the posts.)

Well, the big news is that I have finally submitted an article to an academic journal. For those of you not familiar with the process, one of three things can now happen: 1) It gets accepted as it is and now I have to brag about it on academic documents. 2) I get an "R&R" (revise and resubmit) where one or more of the editors or blind readers had a problem with it and I have to make some changes and hope it gets accepted for publication then. 3) It gets rejected. For this particular journal, they have a 20% acceptance rate, so my chances aren't all that good, but we'll see what happens. If it gets rejected, I've already chosen a second journal to try.

Now I need to work on the next article while I have the time this summer. But I don't think I'll start on that until tomorrow. I deserve a break for the rest of the day.

Not everyone should go to college

I’m going to be blunt. College is not the best choice for a lot of people coming right out of high school. I speak as someone who has seen too many students go to school for one year and then drop out. This can be due to lack of academic preparedness, lack of academic ability, lack of financial resources, or lack of maturity. I rarely see someone who has been in the workforce start school again and then drop out. I believe this is because they work out maturity and financial issues. So here are some rough guidelines for students who should not go to college right away:

1) If your high school gpa is not at least a 3.2, don’t go to college because college is a whole lot harder. Perhaps community college, but not a 4-year institution. (An exception would be if you went to an exceptionally good high school, then you can probably get away with attending a lower-academic college.)

2) If you have trouble making smart decisions, you are not ready for college. For example, if you have been arrested, that probably indicates you have trouble making smart decisions and you are not yet ready for college. You have a lot more opportunities to make dumb choices in college than you did while living with your parents in high school.

3) If you know you will have to work more than 20 hours per week to afford college, you shouldn’t go to college full time. It’s fine to go part time, but it is immensely difficult to manage your time effectively if you are working a lot of hours and taking a full class load. Let me put it this way—the rule of thumb is that you should spend two hours on school work outside of the class for every hour you spend inside the classroom in order to be successful in college. So, if you take a typical 15 credit full-time school load, you should spend 30 additional hours doing school work. That’s 45 hours. If you then spend just 20 hours working a job, you are up to 65 hours. Add another 49 hours for sleep, you are up to 114 hours. There are 168 hours in a week. That leaves 54 hours a week for everything else including eating, socializing, getting to and from places, grocery shopping…Most 18-year olds are not good enough at time management yet to pull this feat off. So what gets taken out? Studying. What then suffers? Grades.

What should you do if you fit in one of the three categories above? I would argue that you should work and maybe take a few classes at a community college first. This will help you develop maturity, study skills, and time management skills. Then you will be better prepared for college and get far more out of the experience.

Advice from a college professor to parents about selecting a college for their kids

One of the things about being a college professor is that your friends who are also parents frequently seek out your advice on helping their kids select a college. Here are some advice highlights that are overly general, but hopefully helpful.

The number one rule is that there is not one answer for everyone. Each student is different with different needs. So, here is my limited advice based on the type of institution:

Large State Schools—I do not recommend large state schools for the vast majority of students. First, it is too easy for the student to academically get lost in the shuffle, so the student’s focus switches from academics to social activities.

Second, while it is true that the leading scholars who teach at (somewhat) affordable institutions are at these large state schools, they aren’t really teaching the classes. The truth is that a large proportion of them do not take teaching that seriously and are therefore not very good teachers. The students frequently learn more from the teaching assistants, who are generally not very good teachers because they lack experience.

Third, students at these large institutions are, more often than not, treated as numbers rather than people. If you don’t stand out for some reason, you will be largely ignored.

What type of student do I recommend for large state schools? Highly motivated, highly intelligent, and outgoing students. The type of student who is bold enough to go to a professor’s office and intelligent enough to have a good conversation with her/him. Having taught for a few years at one of the largest state schools in the country, I can tell you that the vast majority of the students do not fit these criteria and do get lost in the shuffle.

Small State Schools—For the vast majority of students I would recommend a small state school over a large one. This is largely due to the students being treated more like a person. It also tends to be the least expensive option. But, there are problems with small state schools as well. First and foremost, many of the professors at small state schools wish they were at large state schools or elite private schools. They are all too often at the small state school because they couldn’t get a job anywhere else. This frequently means that they don’t have the best attitude. But, if the student is clearly above average, that student will frequently be treated very well by the professor (in the subconscious hope that the student will succeed in graduate school and perhaps bring up the reputation of the professor so he can go someplace better).

Elite Private Schools—Unless your student has at least a 3.8 gpa in high school, don’t even consider this one. They won’t survive and you will waste your money in tuition. These schools assume you are ready for college before you arrive and they get going immediately. Students who aren’t ready for college won’t get any help because the professors will devote most of their attention to the top students. The unfortunate fact is that most high schools do not properly prepare their students for college. This is because most high schools are composed of a lot of teachers who teach because they couldn’t cut it on the professional track in their major. I’m saying this as someone who has taught several students now who barely squeaked by my Intro to American Government class with a C and now teach American Government in high school (in a couple cases, they teach the AP class). This is not to say that there aren’t excellent high school teachers, because there are. You can’t expect a high school teacher who barely squeaked by in college to adequately prepare their student for a rigorous college. But, for highly intelligent students who were adequately prepared in high school, I would say elite private schools are the best option. They are where the best combination of educational quality with personal attention can be found.

Non-Elite Private Schools—This is an odd case. I honestly believe that for most students, this is the best option for academic success. The professors by and large want to be there (otherwise they would make more money working someplace else) and are therefore invested in the success of the students. But there is the obvious cost-benefit problem. If you are thinking purely about economics, this is not the way to go. Students don’t often come out of these schools making a lot of money. They do often come out of these schools with a lot of debt. So while this is the best educational option for most students, it is not the best financial option.

Special circumstances: Christian students—Since I am a Christian blogger, let me say a few words about considerations for sincerely Christian students. First of all, it is possible to thrive as a Christian in a secular school. (For tips on this, read J. Budziszewski’s How to Stay Christian in College.) But it is sometimes difficult to live in that setting. I personally went to a high school that had very few Christians (I think there were 20 of us in a school of 1500) and I went to a Christian college, and was very glad I did. My sister did the same. It was a relief to me to finally somewhat feel like I fit in someplace when I got to college. But secular colleges and universities can be an exciting mission field for those passionate about their faith and comfortable about who they are in Christ.

Special circumstances: Minority students—Even though I am a “White Guy”, I teach at an HBCU (historically Black college or university) and used to teach at a large state school, so I may be able to provide some insight for minority students. First of all, the atmosphere at a white-dominated school is very different from at a minority-dominated school. One of the biggest differences I noticed is that at the big state school it was highly unusual for minority students to speak in class. They would talk to me individually after class or in my office, but it was like pulling teeth trying to get them to participate in class. That is not a problem at a minority-dominated school. Minority students tend to be a lot more comfortable when they are around others who are like them. But this comes with a couple down-sides. If a student grew up with minorities and goes to college with minorities, I have concerns about their ability to interact in the professional world (where not everyone is a minority). Second, most minority-dominated schools aren’t very good. I hate saying this, but it’s true. I teach at a top-ten HBCU, and about a third of my students are nowhere near ready for college when they arrive. As a result, we have to spend a lot of time lowering our content in intro courses so these student can get caught up without failing out of the institution. You frequently won’t get as good of an academic training at a minority-dominated school as you would at a majority-dominated school. This is just the unfortunate reality. On the other hand, if you are coming into college from a high school that did not prepare you as well as it should have, a good minority-dominated school might be a good option since they tend to be very good at getting students up to speed in a shorter period of time.

My next blog will be on a related topic: advice about people who should not go to college right out of high school.

I feel like an academic loser

I just made the mistake of googling several of my classmates from graduate school. With one exception, they all have multiple publications, get interviewed by the national media, and one even did election night coverage in prime time for a national network. And I outperformed all these individuals in graduate school. Me—I’m fortunate when I get a local radio interview. I haven’t published much beyond this blog (and we all see that this isn’t all that impressive).

To be fair to myself, I am at a teaching intensive school. When other academics hear how much time I spend on teaching, grading, and other interactions with students, they are generally stunned. Then I am expected to do a lot more “service” (read: meetings) than would be expected at other institutions.

But, that doesn’t fully excuse the fact that I haven’t published anything. I haven’t even had the courage to submit anything for publication. It isn’t that I don’t have anything. I have several things that are just about ready to go, I just can’t bring myself to pull the trigger and submit them.

Part of the problem is courage. Part of the problem is my own perfectionism. I’m not personally happy with any of my work--but I know I have higher expectations than others do. In graduate school I received an A for every paper, but I wasn’t happy with any of them. I just had to get them in by the due date. Maybe I just need to assign myself some due dates and just submit these things.