Section Dissection

Preregistration is not only dead but damned. And rightly so. So, after Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby decided last month to abandon his controversial proposal to ditch shopping period—or refashion it until it became unrecognizable—many people now think the appropriate way forward for undergraduate education reform is through piecemeal tinkering rather than sweeping alterations. In that vein, Monday’s announcement by Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Peter T. Ellison that the majority of each class’ teaching fellows (TFs) must be hired a semester in advance has been widely welcomed as a way to improve students’ educational experiences. But, unfortunately, undergraduates should recognize that many of their academic woes are based not on substandard TFs but on the woolly philosophy that underpins the existence of sections in their current form.

Much of the strongest criticism of TFs comes from students taking math and science classes. Students in those fields frequently accuse their TFs of lacking fundamental teaching skills—often including command of the English language—that are necessary to elucidate complex theories. These criticisms can seem exaggerated and occasionally obnoxious, but perhaps early hiring practices may make a significant difference to the quality of TFs in the sciences. It may also not significantly improve the standard of teaching in that area. After taking only three Core classes in math and science, I can’t predict the outcome with any degree of certainty. I do know, however, that humanities will be largely unaffected—their shortcomings run deeper than poor instructors.

Indeed many humanities TFs are first-rate. Their jobs require them to keep discussion moving in class, to grade students’ papers and exams, to hold weekly office hours and, of course, to attend all the same lectures and do all the same readings as the undergraduates. Except, of course, the TFs can’t routinely skip class or cut corners on the readings. And, by and large, they do a very good job fulfilling these requirements. Meanwhile, TFs also tend to have full graduate school requirements of their own. But the fact that TFs work far harder to make section run smoothly than many undergraduates recognize does not mean that sections deserve any better than the bum rap that they get from most students. Any given section—regardless of the quality of the TF—is at best grim, and usually far worse.

The problems stem directly from the portion of grades allocated in humanities classes for attendance at and participation in section. The need to reward—or punish—students based on their performance in section leads to TFs mechanically plowing through the assigned readings rather than stimulating intellectual debate. After all, testing whether students have done the work required of them by the syllabus is a fair and simple way to allocate grades. It does not, however, lend itself to dynamic discussion which is, after all, one of the central reasons for having section in the first place. Students, understandably keen to get the high grades which they feel they deserve, focus more on demonstrating that they have done the reading than on analyzing the texts or offering their own opinions on the subject. Discussions are further straight-jacketed by anxious TFs who feel that they need to cover every reading in order to get a fair picture of which students have actually done all the work and which ones have large gaps in their knowledge.

Although hiring TFs earlier may lead to marginal improvements in teaching quality, the way to make substantive changes is very different. The first step is to make section participation ungraded. Students, should not be rewarded for doing their reading on a weekly basis—and they surely should not be penalized for falling behind on those weeks when, for whatever reasons, they cannot complete all the readings for all their classes. If participation were ungraded, students would spend more time offering their own opinions and, crucially, listening to their classmates’ views—the essence of meaningful discussion—rather than spewing back esoteric portions of the reading to convince TFs that they have been working hard.

Similarly, sections should not be mandatory. Students who do not wish to participate in discussion should not have to. If there are interesting points brought up in a section which they do not attend—useful for either intellectual enrichment or a future exam—that is their loss. If the section is dull or useless, then no one should have to attend. Forcing students to contribute to discussions in which they are uninterested is a waste of everyone’s time, adversely affecting other students’ experiences as well as wasting the TF’s time and attention.

Stimulating discussions of source material should be at the heart of a good humanities education. As the system is currently configured, however, TFs are hamstrung by the need to evaluate students and cannot provide the sort of environment where such discussions can routinely take place. Hiring the majority of TFs earlier may make substantive improvements to the quality of instruction in the sciences. But it will not significantly change substandard humanities sections. Only bold measures can tackle that. Implementing Kirby’s vision of preregistration would have been a nightmare. But that doesn’t mean that we should abandon all grand dreams of radically improved undergraduate education.

Anthony S.A. Freinberg ’04 is a history concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.