There are various versions of the prayer:
Grant me the strength to fix the problems that can be fixed,
and the patience to bear the ones that can't be fixed,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
This "TA problem" is in that special part of the Venn diagram
that exceeds my strength, and my patience, and my wisdom.
There are parts of this problem that I think ought to be solved,
but I don't know exactly how to solve them, and it's not even
100% clear that they are solvable. But I'm enough of an idealist
that I'm not ready to give up.
Some musings:
1) I think we can agree it's a problem, a nasty problem.
2) I think we can agree that it isn't the TA's problem. Most
of the issues are of the sort that professors, deans, etc.
get paid to deal with.
3) Students should (ideally) know why they are taking the course.
The professor should be able to sell the course, i.e. motivate
the students by telling them why the course (and the various
elements of the course) are worthwhile.
See item (6) for more on this.
4) As my friend Larry likes to say: If it's not worth doing,
it's not worth doing right.
If students are turning in lab reports that are full of
gibberish and double-talk, there's something terribly wrong.
This is not to be tolerated. Take your pick:
-- Either the reports are worth doing, in which case they
must be done right. The first time, the student gets to do
it over, five times if necessary, until it is right. Sufficient
class time should be devoted to analyzing good and bad reports
so that students know the difference. Thereafter they get
terrible grades if they turn in fluff.
-- Or perhaps the reports are not worth doing, in which case
they should be dropped. Don't waste the students' time, the
TA's time, or any other resources on stuff that isn't important.
There are too many important things that need doing.
5) When the TA complains that the writing is no good, we must
ask the question whether there is a _writing_ problem narrowly
speaking, or (more likely) a _thinking_ problem. In many
contexts the "writing" time is in large measure "thinking" time.
The available evidence doesn't tell us whether the students
don't know how to think or just can't be bothered to think.
6) Sometimes the course is a "required" course. Some distant
Committee has decided that the students need to take the course,
but the students don't believe it and the professor is caught
in the middle. This situation sucks bigtime.
The funny thing is, the Commitee has a point. They just need
to do a better job of selling their point. They need to explain
to the professor that it is important for the graduates to be
able to think and to write. The point of requiring the required
course is to make sure the students build up their thinking
muscles. After the Committee sells this idea to the professor,
the professor needs to sell it to the students.
7) All kinds of people here are dropping the ball.
-- It is easy to sneer at the students for just "going through
the motions" as opposed to having the proper self-motivation
and love of learning. Why are they willing to waste their
time on stuff that doesn't make sense?
-- But what about the professor, who is just "going through
the motions" of teaching, as opposed to really explaining
what's important and teaching people how to think?
-- And what about the august Committee, which went through the
motions of setting high standards, but hasn't bothered to
see whether their wishes have any contact with reality?
So the track is broken in three different places, and the train
has derailed. It is commendable that the TA noticed that
something is amiss, but we cannot expect the TA to carry the
whole derailed train on his back.