[Phys-L] students in charge of ....., or not

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

In the Gomorrah Post from a few days ago:

  Shannon Reed
  "The 7 things new college students don’t know that drive professors crazy"
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2016/05/03/7-things-new-college-students-need-to-know-so-they-dont-drive-professors-crazy/




The #1 thing is ... wait for it ...
> 	“You’re not in charge.”

That is open to multiple interpretations, most of them unwise,
some of them disastrously unwise IMHO.
 a) If we interpret it as "You're not in charge of everything" that
  would be true, although a bit trivial.
 b) If we interpret it as "You're not in change of anything" that
  would be terrible.

In any case, this is the wrong conversation to be having.  It's
the wrong way to frame the issue.

I feel quite strongly about this.  When I am teaching, a major
objective is to get the students to take *more* responsibility,
not less.

As students progress, they are given more rope, i.e. more opportunity
to make decisions.  If some of them use that rope unwisely, the 
answer is *not* to treat them like children, to tell them that
they are not in charge.  At the end of the program they *have* to
be in charge.  The right approach is to instruct them so that they
are better able to meet their responsibility ... and to motivate
them to internalize high standards.

This applies to physics and everything else, but it is particularly
clear when teaching people to fly airplanes.  The federal regulations
are clear and uncompromising:
> §91.3   Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
>   (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
>     responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the
>     operation of that aircraft. 

If that authority is not used properly, people are going to die.

What the student does when I'm there watching is the least of my
worries.  What really matters is what he does the next day and
the next year, when I'm not around ... when he has direct
responsibility and final authority.  I go to a lot of trouble 
to design lessons so that the student feels in charge, even 
when I'm right there.  There are limits to this in the early 
lessons, but in the later lessons the focus on responsibility
and decision-making is very clear.

Returning to the WaPo article:  Apparently it drives the author
"crazy" when the students do not show proper respect.  I have
seen that sort of thing, but only rarely and from a distance,
and I don't claim to know how to handle it ... but I suspect
that telling somebody
> 	You're not in charge.
is not the best way to win their respect.

I reckon this is less of a problem in advanced courses where
the students are clamoring to get in, and more of a problem
in required courses where the students perceive -- often
quite rightly -- that the material is of no real use to them.

In such a situation, perhaps the ideal solution would be to
change the course -- reforming not just how it is taught,
but what is taught -- so that we can say with conviction,
"This is stuff you really need to know."

I feel that 99.9% of the time I should be the servant, not
the despot.
 -- The students have some set of problems that they want
  to solve, and my job is to help them learn how to do that.
 -- I tell them quite explicitly that I cannot teach them
  more than a tiny percentage of what they need to know,
  and they must take responsibility for learning the rest on
  their own.  My job is to help them meet that responsibility.
  This includes holding their hand until they can safely 
  learn on their own ... and motivating them to internalize
  high standards and a love of learning.

 -- If I see a safety issue arising, I will drop a series
  of hints, with progressively less subtlety.
 -- If that doesn't work, *THEN* I will pull rank.  I
  will assert my authority and nobody will have the
  slightest doubt about who's in charge.  (This happens
  about once every five years.)