[rant]Contact Hour Billing

[Lady Vashj]

This is what the college has to say:

New Student Billing System Begins Fall Semester, 2004

The method used to calculate the cost of studying at Lansing Community College is being revised. Changes begin with the Fall Semester, 2004.

Under the new system, the cost for attending a course will be determined by the course’s billing hours, instead of credit hours. A billing hour represents an amount of time that a student spends in direct contact with an instructor or with laboratory equipment. Several factors are considered in determining the billing hours of a course. The main factor is the number of hours the student is expected to either be in class or in another “instructional” setting (such as a lab) in a typical week for a full semester course.

LCC courses range from one billing hour to over ten billing hours per course. The new billing system will cap the number of billing hours that can be added to a course. The billing hours will be no more than the credit hours plus three. For example, the maximum number of billing hours for a 3 credit class is 6; the maximum number of billing hours for a 4 credit class is 7. For the majority of courses at LCC, the credit hours and the billing hours are the same.

Starting Fall Semester 2004, the schedule book will include both a credit hour number and a billing hour number for every LCC course.

Why are we doing this?
Charging by billing hours more fairly distributes the cost of instruction to those students who receive extra instruction. Students will now pay a more equitable amount for the instruction time they receive. Based on this system, only students who are the recipients of additional instruction will pay for additional billing hours.

Equaling most of the student body.

Will the college help pay for increases in educational costs this may cause for some students?
The college offers a variety of ways in which students can pay tuition, including grants, scholarships and payment plans. Contact the Financial Aid Office in Enrollment Services – they can help!

They had this all already. The college isn't coming up with any more money. You notice they didn't really answer the question - no.

Will course fees be reduced?
Course fees have been reduced in some courses because of this change.

I think I would rather shell out thirty bucks course fee than three hours' tuition I get no credit for.

How many courses does this effect?
Of our approximately 1750 courses, about 750 of them have more billing hours than credit hours.

Problem is, those 750 are 90+% required for an associate's or transfer degree in anything useful. Science, premed, mechanics, computer tech, even music - tuition is double or triple what it used to be, and it's double or triple what it used to be for the biggest degree programs here.

Why don’t we just make the credits equal the contact hours?
It is important that the credit hours we offer are consistent with the credits other institutions will accept when students transfer.

They're not already. That's no excuse.

What is the effect on independent study courses?
For internships, co-ops and independent studies, billing hours equal credit hours.

Relieving a minority.

How does this affect on-line and hybrid courses?
If different sections of a course use different delivery options (face-to-face, on-line, hybrid), the billing hours and credit hours will be the same for all options. If, for example, the face-to-face section is 3 credit hours and 4 billing hours, the on-line and hybrid sections will be 3 credit hours and 4 billing hours.

So you can get charged for contact you don't make.

Will this affect enrollment status and financial aid?
As required by federal and state regulations, enrollment status (full time student, half time student, etc.) will continue to be determined by credit hours, not billing hours. For example, if a student is enrolled in courses totaling 8 credit hours and 12 billing hours, they will be considered a ½ time student for the purposes of financial aid.

So even though you're shelling out hundreds of dollars more, you still get the same amount of money. The hundreds of extra dollars all comes from your pocket - and most people receiving financial aid here don't have a whole lot in their pockets.

And the best part is, it's not a tuition increase.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Schools have been screwing students pretty much since education ceased to be a one on one activity (about 15,000 BCE by my estimates).

While the cost and the unfair increases are worth bitching about, how about courses taught by someone for whom English isn't even an nth language (had a prof in a class I dropped, took me three lectures to figure out that one particular word was "velocity" -- and that was one of the few I words of his I ever figured out)? How about paying to have a "expert" teaching the class only to realize that the TA giving the lectures just finished the course last semester (and probably doesn't understand the subject as well as you do)? How about labs that are so regimented, all you get out of them is practice reading (at the "See Spot" level)?

Frankly, secondary education is a major rip off. And it's getting worse all the time.

Unfortunately, I have no real idea for a solution. And, no, ignorance is not preferable. :)

--Pete

EDIT: closed parenthesis -- I need a LISP keyboard :)

[Jeunemaitre]

how about courses taught by someone for whom English isn't even an nth language (had a prof in a class I dropped, took me three lectures to figure out that one particular word was "velocity" -- and that was one of the few I words of his I ever figured out)

The problem you mentioned Pete, is one I observed quite frequently in my undergraduate education. I had a particularly difficult time in physics (lecturer spoke with an Italian accent, "recitation" TA was originally from Ireland ("fee"="phi", "aluminium"="aluminum"), and lab TA from Venezuela). Though I had no problem interpreting at the end of the semester, the beginning of the course was quite daunting.

On the other hand, since I've gotten back into education thanks to the bastion of higher learning that is Northern Virginia Community College, I've been pleasantly surprised with the quality of instruction. Most of what I'm taking is business and management courses taught by adjunct faculty (since all of my classes are held on week-nights from 7-10). The great thing about these instructors is that they provide grounded examples for issues discussed in class, and provide a more complete picture of what is applicable than an instructor with purely academic experience could.

I feel that the reason behind these issues in higher education, and others, is the focus of educational institutions on things other than the education of the tuition paying students. Some of these institutions focus on research (though much of it is basic research with little possibility for application), while others throw good money after bad into the marketing and image of the school, or the school's athletic program. The "Publish-or-Perish" mentality is prevalent in faculty departments across the US, placing a clear emphasis on enhancing the prestige of the school through faculty achievement, rather than student achievement. So long as colleges and universities pay more attention to their faculty and "student-athletes" than to their regular students, the quality of education will suffer. The difficulty is finding an effective way to communicate dissatisfaction with this trend to the leaders of academic institutions.

[I had started on a long rant about the how difficult it would be to disrupt demand for education (to try and demonstrate a dissatisfaction with the current system), because of the growing place in the US economy for knowledge workers, but I decided against it. After all, economics doesn't start until 7 tonight.]

[jahcs]

Why are we doing this?
Charging by billing hours more fairly distributes the cost of instruction to those students who receive extra instruction. Students will now pay a more equitable amount for the instruction time they receive. Based on this system, only students who are the recipients of additional instruction will pay for additional billing hours.

In most of my college courses 80% (or more) of the teacher's time was taken by 10% (or less) of the students. That's if the instructor actually taught the class. And TA's gave alot of the lectures, supervised the labs, and graded most of the papers and tests.

Under the new system, the cost for attending a course will be determined by the course’s billing hours, instead of credit hours. A billing hour represents an amount of time that a student spends in direct contact with an instructor or with laboratory equipment. Several factors are considered in determining the billing hours of a course. The main factor is the number of hours the student is expected to either be in class or in another “instructional” setting (such as a lab) in a typical week for a full semester course.

In the classes I took the credits were "credit hours" which were balanced against the expected homework and total class time investments. Now they just charge a premium for the class time.
Lab fees are meant to cover the cost of labs. They are also worth credits, which are paid for through tuition. Again they are charging you a premium. Usually for a TA to sit in the corner with homework from one of his other courses. (If you are a TA I know you probably work hard. How much do you get paid to be a TA? -- especially when the students signing up to take, and are paying for, a class expect to have more than fleeting contact with the professor.

I wonder if this will lead to bloated lecture times? Extending the lecture periods by one hour per week times 30-45 students. Balanced against a teacher who is getting paid salary. The credit hours probably wouldn't change for the course. Tuition money taken in by the college goes up, minimal new expense-until the teacher's union renegotiates the contracts.

[Griselda]

Actually, if the situation nationwide is similar to that in Oregon, the TA's are more likely to be unionized than the teachers at the University level.

-Griselda

[Jester]

Fneh.

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

Free public education in all areas of learning, to whatever level we can reasonably provide (bachelor's degree, perhaps?).

The benefits would outweigh the costs. Incomes would equalize without ugly redistribution or humiliating and burdensome welfare systems. Students could (gasp) study, travel, accumulate useful and mind-expanding experience. They could enter the working world with a clean credit rating, which could only enable opportunity. Nobody would feel cheated out of the possibility of improving their lot in life.

What's the cost? Taxes. So, of course, the idea is doomed.

Jester

[Chaerophon]

There's nothing like having a moron who knows less than you judge your work. "Hi, I'm a first-year Master's student in Public Policy, and I'm here to judge your work in a third-year Political Theory class. What did that Hobbes guy say, again?"

I think that TA's might be the most frustrating thing about University. A close second would be the idiots in the registrar's office.

[Chaerophon]

Well, at the university that I attend in Vancouver, TA's receive around 4 grand per semester for a first year course, and 5 grand for a 200. Not too bad, really, provided that you have a little bit of an extra supplement coming from somewhere. (scholarship, student loan, etc...)

[Lady Vashj]

Actually, there are no TA's at LCC :blink:

But not all of the teachers speak English as a first language, which is most of the reason I'm taking Organic Chemistry over. (Also, the man can't teach in any language.) And the teachers aren't necessarily more qualified than an experienced TA, and are probably much more overworked. The teachers probably aren't unionized at all, since so many of them are part-timers (who probably hand off their duties to TA's at MSU).

[Jeunemaitre]

Fneh.

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

Free public education in all areas of learning, to whatever level we can reasonably provide (bachelor's degree, perhaps?).

I admire your faith in people to take seriously a free public education, but I’m afraid that a such a system would not garner attention from students because they made no investment in the process. I find that most people at my current school (as noted previously: Northern Virginia Community College) pay no head to the ~$170 per course that they pay, and many pay little attention to the grades they receive, and think nothing of dropping courses habitually because they choose not to show up for the first exam. From my own experience, though there may still have been a segment of the population at my undergraduate institution (Syracuse University) that was concerned only with enjoying the “college atmosphere,” a far higher percentage were concerned with getting something out of the (A) money they were paying, (B) debt they were accruing, C) combination of (A) and (B).

The positive externalities of education may quite possibly, as you state, exceed the cost of taxes paid to fund the system, however, you might only succeed in driving the job market to place a greater emphasis on post-graduate degrees (which is already taking place). If free public education in the US is extended to the level of a Bachelor’s degree, or even an Associate’s degree, these would become the new standard of education, taking the place of the high school diploma. The job market would then pass by the folks who received a free BA (or BS or AAS) and start asking “from which school did you receive your MS (MA or MPH or MPP or Ph.D or Psy.D) degree?” We’d still be complaining about the hassle of higher education, but we’d start talking more about post-graduate and post-doc programs, rather than 2- or 4-year colleges and universities.

[edit-sometimes and B in parentheses is just a B in parentheses]

[--Pete]

Hi,

A free public education does not need to equal a free lunch.

It would be simple enough to require performance in both quality (require a C+ average, for instance) and quantity (require enough credits at the appropriate level to graduate in 4 years for a BA, etc.). Failure to keep up in either manner means that the *full* cost of further education falls on the student.

And the inflation of requirements for jobs would not be there if the deflation of education had not happened. If the bar is set so that anyone can step over it, it becomes no bar at all. The HS diploma, indicating nothing of a person's knowledge or abilities, is thus worth nothing in today's job market.

More when I've got some time :)

--Pete

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

...at the Post-secondary level is, they were never trained to be "teachers".

When you've come from the examples in the public school system where teachers are specifically trained to be teachers and have a modicum of understanding on how to use various techniques, approaches, methodologies and resources... and then jump into the deep-end of the abyss of University Professors, the culture shock is legendary. These people don't give a hoot if you live or die, pass or fail, come or go. What's more, most of them generally have no idea on how to actually present or instruct their material. After all, they're experts in their field, not experts in the education of their field. It is their job to publish their research and then, typically, instruct with their very same publication (which, as the "required text" of their courses, further promotes the sale of said publication). Never-mind that said publication can be the most obnoxious collective of driveling snot ever set to text, it will be your primary means of understanding of your education in the chosen subject; that other text that's far more erudite and benefiting from brevity and straightforwardness isn't allowed... because it's not published on THIS campus. Can someone scream "Conflict of Interest" for me please? Thank you.

I'm reminded of historical commentary toward J.R.R. Tolkien. Who among us wouldn't appreciate the chance to actually attend one of his classes at Oxford circa 1950? The problem: Tolkien was known as a god-awful instructor who mumbled incoherently during the majority of his teaching attempts. A great mind, a rare talent... and a pitiful excuse for a "teacher".

Are there poor teachers in the grade-school level of education? Of course there are. But even the worst of them graduated with an Education degree, with all of the fundamental background and instruction in "instruction" that the degree entails. People who would like to read my opinion of the "Teach for America" program can now skip to the bottom of this post.

That Math Professor that we keep referring to (usually with a language barrier)? He knows his mathematics, of course. He's also a boon to the University for his abilities versus the other Mathematicians that populate the campuses world-wide. The fact that he's stuck for an answer when you say "Hi" is completely beside the point, don'tchaknow.

Of course, the preceding was based on my observations and discussions with various university students during my own time as a student in Canada. At no point could this hold up in discussion with university-reality in America or elsewhere. After all, it seems that in America they'll throw anyone with a degree and a C grade into a primary-scholastic environment and call them "teacher": Teach For America. Now, the stop-gap measure of having "experts" without a clue on HOW to instruct is reaching deeper into the education system down to our children. Which is all very nice, considering that the main reason most of these journalism and pre-law students would opt for such a path is because of the inroads and financial credits that it provides into their chosen graduate school.

A "teacher" is more than instruction, more than information and more than presentation. There is a heart and soul and drive that has to exist to weather the difficulties that are inherent in trying to reach across years, culture, society and language to reach a child's understanding. Teachers are teachers by choice, not by desperation, financial-boon or graduate school brownie points.

Instructors are as common as dirt. A teacher is a rare thing, indeed.

[--Pete]

HI,

. . . is that what you say is so true and so unnecessary.

When I came back from Vietnam, I was assigned to Ft. Eustis as an instructor. First thing they did when I got there was send me to a two week Method of Instruction course that was run by UV for the government. Simple stuff. Like putting together a syllabus, a lesson plan, a test. Like how to make a view foil that was visible, understandable, useful (and when not to use one at all). Like how to talk to the class, not to the board.

While that course might not have made great teachers of us, it did make us into at least effective instructors. We may not have done everything right after the course, but at least we avoided the most glaring mistakes. And all it took was about forty hours, plus "homework" -- the equivalent of one three quarter hour Freshman class.

Since most "educated" people end up doing some teaching in their careers (even if it is as little as presenting their plan/views/results in a staff meeting), I think making the equivalent of the MoI course I took a requirement for a bachelor's degree would be justified. If all it ever does is banish the view foil with two hours of information presented in twenty seconds to the trash heap, it will more than have paid for itself.

Even educated people are ignorant of what they've never seen.

--Pete

[Jester]

"I find that most people at my current school (as noted previously: Northern Virginia Community College) pay no head to the ~$170 per course that they pay, and many pay little attention to the grades they receive, and think nothing of dropping courses habitually because they choose not to show up for the first exam."

Well, maybe that would be a problem, but I think Pete's ideas would solve it as well as it could be solved.

As for raising the bar, well, if the average level of education goes up, and companies start demanding higher degrees, then great! A better educated population, more quality jobs, higher standards for intellectual quality. Sounds like a good idea to me. You still won't need a PhD to do plumbing, though.

Jester

[Selby]

As for raising the bar, well, if the average level of education goes up, and companies start demanding higher degrees, then great! A better educated population, more quality jobs, higher standards for intellectual quality.

You assume people will learn and be better people because of it though. Where I went to school they passed people with pulses in most departments and in my "strict" department, if you just managed to stay in class long enough they would graduate you. They graduated some of the biggest wastes of space with a bachelor's of Electrical Engineering. Then I had to go compete with them in the job market.

If our University system would do what it is supposed to: teach and give grades based on your performance, not give 1 A, 1 B, and C the rest of the class regardless of grades. With 4th highest grade (or 53 out of 60 points for the whole semester) in the class of 35, I got a C. Yet the slacker in the back of the class (when he actually shows up) who got 15 out of 60 points for the whole semester gets the same grade and same degree, I can't compete with it. So I ended up going to graduate school (where they actually do kick people out) to distinguish myself from the morons. A Bachelor's degree is worthless to most companies these days, they want Masters degrees. But they don't care how smart you are, they just want the piece of paper. A piece of paper that says I put up with more BS than someone else. I hate the current higher education system and I hate recruiters who don't know a damn thing about the job they are recruiting for automatically assuming that a certain degree entitles someone to a job regardless of their ability to perform.

Sorry, kinda ranted there for a while. I just got done turning in my corrected and defended thesis to the graduate school, so hopefully I am leaving this behind me for a while.

[Jester]

"You assume people will learn and be better people because of it though."

Well, it's really quite hard to figure out an education system without that assumption. :)

Maybe the better people part is fantasy. I don't think it would improve society's ethical worth particularly. But it would at least take a little chunk out of parochialism.

"But they don't care how smart you are, they just want the piece of paper. A piece of paper that says I put up with more BS than someone else."

Can you really blame them for asking for a degree confirming that you're good at what they're employing you for? ;)

Jester

[kandrathe]

As for raising the bar, well, if the average level of education goes up, and companies start demanding higher degrees, then great! A better educated population, more quality jobs, higher standards for intellectual quality. Sounds like a good idea to me. You still won't need a PhD to do plumbing, though.

>big sigh< It seems to be a wave that has swept through the US at least, that University and College is meant to be vocational. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think is in in the interest of humanity for us all to be educated, and not just vocationally. My dream would be that all people would desire to continuously broaden their minds, and that the State would help to facilitate that. It seems that it should be in the interest of all societies to freely promote education, as it seems to obviously lead to prosperity and happiness. Not always, but mostly.

I see two contrasting forces in higher education;

A] -- Corporate focused vocational instruction with directed applied research. This solution may be best when formed as a public/private partnership between governments and companies to educate students in what the employer needs, and to direct research into solving the problems that employers have. There is not much room in this type of system for avocational activities. Studies contributing the most to the capitalists society would be in the most demand, while those that do not contribute would get little funding. This type of system leads to viewing a degree as a certificate to higher levels of employment, and salary.

B] -- Classical University Education. I see this as the tradition as brought to us from Europe, which pursues more to freely expand humanities base of knowledge and promotes true acedemic freedom. No topic is too obscure to explore, and the focus in general is to cultivate the mind, rather than to train the worker. If money would just grow on trees this type of school would be my ideal. But, retractions in government have made this option more and more untenable due to increased demands for access, and the rising costs of hiring instructors and paying for facilities. Universities are forced to cull student populations only to a slight fraction of the motivated, and cull programs to only those who attract the best donors and create high demand. Then again, I don't love high taxes either.

Either way, education is in a very sad state if its intent is to cultivate intellect and uplift the masses. As I see it, the failure in American post secondary education is convincing those who like option A] that option B] is better. I would like my world to have both Accounting and the Arts, Engineering and Philosophy, Journalism and English Literature.

[Vornzog]

Chaerophon,

I feel your pain, but having been on both sides of this, I feel the need to stick up for the TA.

I just finished a BA in biochemistry, but took a huge number of extra biology, chemistry, math and computer science in addition. I encountered more than my fair share of TA's in that time - some good, some bad, some incomprehensible. The low point in my undergraduate carrear was the attempt to explain Kant to my ethics class - the *teacher* a: didn't truly understand Kant (but then who does), and b: could not convey the ideas in english. Not that I know anything about Kant, but at least I could speak in english.

On the flip side of that, I am now a graduate student in chemistry, and was appointed lead TA for the Chemistry for Engineers class. A bit of background here - I tutored frequently as an undergrad, and was often asked why I was not the students' TA - they thought I taught the material better. I am now convinced that much of that praise was due to the fact that I took the time to truly explain a topic. As a TA, there simply was not time for these sorts of in depth explinations.

That Chemistry for Engineers class moved at a pace designed to kill only half the students. My recitations had to be kept to ~45 minutes - barely enough time to touch briefly on three lectures worth of material. I attended lectures, and often answered questions for students who would never have asked the professor - not in a packed 500 person lecture hall, but that only helped the 10 or so students who knew to come ask.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing was the helproom hours. All the TA's held them, but often we would end up doing our own homework, as almost no one would seek us out for help.

My point here is that it is extremely easy to become jaded when you are genuinely trying to help, and cannot. I make no excuses for those TA's who are completely clueless, but beg you to remember that most TA's are thurst into their role as a teacher with little or no experience. The good ones should at least be willing to help you if you go ask - they'll be so overjoyed to see genuine interest instead of point-mongering and other grumbles about grades that they will go out of their way to help. If they are not completely closed minded, you can even provide constructive criticism on their teaching style.

I would love to see all TA's TAing because they want to, not because the department requires it. I know that will never happen, and as a result there will always be bad TA's. Some of them will go on to become bad profs. Some of them will be unavoidable. But search out the good ones, and make the most of your time with them - you can learn much.

Now the Registrar's office? Don't have a single good thing to say about them...:angry:

-V-

[LochnarITB]

I would love to see all TA's TAing because they want to, not because the department requires it.&nbsp; I know that will never happen, and as a result there will always be bad TA's.&nbsp; Some of them will go on to become bad profs.&nbsp; Some of them will be unavoidable.&nbsp; But search out the good ones, and make the most of your time with them - you can learn much.

I couldn't agree more on that point. On reading your post I was brought back to my engineering courses *mumble mumble* years ago. I had more than one TA that rescued me when the professor was worthless but one in particular comes to mind. The class was Engineering Statics. The prof was straight from China. What little english anyone might understand coming from him was lost as he mumbled into the text book he had his face buried in as he stood writing his lecture on the board. I was at a total loss and relied on the TA to get me straightened out. I was extremely nervous about my grade and needed to do well in the final. A couple days after taking it, I passed the TA in the hall and I said a quick hello. He stopped me and said he had just finished grading the finals. He went on to say that my test was one of the best written he had ever seen. Granted, he had only been a TA for a couple years and there was a definate smoke blowage factor, but it made me feel good - and the test obviously did what I needed for my overall grade. As we were both hurrying on our way, I didn't think to thank him and let him know he is the one that got me through. After all these years, I still remember his name - Tom Chase. He did go on to be a professor at the university and I am sure he did well by his students.

[Jeunemaitre]

As for raising the bar, well, if the average level of education goes up, and companies start demanding higher degrees, then great! A better educated population, more quality jobs, higher standards for intellectual quality. Sounds like a good idea to me. You still won't need a PhD to do plumbing, though.

I guess I missed a chance to reply to this when it was the most recent point, but I wanted to make one more point on the raised bar issue. I should have mentioned this in my last post, but I didn't think of it then:

You're right that you don't need a doctorate in hydrodynamics to be a plumber, but I would counter the notion that industry demanding higher degrees would be a good thing. With industry demanding higher and higher degrees, the bar would indeed be raised, and the problem would be what happens to the people who are an inch too short to reach it when the jump: these people would not be able to attain the advanced degrees required, and would have nowhere to start in their field of choice (carrying the "need experience to get experience" paradox to the extreme). These people would then have to fall back on careers they find less lucrative and less rewarding. The effect would be a polarization of the national workforce with an intellectual elite who can choose the job they want, and everyone else who will have to take what comes along

Can you really blame them for asking for a degree confirming that you're good at what they're employing you for?

I think the point of Selby's statement was that the degree is not an adequate reflection of performance in many cases. I fought hard to get "cum laude" on my diploma, and damn near got the "magna" part too, but so many people I knew spent senior year reciting the mantra "D is for Diploma."

I would like my world to have both Accounting and the Arts, Engineering and Philosophy, Journalism and English Literature.

I highly agree that the state of education is sorry if we're setting out to improve minds instead of providing vocational training. I bit of both might be better suited to most students, but given the traditional time constraints of higher ed, there isn't enough time left to experience all of those things that you might be interested in. As it was, they were ready to cancel my schedule for fall semester junior year because I hadn't declared a major. I wish that I could have taken three or four courses in all of those things that I only got one course into. I think that offering such a broad base of subjects might help accomplish Jester's goal of improving people, but it will take a much higher level of attention from students, and a much higher level of patience from employers.

Now the Registrar's office? Don't have a single good thing to say about them...

Yeah, my favorite was the "application to graduate." After registration for spring semester (or the semester which you anticipate being your last) you had to fill out a form requesting that they notify the college recorders' office that you'd like to graduate. The recorders' office is supposed to give you a degree audit and tell you that you either have enough of the right credits, or what you're missing. Problem is, you only find this out after it's too late to change your schedule for that semester, so if you need a class, you have no way of taking it until the following semester.

[edit: I can spell... S-P-L-L]