RECLAIMING AN ACADEMIC CULTURE. Start with a recollection by the dean at Anonymous Community of how a proprietary "college" handled retention problems.

At my previous employer (a for-profit college), the single aspect of the job I hated the most was on Tuesdays, when a report would show up on my desk (and the other managers’) showing the top 25 class sections that semester for student attrition. I was supposed to ‘ask’ the instructors of those sections in my departments to ‘shed light’ on the high drop rates, and to keep notes about which instructors showed up on the list most frequently. Persistently high drop rates were cause for termination, and both adjunct and full-time faculty were terminated when they couldn’t bring the rates down.

I hated that. I hated it because as a professor, I saw firsthand how much student attrition has nothing to do with the quality of teaching. (Most of it had to do with transportation, work/family hours, money, family crises, or substance abuse.) As the institution started to struggle financially, the squeeze on instructors tightened. Some, I’m told, consciously lowered their grading standards to keep themselves off the list.

(Here's where anonymity frustrates. I'd really like to know what proprietary college this is, and whether the retention efforts paid off, or if the policy led to inflated grades and employers staying away from the job fairs or requesting additional evidence of competence, such as SAT scores or military discharge papers. Focus on that "as the institution started to struggle financially." Might that be evidence that the real customer of a college degree is the employer, not the student. Inflate the grades, retain students, students don't cut it on the job market, fewer students come, inflate the grades further?)

Focus next on the sources of attrition. The retention dilemma might boil down to whether an institution interprets those sources as beyond individual students' control or as evidence of poor life management skills. (The short version is that both hypotheses receive support from economics research.) What the institution chooses to do about students' difficulties, however, becomes a major contributor to poor faculty morale, particularly when crunch time comes for the students. There's a conversation about that topic at Dr. Crazy's. The money paragraph:

If I didn't care, then I wouldn't be so pissed off when some refuse to take advantage of the opportunities I give them to succeed in my courses. What yesterday's post was about was frustration. I'm sure you all have felt it, too, regardless of whether you're a professor, a student, whatever. I find it interesting that some become so offended when people who teach actually express frustration. The fact that I do doesn't mean that I'm disrespectful to my students or that I hate my job. It means that sometimes my job is frustrating.

The comments (Blogger's internal comment feature does not yet allow links to individual comments, just go and scroll) raise some points that suggest additional thinking. Here's one:

I also teach at an institution where there is significantly more pressure on faculty to work around the off campus lives of students than there is pressure on students to accomodate their classes. At its worst, it feels like you can't expect anything of people enrolled in your courses without seeming mean, insensitive, unsupportive, discouraging, etc. It is only in the past year or so that I've become truly comfortable holding my ground on what I think are pretty basic expectations for student work. I sympathize a lot with the feeling that some students seem to expect that you should, essentially, design a whole new course just so they can tick the credits off of their list.

Again, the problems of anonymity. Do I infer that this poster's institution views the sources of attrition as beyond the students' control? Or is the institution's culture one that encourages lots of extracurricular and service activities even at the exclusion of book learning? But I repeat: there are market tests for institutional performance. Public policy for the past 20-25 years has not been biased toward more rigor and accountability in the schools because a few mean Republicans are running the government. The education system has failed to challenge its charges. Stand your ground. I'm counting on the next cohorts of professors not to give up.

Scroll further.

The problem here is (at least as I see it), is that most academics are "produced" at places at Harvard, Wisconsin, Chicago, Berkeley (these types of places produce the lion's share of PhDs...don't believe me, look it up). These are places where students (undergrads as well, for the most part) actually CARE about learning and what-have-you. Surprise, surprise, surprise when they (newly-minted PhD's) get to So-So State U. and guess what: Students don't care so much about anything except getting the ol' BA and getting out and making cash money.

So, when a students sends an annoying email about "Please give me an extension" or whatever, the instructor/professor is understandably upset..but wait: Why does the professor get upset? Because he/she has put all their ol' eggs in the same basket and is letting the student RUN THEIR LIFE. What I say, is take back the control say, "You get an F", refer them to the syllabus ...

Dig deeper. First, the Ph.D.s are a self-selected bunch likely to hang out with other similarly self-selected people. They're less likely to have seen the time-servers sharing the Harvards, Wisconsins, Chicagos, and Berkeleys with them. (You get a better class of slacker, but you're still dealing with slackers.) Thus, to gripe about how working conditions would be better higher up the food chain is likely self-defeating. Second, think about how a less-motivated culture has emerged at So-So State. (With sufficiently many Ph.D.s from strong institutions saying "Enough," it it might go away.) Did So-So State expand its faculty and take on additional responsibilities during the 1960s, often by hiring further down the food chain? Does So-So's mission statement reflect the questioning of "status hierarchies" popular in those days? Has anybody even given any thought to what So-So's mission is? In the first case, changing the institutional culture might be as simple as waiting out the mediocrities. In the second case, that's why we have market tests (is anybody really interested in "alternative" degree programs any more?) In the third, the simplest thing to do might be to hold the line and take the control back.

Another remark:

As Dr. Crazy points out, anyone who is a professor and does NOT get riled up over rude/slacker/apathetic students is not teaching because they love it. To push down the emotions of frustration is to give up caring, and as soon as you give up caring, you stop being nearly as effective.

Yes, but part of being effective is to set those boundaries and stick by them. What does it say about the times we live in that some people describe such standards as "tough love?"