Tags
Covid, deference, disengagement compact, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, equity, hard science, K-12, Maitland Jones Jr., merit, NYU, organix chemistry, professional responsibilities, respect
Maitland Jones Jr.
credit: hindustantimes
As regular readers know, I’ve taught high school and college. I have been, for many years, explaining all the greatest teacher in the world can do is provide the best opportunity for learning their abilities and resources allow. The rest is up to students, and K-12, parents. College is quite another matter. So long as a teacher is doing this, and so long as they are conducting themselves professionally, the reality of this simple statement holds true.
Obviously, some teachers are better than others. They establish a professional rapport with their students, enjoy being with them, and enjoy teaching. Such teachers inspire students capable of being inspired to greater heights of achievement. Such teachers also demand a great deal of their students, more than most teachers do, always understanding not everyone has the same intellectual abilities, nor the same motivation. Even so, they do their best to help each student learn as much as they are capable of learning. This is their part of the implied contract.
It should go without saying, but these days it can’t, that teachers cannot be student’s middle to late age homies. They must be educated, responsible adults with a very specific mission, and very specific responsibilities. They can like, even love, their students, but there must always be professional barriers between them, for everyone’s good.
I’m sure, gentle readers, you see the underlying principles: equality of opportunity and merit. Students who do not do the work do not learn, and they are given the grades they deserve, as do students who do the work and learn a great deal. This, of course, has nothing to do with “equity,” which demands equal outcomes regardless of effort and accomplishment. Which outcomes? In “equitable” education, everyone gets an “A.”
With this in mind, let’s explore the plight of former NYU Professor Maitland Jones Jr. The James G. Martin Center posted this article in December of 2022:
As long as college students are considered entitled customers, their complaints about their professors will be taken seriously by administrators. That’s because happy students boost college applications, affect the closely-watched U.S. News & World Report annual rankings, and are part of the corporatization of higher education.
The latest example involves Maitland Jones Jr. and his organic chemistry course at NYU. When 82 of the professor’s 350 students signed a petition charging that his course was too hard, the deans terminated his contract and allowed students to withdraw from the class retroactively. This highly unusual step ignited an equal and opposite reaction from both the chemistry faculty, who protested the decision, and pro-Jones students.
Jones, a tenured professor, taught at NYU for four decades, and actually wrote the book on organic chemistry.
The controversy surrounding Jones has far-reaching implications for higher education today as it attempts to handle its Gen-Z student body. There was a time when college administrators paid little attention to student dissatisfaction. Their opinions were largely written off as a sign of their immaturity. But things have changed because of the high stakes involved. Students believe that they are entitled to all A’s while putting in little effort because they are paying soaring tuition. Not surprisingly, professors who have not yet achieved tenure are reluctant to disappoint students out of fear that poor ratings will be used against them. In contrast, tenured professors simply dig in their heels, citing lowering standards.
When I taught college back in the late 80s, there was no question who was in charge, nor did students imagine their complaints would prevail when they did not do the work and received accordingly poor grades.
Although learning is the shared responsibility of students and professors, students are the easier target. They study only 13 hours per week on average, or less than two hours per day in a typical semester, according to Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa in Academically Adrift: Limited Learning On College Campuses. That’s half as much as their peers in the early 1960s. More than 80 percent of their time, on average, is spent on work, clubs, socializing, and sleeping. No wonder they struggle to master rigorous work, particularly in the hard sciences and math.
The role that professors play in learning is far more nuanced. Old-timers with tenure cite the importance of maintaining high standards when they refuse to concede that their instruction might not engage students. Yet high standards and effective pedagogy are not mutually exclusive. Lecturing, which remains the most widely used method in many higher-ed disciplines, reduces students to passive stenographers. During the pandemic, Jones and two colleagues taped 52 organic chemistry lectures to reach failing students. But these lectures, for which Jones personally paid more than $5,000, were insufficient. In 2020, 30 students filed a petition asking for more help. It may never have occurred to Jones that he was partly to blame.
The author fails to acknowledge lecture, and discussion, are essential to college education. Are teachers no longer able to expect students will actually pay attention? Read the text? Take notes? Ask pertinent questions? Visit a professor during office hours if they don’t understand? What will replace lecture and discussion? Group work? Making collages? Giving book reports? Holding Marxist struggle sessions? The article does not provide any actual evidence Jones was in any way deficient in his instruction. There is no evidence of Jones’ failure to adhere to the college handbook, or to uphold any professional standard. If NYU was like my school during the Covid crazy years, he had no option but to teach online. Everyone knew that kind of instruction was substandard, but administrators forced teachers to pretend otherwise, and generally, to grade with little regard for accomplishment.
In the final analysis, Jones created his own downfall for two reasons: He was not able to transfer his formidable research expertise in organic chemistry to the classroom, and he failed to develop a solid rapport with his students. (According to NYU’s student newspaper, ‘There are dozens of comments across social media warning students about taking Jones’ class dating back more than a decade.’) If Jones had been able to achieve only one of these two goals, he likely would not have been terminated. Research has shown that students rank ‘caring’ professors quite differently from ‘uncaring’ professors. Could it be that Jones’s inability to connect with his students was more important than his rigid standards?
The article fails to understand an important distinction: the difference between respect and deference. Students these days have unlimited self-respect and demand professors “respect” them because of their unlimited self-respect, untainted by character and accomplishment. Respect is best defined as appreciation for the character and accomplishments of others. It is earned; it cannot be demanded. At the very least, every college student owes every teacher deference—duties owned because of one’s position. It’s clear at least 82 of Jones’ students didn’t understand, and likely didn’t care about, this important distinction, nor did the administrators at NYU. What, pray tell, had Jones’s students done to earn anyone’s respect in an organic chemistry classroom? Who would take such a class thinking it to be on the same intellectual level as a “studies” class? What, precisely, enables students to know if an organic chemistry course is “too hard?” What is their basis of knowledge, their basis for comparison with an organic chemistry course that is not too hard? How is “too hard” to be measured, and who gets to establish the parameters for measurement?
Jones also set himself up for dismissal by violating what higher-education researcher George Kuh calls the “disengagement compact” between faculty and students: ‘I’ll leave you alone if you leave me alone.’ Simply put, this tacit agreement means that professors won’t make students work too hard for a high grade as long as students give professors high marks in evaluating their courses. But Jones seems to have wanted it both ways. He refused to lower standards at the same time that he came across to his students as aloof. This lethal combination led to his termination.
How dare Jones demand attention and accomplishment! How dare he expect students taking a hard science course to actually put in the time and effort necessary to master the material! And once again, the author of the article provides no evidence whatever that Jones “came across to his students as aloof,” nor does he provide any evidence of any other sort of microaggressing malfeasance.
Whether NYU acted appropriately, however, is another story. Administrators today are highly attuned to student feedback. But in handling the complaints against Jones, they overreacted. Instead of summarily firing him, they should have offered him assistance to improve his instruction. By allowing students to retroactively withdraw from his class and then terminating him, they established a dangerous precedent.
Indeed they did, and the author isn’t helping. Once again, the author provides no evidence, not even student whining, that would lead one to think Jones needed “assistance to improve his instruction.” Obviously, the majority of Jones’ students did not consider Jones’ instruction to be objectionable. What appears obvious is a portion of Jones’ students objected to having to learn the content of a hard science class, a class absolutely vital to anyone going into medicine or any related scientific discipline. If they were not considering such a career, why take that class? They whined, and the University administrators caved in, thus sending the very clear message merit has no place in their university, studying is unnecessary, and academic standards likewise don’t matter. What is an NYU diploma now worth?
Unless and until students are required to pay appropriate deference to teachers, little or no learning can take place, particularly in college. Even in my lowly, mid-sized Texas high school, students behaving as these did would not only not be heeded, they’d absolutely not be coddled. If a teacher wasn’t meeting professional obligations, that would be professionally handled, but the proper, professional relationship between teachers and students was always enforced. Can not even that K-12 standard be expected of college students?
Where all this will lead is still unknown. But if the past few years are any indication, higher education may soon be unrecognizable.
It already is unrecognizable, and the actions of fools like those in charge of NYU have made it so.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
I sometimes have to impart my sage and wise experience onto the younger troops of my current.. um.. “profession”, that while the security company has assigned you to walk a parking lot at XYZ Corporation it doesn’t mean someone at XYZ may like the way you stand, pick your nose, or chase butterflies. If our security company gets the call that XYZ doesn’t want you there as a guard, it doesn’t matter if you are Paul Blart: Mall Cop. XYZ is a paying customer. Hence the dilemma with Prof. Jones. Three hundred dissatisfied customers of that school taking the time to complain formerly, and potentially a large enough group to spread the bad word across social media… tenure doesn’t mean a thing when compared with being a threat to the revenue stream. Quality of education feeds an institution’s coffers… not bad press. The complaining students don’t have to be “correct” in their accusations. But you alluded to the idea that in that environment an educator has to achieve a balance with relationships as well as being a credible educator. Now.. right or wrong, spoiled kids, self-assured kids, whatever the typical student is displaying as an attitude, is part of the new environment. Adapt and overcome.
I do agree that NYU administration likely could have handled it far differently on a personal level, but we don’t know the entire story or the details.
A bit like the Peter Principle for Prof. Jones.
Dear Doug:
Indeed college students are customers, but the contract between them and colleges used to require effort and civilized behavior on their part. It seems that’s no longer the case, which again causes one to wonder just what a college degree is worth these days.
“Three hundred dissatisfied customers of that school taking the time to complain formerly, and potentially a large enough group to spread the bad word across social media… tenure doesn’t mean a thing when compared with being a threat to the revenue stream.”
While true, that’s a very short sighted view. Long term, educational institutions gain and maintain reputations by putting out well-educated “customers” who are able to succeed in their chosen fields of endeavor.
The quality of the education should always be first and foremost. If three hundred dissatisfied customers are dissatisfied about the very thing that can ensure your long term success, it would be a bit self-destructive to pay heed to their complaints and destroy your reputation and credibility.
“Quality of education feeds an institution’s coffers… not bad press.”
And that seems to be exactly the opposite of what you were saying in the previous statement. Customers complaining is bad press. If they’re complaining because Professor so-and-so is too hard on them, actually expects them to write their papers using correct English grammar and spelling, expects them to turn in assignments and to pass the required tests or he gives them bad grades, it seems to me like firing him would be putting bad press above quality of education.
Let’s use your security company analogy. If the customer that’s complaining about Paul Blart is doing so because he’s too thorough at his job…say, stopping employees to make sure everything’s on the up and up when they’re doing something that seems suspicious, or expecting people to actually be wearing their required ID badges, or insisting that doors that are supposed to be locked, are not propped open for easy access…in short, doing his job too well, firing him to satisfy that customer would be very short sighted.
In my opinion, a security company that has a desire to maintain a reputation for quality would tell the customer that perhaps they need to find another security provider that isn’t quite so proficient. You may lose a customer or two short term, but long term, you’re maintaining a level of professionalism that will pay off many times over what’s lost over those customers who’d ask you to compromise your level of quality.
Dear Sailorcurt:
What you said. It used to be, and still is at many schools, anyone attending college understood there was a contract, implied and written in the faculty and student handbooks. In exchange for tuition, a student had the opportunity to earn–not be awarded–a degree, but only if they met all requirements for that degree. Those requirements always included paying proper deference to teachers, doing the work to a minimal level, and behaving properly. In other words, behaving like a responsible adult, not a whining, selfish child.
Not until recently have college administrators begun to pretend no such contract exists, or the terms of any contract are infinitely variable and subject to change at the whim of dimwitted students who don’t actually have the intellectual horsepower to be in a real college.
Just as in policing, colleges are driving out competent teachers, which will leave nothing but socialist/communist/racist lunatics in the classroom. We will soon see a very clear dividing line, including in advertising, between woke diploma mills and actual colleges. Actual colleges will tend to be in red states, diploma mills in blue.
“‘There are dozens of comments across social media warning students about taking Jones’ class dating back more than a decade.’”
Which is indicative of exactly nothing. One of my favorite electronics professors back in the dark ages got badmouthed terribly by most other students. Social media didn’t exist back then, but people talked and the general consensus back then was to avoid his classes.
The reason the other students wanted to avoid his classes was the very same reason that I loved them: He actually expected you to do quality work and be able to demonstrate understanding of the material.
We kept lab notebooks for the lab assignments we did. We were required to document every aspect of our lab assignments using the standard Scientific Method “State the hypothesis, devise a method of testing, test the hypothesis, document the results, if the results didn’t match the hypothesis determine whether the error was in the hypothesis or the testing methodology, adjust as necessary, retest, repeat as necessary”.
I was an adult student working full time and paying my own way with no loans, taking a class or two a semester. Most of my contemporaries were kids on their parent’s dime or on loans and grants.
We had different goals, and those goals were why we differed in our opinions of this professor. I was there to learn as much as possible as thoroughly as possible and get my money’s worth. They were there to spend a few more years partying and enjoying life before having to undertake the responsibilities of adulthood.
That’s why I liked him (and respected him) and they didn’t. He didn’t give out grades for free, he made you earn them.
BTW, I used my lab notebook for reference for YEARS after graduating from his classes. I only stopped using them because I got out of the field, but I still have them. His insistence that they be done “just so” made them invaluable to me. I could pick one up today, flip to a lab assignment and understand completely exactly what it was about, what I was trying to accomplish, what the results were and if something went wrong, what it was and why. Unbelievably useful tool that I only have because I had one professor who cared more about imparting valuable knowledge than being popular.
Anyway, my point is: just because the professor in this instance was not the most popular, does not mean he was not an effective instructor. It may very well just mean he wasn’t willing to give out free rides to students who didn’t feel like putting in the work.
Well, that brings forth the old adage, “The customer is always right.” Which means under capitalism, how far are you willing to exchange earnings for the sake of some moral turpitude simply to assert some “correctness” in the moment.. especially when you answer to some board of regents, board of directors, or stockholders.
A teacher of ANY grade, K up through college, is being judged from the moment he walks in the classroom door and opens his/her mouth. Vocal inflections, accents, appearance, body language, weighs equally as much as the value of what he/she is trying to impart onto the students. What he/she says acquires credibility only if the entire picture supports it as well. This is pure human nature. Our instincts assess the complete picture in order to place value on the communication.
Now.. a teacher also has to play for his/her audience as any public speaker might, yet likely more so given the audience is of a certain age and the goal is to teach them something they are willing, no-so-willing, just there for the course credit, or heard you give out easy grades for the GPA bump.
Being a teacher IS a popularity contest, albeit the contest is to try and gain the attention of an audience with many different reasons.. priorities.. for being in the room with you… and you are handing out the same message to all with a singular goal. Makes me tend to respect the profession on that alone.
Now… the students in the classroom judging you as their teacher will likely have a wide range of maturity levels, which you have very well illustrated from your own experience. Your judgement, attitude, and appreciation for the instructor given your maturity level compared with the other younger students present was a big difference. I would wager that as that instructor spoke he gave you more eye contact than any of the others present… especially if you had contributed to the class discussion. Again.. human nature.
Again, to those 300 who formally complained… that’s a significant number even if it took place at Harvard. One might also wonder, didn’t that professor have a large number of supporters to formerly help offset that negative response? If he did a good job, or even a great job for many, he was an inspiration… is it likely he would get 300 of those students to formerly convey their admiration to the college elders? All speculative…. but every instructor wants to be as inspirational to his/her students as a TV sitcom teacher. Sometimes it works that way.
I didn’t read the article that this post was based on so maybe I’m missing something, but I’m not sure where your 300 number is coming from:
“When 82 of the professor’s 350 students signed a petition charging that his course was too hard…”
82 out of 350 is a significant number, but in a difficult discipline like organic chemistry, it isn’t that surprising to me, based on my experience…and it’s not 300.
The professor in my story was very personable in class, was extremely respectful to students and was not at all aloof or uncaring – he often made himself available to students who were struggling to help them understand the concepts he was trying to teach; but he absolutely, positively required the work to be done completely and correctly and he refused to grade “on the curve” (one of the biggest complaints I heard about him). Either you put in the work and passed his class, or you didn’t. There were no participation trophies.
I don’t know the details about the story outlined in the Post above, but based on that “it’s too hard” complaint, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out it’s very close the facts of my experience.
Pingback: Who Is Running Education? | Stately McDaniel Manor