
Would College Students Retain More If Professors Dialed Back the Pace? - AceyMan
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/02/01/581864513/
======
jbarciauskas
This article is untethered from the mammoth amounts of research that's been
done specifically on how people learn. The answer to this question doesn't lie
in anecdotes about various professors' "philosophy", in fact that kind of
approach is a huge barrier to actually improving the learning that occurs on
college campuses. This is an opinion article, so I understand it's not
thorough reporting, but the author should familiarize herself with the
literature.

A book like [https://www.amazon.com/Make-Stick-Science-Successful-
Learnin...](https://www.amazon.com/Make-Stick-Science-Successful-
Learning/dp/0674729013) is accessible and provides a good survey of what we
know about how the brain learns and remembers things, and how it relates to
existing practices.

~~~
anonemouse145
This.

For instance, we all probably had to go through math classes where the
professor writes so fast that it's a hand cramping race just to even scribble
together enough notes to follow each gigantic derivation later for learning
purposes. Nobody in that class is retaining any of that.

The kid who aces that class, is almost invariably someone who likes to to play
with the equations in their free time at their own pace, so they get a feel
for what process they need to employ toward a solution rather than brute
forcing it. (When applicable, sometimes brute force is the only tactic.)

Math classes in general really, desperately need to slow down and let students
grasp higher-order concepts. The number crunching method is stressful, and all
it does is massively discourage bright people who may be geniuses in their
field but flee University because the school made Calculus their "breakout"
class.

Anecdote. When I went to University, I had a professor who graduated MIT tell
the class that he'd realized how much pressure we were under in our Calculus
class trying to keep up, that this was deeply unfair, and that he was erasing
our last test score because they were unreflective of the performance that he
knew we were capable of if we had any time for his class. Calculus was a core
requirement, his class was elective, so almost every student had been forced
to ignore his class, and we were amazingly lucky that he was good enough to
sympathize.

This man used to work at Bell Labs and swam 200 laps a day to keep fit. And he
was telling us we had it rough. I saw people cry out of gratitude.

~~~
Balgair
Anecdata: I didn't grasp any of algebra until 10th grade. From about 7th to
10th grade chemistry class, I was just winging it. Sure, 10x=30, I could get
x. But any of the trig or the parabolas, not a chance. It wasn't until
chemistry, when I actually had to use algebra to get the molarity, moles,
grams, etc, that I was able to grasp it. I remember sitting in class after the
bell let out, on my desk, just doing the molarity equations over and over. It
was one of the largest smiles of my life. I finally _got it_.

So, math happens when it happens. Maybe, yeah, I was a little retarded from
the rest of my peers in grasping this idea of algebra. But I did get it
eventually, when I needed to use it, finally. Saying that math is 'hard' isn't
the best way of going about it. Everyone is different and learns differently
and at different times. Some may not be able to get 3rd year Calc until they
are 30, some get it at 15.

I tapped out of formal math classes at number-theory at ~22. Diff-eqs,
Lagrangians, General Relativity, all fine with me, but number theory was a
whole different level of pedantry I was not about to dive into.

~~~
stcredzero
_It wasn 't until chemistry, when I actually had to use algebra to get the
molarity, moles, grams, etc, that I was able to grasp it._

There was this study that found this kind of difference in application. People
were given a logic problem phrased abstractly. Then other people were given
the same logic problem, but phrased in terms of catching someone cheating at
something. It was like people's IQ's suddenly greatly increased.

I also remember an anecdote about this father coaching his kid through the
multiplication tables, which the kid didn't like and had trouble with. They
were riding in the car quizzing the kid, who was not doing well, but then the
kid asked to do the 7's, which he rattled off with aplomb. Turns out, the kid
really liked football. (US football)

~~~
Balgair
Nice ones!

I think application is important, but the diversity of what a child will care
about is crazy large. You can't reach them all. My SO is a teacher (of
chemistry, ironically) and some kids get the material and some just don't.
It's not a lack of trying, it's just that they don't get it. As such, the
frustration of the child comes out and makes things worse. Good family lives
are _very_ important throughout their lives and help, but some kids just
aren't going to get certain subjects. We're all different people.

------
eli_gottlieb
I'm not sure that slowing things down would necessarily work well in science
or math fields, but I can name what I think would: focus on _doing_ rather
than _reciting_. The best calculus courses twin it with basic physics, showing
not only how the material is used in-context, but its aesthetic qualities and
what it sets the stage for.

~~~
cowsandmilk
I agree strongly.

As an example of a major doing things correctly, in my opinion, is MIT's
aerospace engineering with their "unified engiineering" course that covers the
basics in a highly integrated fashion.

My experience in a different engineering program was that I learned some
sophomore math freshman year (because I had placed out of "freshman
calculus"), then didn't use it at all until junior year when I had forgotten
it. And then things tried to be integrated senior year when we had a senior
design project that tied all our random classes together. I turned out
alright, but I think an integrated approach would be much more fruitful.

All that said, I do think there is some value in having the purely
mathematical ability to look at an equation, classify it as a certain type,
and then know how to solve it. Not every problem you face in life will be an
application that existed when you were in college.

~~~
harrisjt
My uni (Wisconsin), in the engineering program, apply some old philosophy of a
ratio of time in class to time in lab. It's something like 50/50 or 40/60, I
think a lot of students prefer it that way.

------
peterjlee
I think the point of undergrad is to have as much exposure to relevant
material in the field, so later in their professional life if something
relevant comes up they'll at least remember that they learned about it and
know where to look. Also, if the students find one particular thing
interesting and want to learn more about it, that's what grad school is for.

I don't remember the details of every algorithm I learned in college, but if a
need arise, I know what my options are and the details are usually one Google
search away.

~~~
emsal
Also, the organization of the massive amount of information available out
there into a nicely sequential curriculum is understated when talking about
the benefits of college.

------
adamnemecek
Yes. They might also get more sleep and sleep is pretty important for
cognitive functions. The fact that sleep deprivation is a normal on campuses
and even in hs is a travesty.

Not sucking at scheduling would also do wonders.

Also, some space to interact with the topic the way I want. Tell me whats
needed by the end of the semester and let me study for it my way.

~~~
jasperry
> Also, some space to interact with the topic the way I want. Tell me whats
> needed by the end of the semester and let me study for it my way.

As a professor, I so wish we could do this more. But realistically, it seems
that we just can't afford to let students fail who aren't yet equipped to
learn that way. But I do try to allow for this while still staying within the
bounds of fairness, for example, giving students a grade based just on exam
scores when that would be a higher grade, so they can blow off homeworks that
other students really need credit for to shore up their grade.

~~~
adamnemecek
> let students fail who aren't yet equipped to learn that way

This is a failure of the system tho. It's my understanding that e.g. in Czech
Republic failing actually isn't a big deal as you can retake the exam (same
material, different actual exam) shortly after the first one. This can make a
huge difference.

I can go into more detail. I realize that things probably won't change but
small changes can have big impact.

------
avs733
Yes.

This goes to basic misunderstandings of the goals of education. At the
collegiate level, the goal (opinion statement) of education is creating deep
understanding, higher level thinking, and life-long metacognitive and learning
skills. While this may incidentally occur via a philosophical model of
pedagogy that is driven by transmitting information, that approach is
massively inefficient.

Giving more information is not the same as creating better understanding.
Creating better understanding requires time and practice. The phrase of art in
educational research is Deliberate Distributed Practice...DDP.

But you have to structure courses around it. The best method known is
backwards design. Backwards design involves clearly identifying learning goals
in advance and then backing out from that the appropriate content, pedagogical
approaches, and assessment measures to achieve those goals. These things must
by systematized and cannot be simply flipped on by teaching a faculty member
basic elements of using active learning in the classroom. That won't work
because such faculty members still hold a view of education as transmitting
content, which is an entirely different paradigm in which lecturing actually
makes rational sense.

~~~
chongli
_At the collegiate level, the goal (opinion statement) of education is
creating deep understanding, higher level thinking, and life-long
metacognitive and learning skills._

Nominally, yes. In reality? No. The reality of higher education is to act as a
preliminary screen for employers. Few people who apply to well known schools
get in. Fewer still survive to complete their degree. Many switch programs (to
a less competitive field), drop out, or even commit suicide.

I wish universities were as committed to education as they say they are. But
we wouldn't have people failing right out of school if that were the case.

------
Hasz
As an undergrad, what's honestly needed is a variety of pace. I don't mind
sprinting through a topic, but I can't do it for a whole class all semester.
Students become complacent if you slow down permanently, but also fail to
absorb information if you constantly push.

Run the blitzkrieg, but give me a week every once in a while to catch up and
consolidate the knowledge.

~~~
Balgair
Ar you in a quarter or semester system? I've found semester systems to much
better for STEM classes, while quarter systems are better for humanities, at
least for me.

~~~
Hasz
Semester -- I would agree.

------
seabird
Taking things slow is good _under certain circumstances_. You have to ask
yourself whether or not the content of the class is disjointed from the rest
of the curriculum for most of the students that are taking it. A computer
science student will be constantly using basic programming skills, giving it
time to crystallize into long-term memory; introductory programming classes
can be rushed and still effective, as long as the content is constantly
reused. The same goes for many other skillsets. In my anecdotal experience,
learning things slowly is most effective when studying content that doesn't
have a convenient connection to a current understanding, or even no connection
at all.

The biggest problem with this approach is that general education requirements
in modern education strongly disincentivizes taking things slow. Most
universities I know of bog students down in 2 or more semesters of classes
entirely irrelevant to their field of study. Although taking another 2+
semesters of relevant study would definitely improve understanding, very few
students are going to eat thousands of dollars going out of their way to make
up getting shafted by gen-ed classes.

~~~
chatmasta
Computer science is probably not the best example. That’s one subject where
99% of learning happens by doing the problem sets.

I even had one teacher who told us he never went to class, so he didn’t expect
us to, but that showing up would make the problem sets easier. In classes like
that, the lectures basically act as a starting point, and establish the scope
of the problem sets. If you didn’t attend the lecture, you can still do the
problem set, but you’ll probably end up over complicating it because you
missed the many hints of how to approach it that were in the lectures.

~~~
seabird
I would argue that computer science is a bad example because blue collar
programming, systems administration, etc. largely doesn't require a college
education at all, for the reasons you mentioned. Short of research and study
concerning the mathematical limits of computers, hardware, and software, much
of the computer work that is largely better served by a period of work
experience than that same period in university.

The point that I was (and doing a poor job of) trying to make is that concepts
that will be constantly reviewed anyway probably won't benefit from an
inordinate amount of time being dedicated to them, as the "working memory,
long-term memory" issue mentioned in the article doesn't fit such situations.

~~~
jacobolus
Even “white collar” programming doesn’t require a CS degree. Several of the
most innovative, careful, and productive programmers I have ever met were
English or Philosophy majors (arguably we should hire more of those in the
software industry).

------
WalterBright
I deliberately selected a college where I knew I would be pushed hard. And I
was. The first year was pretty hard, as I thought I could wing everything like
in high school. By my junior year, things got a lot better. I was learning
more at a faster pace, and it was good.

It depends on what you want. I didn't want to waste time in college. I wanted
to get all I could out of the 4 years.

As for sleep deprivation, sure that happened, but it was my choice. There were
too many fun things to do! I was never bored in college.

~~~
SebNag_
> I deliberately selected a college where I knew I would be pushed hard.

Learning a lot in a short period of time is strongly coupled with coping
strategies and discipline due to time pressure and the high requirements.
After this process you probably have gained some insights about yourself and
further, confidence to have capabilities to read and learn through whatever
comes your way. At least to a certain degree.

> It depends on what you want. I didn't want to waste time in college. I
> wanted to get all I could out of the 4 years.

However, I think there's still a lot of space for improvement. Especially
towards technical or math expertise. A lot of students even lack of the bare
basics just a few months after the exams are over. And even more importantly,
problem solving skills and critical thinking are, at least in my experience,
neglected. One of the main reasons therefore is the lack of time. Thinking and
solving a problem _yourself_ instead of looking up the solution or being able
to reproduce a solution at your exams are two different things. With the
former being the critical point at which universities currently fail the most.

------
thearn4
I've taught some undergrad courses, and unfortunately in practice this is a
bit of an upstream problem. The pace of main line non-remedial courses is
often set by the scope of course objectives, which in many cases are tied to
accreditation. For higher-level more specialized courses, there is at least
more freedom.

Basically, even something that seems like a simple shake-up in education often
would require a top-down redesign when considering actual implementation.
Higher education is highly conservative and bureaucratic in its processes.

------
Jormundir
People tend to forget information that is not useful to them. The age old
problem with school curriculum is so much of it doesn't apply to day to day or
even professional know-how. Getting students to retain more information is
pointless if there is no value in retaining the information beyond final
exams.

The better pursuit is for schools to work on constantly realigning their
curriculum towards what is necessary for modern life and employment. Drop the
overpriced, poorly executed general education classes and stop hindering
students from learning more about what they're interested in.

~~~
vkou
> Drop the overpriced, poorly executed general education classes and stop
> hindering students from learning more about what they're interested in.

I remember more from my first-year philosophy/communications/ethics classes
then I do from half of my CS curriculum. I didn't have much of a classics
education, but presumably, the value of it is not in learning the classics
(Nobody actually gives two rat's asses about the the themes of the Illiad),
but in learning how be analytical.

The purpose of general education classes is to turn us into better people, and
the purpose of specialization classes is to make us employable. I think
Silicon Valley could use a lot more of the former.

~~~
rayiner
It’s deeply ironic. We accept “teaching the classics teaches people how to be
analytical” as a shibboleth to which we apply no scrutiny or analysis. Is
there evidence showing that teaching classics helps with analysis more than
say teaching math, logical reasoning, statistics? I strongly suspect that we
would get better results if we replaced instruction on Greek myths with
courses on Bayesian reasoning.

~~~
unit91
Also ironic: "shibboleth" seems to be the new favorite buzzword of the HN
shibboleth.

~~~
gowld
Anyone who has studied the Middle Eastern classics knows "shibboleth"

~~~
unit91
I know the term, I was saying it seems to be used much more frequently around
here than in any of my other circles.

------
Cofike
The biggest issue for me was that it was hit or miss if my professors were
going to actually teach or if they were going to power through powerpoint
slides for 50 minutes. Mostly research heavy professors that are just doing
classes because of contractual obligations.

The best professors I had did not read exclusively off of the projector.

------
sevensor
Slowing things down implies selectivity. If you have time to talk about fewer
topcis, you'd better be quite sure they're more important than the ones you've
omitted. It's a high-risk endeavor for the instructor. What if you pick the
wrong topics? You have to have a lot of confidence in your judgement to teach
a slow class. Much safer to cram as many topics as possible into the semester.

------
jonbarker
The whole "that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger" and "in order to
learn about how much there is you don't know and thereby develop a lifetime
love of learning you should drink from a firehose for approximately four
years" set of arguments is probably just producing a lot of semi burned out
college grads IMO.

------
geebee
I'd like to see computer science taught at a slower pace, especially in the
beginning.

I know, I know, standards. And they do matter! But when I was a grad student
at Berkeley (not in CS, I just knew someone taking the course), I saw what
undergrads go through in their second course in CS (data structures and
algorithms), and egads.

I see this as particularly worrisome in CS, because I consider the course to
be a bit like teaching Spanish to people who grew up hearing Spanish but
answering their parents in English. Yes, technically they are taking an intro
course on grammar and writing, and maybe even speaking, but there's a gulf of
difference between someone like that and someone who is genuinely new to
Spanish (or perhaps has grown up in a monolingual environment).

The reason this is insidious, in my opinion, is that places like Berkeley take
smart young people who would be good CS majors, puts them in an "impacted"
major that is deliberately trying to shed students, and knocks them out by
teaching Data Structures and Algorithms at a brutal pace. I think this is
irresponsible, especially in an environment where 1) industry is braying about
a shortage of talent, and 2) there are serious questions about low
representation from certain demographic groups.

How about you teach data structures form the book, the first time around?
Here's a linked list, here's how you code one. Now, let's code a binary tree.
Now a hash map. Finally, let's try a graph. Ok, let's redo those an a more
interesting context. If you're new to the language we're using, we'll give you
the option of taking some time to learn it.

I don't want to lower standards long run, and I'm all for CS remaining a very
rigorous major, but I think we lose real talent but running the major this
way.

There's also a possibility that Berkeley is atypical, in that it is a program
that draws strong students, but unlike an ivy or Stanford, has a lot of
undergrads and is trying to weed them out. That may be a rare combination that
gave me an unusual impression of what happens to CS majors.

Still, I hear there is a high attrition rate in CS even at elite privates that
have more support. I've probably said this enough times, but I'll repeat it
once more - I am not in favor of lowering standards too far, just taking it a
little slower. I think many students lost to the major would meet these higher
standards with a bit more time in the beginning.

------
_rpd
Is the ability to memorize as important in an always connected world? A broad
overview means that you at least know what to search for when it is time to
study something in depth.

------
cJ0th
I retained the most when the prof actually enjoyed teaching. I retained the
least when I was forced look at 80 powerpoint slides within 90 minutes.

------
vortico
Universities try to shoot for 90% correctness/retention for students. In
almost every post-college career, that number is 70% or even less in order to
be a successful employee. Being correct about facts 90% of the time is less
valuable than having a better overview about more topics. I think schools
should speed up in information rate but decrease the required retention for
excelling. The most useful classes I had for my career were the ones taught at
900mph where I thought I understood nothing, yet I learned the most from them.

------
madengr
You don't learn from reading, you learn from doing; i.e. working problems.
Even then it usually takes doing something 3 times for it to sink in.

The point of the fast pace is to weed people out. At least that is my take
from engineering courses.

~~~
saint_fiasco
Why do they want to weed people out?

~~~
anonemouse145
Colleges have become a confidence game where people exchange money for
membership in an exclusive club. That's not say colleges SHOULD be this way,
but the reality differs from the old rhetoric.

As Peter Thiel often says, why aren't all classes at Ivy League schools
simulcast on YouTube if they're so great? We have the technology, it would be
a boon to all humankind. But they make money off their exclusivity. (If the
teacher contact compels you, why not at least make the lectures available to
all and people can pay for the tutoring, you can probably keep enrollment up
that way).

~~~
smsm42
> why aren't all classes at Ivy League schools simulcast on YouTube if they're
> so great?

Some are. See Coursera, Udacity, MIT OpenCourseWare, etc. There are now
potrals organizing open university courses, and there are quite a lot of them
out there.

