These were the most notable comments in the face-to-face meetings I scheduled with my student writers in March. This semester, like the others, many didn’t read the syllabus nor the assignment guidelines and many came to class unprepared. Some can’t or won’t follow simple directions.

They, like many before them, Do the DUH a lot.

Students are required to include in their news stories descriptive detail of their interview sources. Many balk. QMfE, “I didn’t know where to put the information, so I left it out,” several have said even though they were told several times throughout the early part of the semester that they were required to include specific information in their first drafts. When I copy edit the drafts, I told them, I will suggest where to include the information. Besides name and addresses and ages, they must include location of the interview, what the source was wearing as well as majors and minors. More descriptive detail would be better, they’re told.

“I read the New York Times everyday,” said one student early in the semester, “and I never see that information in their stories,” so why should she be required to include it in her articles to be published in the WORD. It’s a farcical refrain expressed often by students who don’t read the Times as much or as thoroughly as they allege in class. My response depends on my mood and frame of mind.

QMfE:

– “It’s in the assignment guidelines.”
– “You don’t write for the Times, you write for the WORD.”
– “Not doing it will seriously impact your grade.”

A while back I tried to reason with them about the importance of descriptive detail and other matters regarding class. But that too often led  to argumentative and disingenuous discourse so puerile that it was if the students were acting as if they were stage guest on a Jerry Springer episode.

I started taking one grade off the final grade of students who refused to include the info.  Now, the penalty can be as much as two grades if not F on the assignment.

Lots of Pushback this semester in the writing classes. Puerile petulance. Some are miffed that they can’t drink water near the Room 470 HN computers. The next time you pull a stunt like that, one defiant student was recently told in writing, you’ll be meeting with the College’s  Faculty Student Disciplinary Board. Some are miffed that they can’t have their cell phones at the ready. “I see a cell phone on the desk, and it’s F for the class,” I said at the start of the semester and then gave a defiant student one more chance as he hunched over about 4 feet from me, trying to conceal his text messaging.

Many but not all of the malingerers, whiners and malcontents are those faltering in class, and not because, as many of my Colleagues believe, they are dumb or talentless. Nope, they don’t want to do the work. And still want at least a B. And D:F/M, truth be told, encourages this kind of academic obstreperousness.

End of Part 1.

The WORD’s Classified Ads.

RB: Requires a separate page. Gets one in Part VI.

LM: Blindsided by personal, family issues. INC.

End Part V

AF: Slow slide down the academic slope, first assignment folly a tip-off. Incline increased as semester progressed. Then a promised comeback; seemed to be heading to solid B. The ball eventually dropped, however. Didn’t complete assignments or completed them poorly. QMfE, “Am I going to fail?” repeated several times in one class. The scam, smothered in theatrics, eventually became obvious. Couldn’t complete the Commute assignment last day of class.

QMfE:

AF: “I don’t want it published.”
“Did you read the syllabus?”
AF: “I don’t want it published.”
“Did you read the syllabus?”
AF: “Of course I did. I don’t want it published. It shows my travel routine. This guy was recently jailed for stalking me. If he sees it, he’ll know how to stalk me.” [Tears.]

The theatrical charade ever there was one. Played out, of course, in class. Yet, what instructor wants the imminent stalking of a student on his conscious? Not this one. Final Grade, CR.

ER: Impressed by EC’s early semester intemperance, engaged in his own, though briefly. A series of memos about 470HN etiquette tempered him. Then medical problems complicated things: Missed a lot of class. Could have done better. Final Grade, UW. [Which means that the UW will convert to a F if the student doesn't petition to have it removed from his transcript, as if he never took the class. Rarely ever denied on petition.]

End of Part III

JS: Had advantages: Took Advanced Reporting as taught by this instructor in the previous semester. Was prepared for out-of-class interviewing, reporting. Understood that the deadlines were for real. Excellent writer. There to work not to play, though absences were several. Did well.

VG: Excellent writer. Very good student (though excoriated once for text messaging). Did well.

AMJ: A non-contentious 30-40P. Deceiving facade (spoke solemnly about a passion for writing, recalled English classes with instructors leading enthused discussions about writing. Early tip-off: QMfE: “I want an A in this class” – said comment always by a student wanting an A for C work (or sometimes F) but willing to settle for a B.

Subsequent tip-off: After faulting peers for not being serious (in a private conversation, of course), flubbed first Commute assignment, her giggles accentuating the mediocrity of her effort, as in, QMfE, “Duh, I sort of goofed, hee, haw.”

Early on, assessed some peers as laggards who would slow the class down. Good writer but not as good as she imagined herself. Not pleased at being at Hunter, considering her station in life. Unctuous mannerisms insinuating that she, unlike the rest, shouldn’t be burdened with syllabus guidelines. QMfE, “How silly of the instructor to flunk me on an assignment that I didn’t want to turn in on time.” Final grade, CR.

End of Part II

AKA Feature Writing

In many ways, this was a typical D:F/M advanced news writing class. The students were talented, all could write. Yet … !

Sufficient anonymity here so that only the instructor is recognizable, thus, allowing a frank description of the class experience without sullying the visage of enrolled students (some who were a little whacked).

It has been easy to besmirched the image of Hunter/CUNY students, recalling the hatchet jobs done, primarily in the past, by mainstream news media like the NY Daily News and the New York Post working, in this writer’s opinion, with calumnious joy, precision and help from The Manhattan Institute (a sleazed right-wing think tank ever there was one). Hunterites/CUNYites (usually behind the scenes [as in department meetings or casual conversations not so casual]) also make contributions.

There is no wish here to join the posse of of besmirchers and no wish to be perceived as one. There are systemic forces and institutional practices at work, creating a dynamic that makes students easy targeting for scapegoating. The defamation has made it difficult for frank discussion yet allows behind the scenes festering, which happens too much in this instructor’s opinion, reflected in such “things” as an academic department eschewing academic standards on the grounds that the students, especially students of color, would be unable to live up to any reasonable standards and expectations. This has led to a steady stream, in this instructor’s opinion, of instructors not much better than carpetbaggers looking for easy bucks and rip offs as they saunter into classrooms supposedly to teach.

So …

Eccentricities, That’s for Sure

NC: Transfer student. First journalism class at a CUNY two-year was catalogued a news writing course but, of course, there wasn’t much writing, that is, much rewriting. Real writing is about rewriting and that demands more energy and time than many instructors want to invest. Her instructor conducted mock interview sessions requiring the students to interview him and then write news stories that were never rewritten. This feeble attempt to emulate verisimilitude is not uncommon. It is also seriously flawed. And very unfair to students serious about journalism and those serious about writing.

The out-of-class assignments in MEDP 299.47 stumped her at first; performance early in the semester indicated that she might have trouble passing. Subsequent assessments: That she was capable of a low grade like a C+. Final assessment: Pretty much aced the class.

CE: A miscreant ever there was one. Started the semester strong with a game plan apparent in the early weeks but its ferocity was underestimated: Mock the instructor, essentially to throw him off key, upset his balance, make him falter, soften him up for the endgame, that being a passing grade for a F performance. That ploy failing initially to get anticipated results segued to direct insults, as in, QMfE, “You don’t know what you’re talking about” and “That’s not true.” That technique, unsuccessful,  followed by menacing in manner, growling in voice.

A denizen in a netherland where he couldn’t tell the truth even if the truth could set him free, the Fs mounted as bluffs and strategies failed, shamefully. And then, of course, the subsequent, when all else failed, ignominious sounds of one who pursued the path of irresolute miscreant:  Whimper, whimper, whimpering in falsetto. F.

AD: Transfer student. From outside CUNY. Stumped by out-of-class assignments. Early assessment: Wasn’t going to pass. Subsequent assessments: Just might pass. Final assessment: Did very well.

FK: Started off slow, lethargic. Turned in mediocre work because, this writer believes, mediocrity was accepted in other classes. Gradually improved. Said this was her most demanding class thus far as a junior –uh oh! Improved significantly as the semester proceeded, did quite well.

End Part I

This is an introduction of sorts to a six-part series. A few years ago, I invited the New York Time’s first Ombudsman to my journalism ethics/responsibility class. That position, now occupied by Clark Hoyt, is primarily known now as the New York Times Public Editor. I’m speculating that the presence of a Public Editor is more preferable to Ombudsman which sounds akin to a lawman enforcing the law in a lawless community (at least, that’s how I imagine the NYT natives perceive the position when it was announced in the wake of the Jason Blair scandal and other journalistic ignominies which didn’t get as much attention but contributed to marring the public image of the Times).

Nevertheless, I was pleasantly surprised that Okrent accepted the offer, though it needs to be pointed out that there are a lot of high profile personalities and professionals who relish guest lecturing at Hunter, if asked, because of the College’s reputation for being a stellar higher ed institution. The invitation was extended even before the adulation in recent years about Hunter, the most ethnically diverse four-year college in the CUNY system, being a gem of an affordable public higher ed institution.

I did a two-day prep of the ethics/responsibility class: I wanted to make sure the students looked good and, of course, that the instructor looked good and the class was told, in so many words, that this impending moment should be regarded with pride for them (and I ignored the spectre of the D:F/M Hogoblin). I eventually announced Okrent’s scheduled Guest Lecture on the Hunter-L listserv (it was a boast as well as an attempt to prove a point) and wrote something like, QMfE, “It’s first come, first serve for visitors.”

One or two Hunter-L subscribers showed up. They would like the affair. I wouldn’t.

Okrent walked from his New York Times office (then on 43rd Street 7th Avenue then) and strolled into Hunter North 504 one afternoon. He looked professorial and was casually dressed. I introduced him. The class began. He was stellar before, during and after the class and clearly indicated that he was impressed with the students and pleased that he was invited. For me, the PUSHBACK was obvious but passively aggressive, the class insipidly lame, the students poorly prepared (and clearly exhibiting those signs of academic fatigue by not asking questions in general, looking bored with the one or two who did try to engage in a class discussion and other stuff that made me feel embarrassed for them as well as me. But Okrent would have nothing to do with that.).

And after the lameness swept over me, I had this thought: This will never happen again. This instructor will not allow lameness to be infused in his class.

End of Introduction

I am delighted to announce that Hunter has been named the #2 “Best Value” public college in the country for 2010, according to The Princeton Review and USA Today. This is the second year in a row that Hunter has ranked among the top 10.

Our leap from #8 to #2 is a clear validation of the success of Hunter’s mission – making an excellent education affordable to all.  It is once again particularly gratifying to receive this recognition at a time when so many young people in New York and across the country are wondering how, or if, they can attend college.

The Princeton Review noted what we’ve known all along – “The school’s faculty is a huge asset. Professors are very often experts in their fields, and they work hard to accommodate undergraduates.”

We have already been featured on a Today Show segment about the rankings, here, and Channel 7 News, 5 p.m. broadcast last night (January 12), and the New York Daily News.

We thank you, as always, for your role in helping make Hunter an institution of true value – in every sense of the word.

Edited for style

But …

• Two students showed up for class sans the first draft of the second required writing assignment. Syllabus: “F” for no-show first drafts.
• Another student text messaging. Syllabus: Warning for first offense (said warning already given to the class earlier in the semester), F in class participation for second offense, F for the course for the tertiary offense.
• Another typing merrily away, working, conspicuously, on a resume after class has started and the instructor is speaking. Syllabus: Warning for first offense; F in class participation for a second offense; F for the course for a third. This is the fourth.

“Flunk-you-if-s …” barked at the two violating class protocol, the barking sparing the resume-typist a F for the course – the No equanimity, No F Protocol in effect: An instructor should never flunk a student in the heat of a reprimand/scolding/ dressing down. Sobriety, sobriety always sobriety, even in the face of mass insolence.

Dismissive equanimity for the writers sans drafts. No barking here.

Two other unprepared writers unable to participate/engage in a planned in-class exercise because they didn’t bring required USB drives to class nor took advantage of a backup safety measure to do the assignment at home. No barking here.

Two others unprepared, lost/forgot passwords, unable to sign on to a class Wiki for the in-class exercise planned today. No barking here, exasperation mounting, however.

Three no-shows (probably because they didn’t have assignments at the ready). No barking here, of course. Exasperation mounts, nevertheless.

All revelations in the first 15 minutes of class. Five more minutes and it was Exit Stage Left, though in this case, ESL was Right Out the HN 470 door.

End of Part I

Prescient signs: The smack, smack, smacking of students smacking the wall.

QMfE:
Late assignments (“I forgot”). Botched assignments (“Say what?). No assignments (“Is this gonna’ hurt?”). Tardiness (“Are you fo’ real?”). Absences (“What syllabus?”)

Whining. Growling. Snarling.

The sixth week, it never* fails, the fifth circle of hell: The academic clashes with the personal and the winnowing begins. Another 30-40 semester?

Thus, this caveat to a class:

The following should keep serious students out of harm’s way. It is based on the class syllabus and assignment guidelines which the whole class should review, especially considering the piss poor commute assignment that was due Thursday. I will be collecting the Commuting notes this Monday, October 19.

1) College guidelines require the instructor to give a warning before flunking a student for disrupting class and filing a complaint with the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee. So, here is the warning for the class, primarily but not exclusively for the miscreants regularly getting warnings about disruptive class demeanor: The next disruption means a F in class participation and a subsequent disruption is F for the class and a referral to FSDC.

2) Cell phones. I suggest students keep them out of sight after class starts. The next cell phone violation by anyone results in a F in class participation and a subsequent violation is F for the course.

3) The next violation regarding any of the following results in a F in class participation and a subsequent violation means a F for the course: Playing computer games. Emailing. Internet surfing that has nothing to do with class. Typing that has nothing to do with class and occurring while the instructor is talking. Computer tinkering-fidgeting-trifling-flirting-etcetera that has nothing to do with class and occurs when the instructor is addressing the class.

4) The Bb assignments and guidelines have been reviewed and tweaked, such as inclusion of some legal and practical advice about taking pictures on the subways. Check the due dates for assignments, also. The instructor strongly suggests that students download the material as a backup. Blackboard had a problem early in the month and is supposedly undergoing some patchwork and for this instructor that means that it could be only a matter of time before the system truly crashes. Regardless of whether it flies or falls, students are accountable for the information in the material.

Anyone who feels that the above was written in Greek, should contact me ASAP. Before class or after. Or by email.

*Sometimes the sixth is the seventh or eighth.

Resistance is futile.