I didn't sign up for CHP 396 until mid-summer, so I don't know how early on we knew about the blogs or the format of the class. I did not find out until a few weeks before school. From the first email I received, I was most excited about blogging. I was excited to have something substantial to show the public. However, as the class continued, I realized experiencing blogging for the first time in a graded class was not the best way for me to start. I think bringing the grade component into blogging caused me to take less risks, to be less likely to talk about certain issues, and to only discuss certain topics rather than free flowing stream of consciousness. Looking back, I wish I would have taken more risks. I wish I would have strayed from the given topic more often. I am glad that we had this opportunity to blog, even though I will admit, it was not the easiest thing for me to do. I do plan to continue blogging on random topics, although possibly under a different name for a fresh start.
The first week, I was pretty anxious to write about my class expectations. I'm choosing this post not because I think it is some of my best work, but because I think it is very expressive of the course and it's beginnings. I touch on learning as a student. Much of what we discussed in the middle of the course was how learning occurs, why some students are disengaged, and how we can improve this. The Business Honors Project I mention is one way in which we can help engage students by providing my resources. Reading this over, I also realize that many honors students are engaged because they feel like they are making a difference, invoking change. We feel that we are a part of something special and that we have the ability to affect others. Maybe those that are disengaged don't feel this way because they don't get as much attention as honors students. I also touched on professional responsibility, tipping points, management, and feedback which were clear topics of the class. I thought this post was a good overview.
In the fourth week, we were asked to do a "taking stock" post on how we felt blogging was going for us. In this week, I talked more about the Expert Mind article. This is actually one of the articles that interested me the most. The only Psychology class I've taken is AP in high school, but I think my argument for the self-serving bias is quite applicable. Many of us end of majoring in the subjects that we are successful in, and only if we are strong enough to understand our personal mission and achieve our shared vision do we move away from that compliance. This, of course, ties into our later course theme of personal mastery. I know that something I struggled on was bringing myself into the posts, and I wish I would have done that more here. I think the reason I feel the way I do about the Expert Mind article is because it took a lot for me to go against what I was good at to do what I enjoyed. I was naturally gifted at tumbling and just had a build suited for gymnastics when I was young. I competed and did well without as much practice as other girls. But one of the things that I could never overcome in gymnastics was fear---every time I did a new combination it was because someone told me they were spotting me and then moved their hand. I sprained my wrist doing my first back flip because I kept twisting around to see the ground before reaching it---even though that is not supposed to happen in a back flip. I enjoyed winning and I enjoyed being able to do combinations that girls my age were not able to do. But I did not enjoy going to lessons. I did not enjoy the anxiety that I felt. When I started playing tennis at 9 years old, I was already behind many of girls my age (you know, those that started from the womb apparently). Going to tennis lessons was slightly dreadful for me because the people in my class were all younger and I consistently felt embarrassed, but I still enjoyed playing the sport. I enjoyed the game and the mentality of it much more than gymnastics. In a few months, my parents told me that they could no longer handle paying for lessons for both gymnastics and tennis, so I had to make the decision to quit gymnastics. I'm not sure they thought it was the smartest decision at the time, and I'm not sure I do because I could have become a much better gymnast than I am a tennis player. Yet, the enjoyment that I received from playing tennis was so much greater. This is why intrinsic motivation and shared vision, not compliance, is necessary for personal mastery. I became a successful tennis player in high school, qualifying for state 3/4 years, but it took work and following what I enjoyed to take that step.
Side note- I also like the way I tied the article into the topic of blogging and taking stock.
Among my favorite posts is "Profiting from Non Profit Work". It was one of the first posts that I tried to come up with a title for and I do think that was helpful in narrowing my focus. I think extrinsic motivation does come forth when people do not have a personal connection, and sometimes it is this extrinsic motivation that brings on the intrinsic (as I described in a post titled Personal Motivations (not part of my portfolio)"). I like this post because I bring it full circle with the businesses and back to the students. I think this post is something that we can all relate to.
My last post is "We can change the unchangeable". I thought it was a nice summary of the class and made points that were relevant to the future. Also, I think I was able to tie in my experiences to the blog better than I had in the past. It was also the first time that I completely strayed from the topic at hand. I think that is a sign of growth and risk taking from me that allowed me to write about something I was more passionate about.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Change for better or for worse
This is edited for the last slide and has the song credits added in. I should have done that earlier, I apologize.
What a football game today---guess we couldn't have two great wins in the same week.
What a football game today---guess we couldn't have two great wins in the same week.
Chp 396 Project 2 Final
View more presentations from twchan2.
Friday, December 4, 2009
We can change the unchangeable
My media project was done on change, and how change doesn't necessarily turn into something better. I did try to narrow my approach to change that is designed, not caused by external factors. For example, one of my examples was the creation of calculators that inhibits learning, not global warming. But as I was thinking all of this through, I kept considering all the external factors. In my first blog post, I wondered if we could ever really design change to be effective, because there are so many external factors that go into it---the environment, the type of people it affects, how these people react to the change, etc. It goes on and on.
After reading Tipping Point, I feel the same way. The book discusses three major factors that affect whether a trend will have a "tipping point". With a tipping point, effective change can then occur. These three "rules of tipping points" are: The Law of the Few, The Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context.
In recent years, the honor society that I am president of has a survey for general members to voice their opinions. Tonight we had our reevaluation meeting to go over the responses we got. We do this so that we can change the society for the better and react to everyone's viewpoints, not just our own. This is a very big honor society of around 5000 members on campus, so when we consider any type of change it's important that we consider everyone and really think about the society's mission (promoting academic excellence in freshmen and making a difference in our campus and community). We've done a lot in the past 2 years that I have been on the executive board, and when I think back on all of the major changes in the honor society I realize how much they fit in place with the three factors.
About 8 years ago, the society at the U of I campus was not active at all. This is difficult to imagine because in the last 2 semesters, we have received an award from TIS for Most Outstanding RSO and an award from the Dad's Association for Most Outstanding Organization, both based on impact and differences made on campus. The change happened when the executive board 8 years ago realized that the society was not accomplishing anything since it was so large. By creating a point system for members to receive honor cords at graduation, the participation rate went to about 150 members, with about 10 members receiving enough points to graduate with honor cords the first few years it was instilled. Now, we have about 40 honor cord graduates, with about 300 active members. We are still growing, but I think there will come a point when we are limited by the number of members motivated to get an honor cord, and thus to participate in service events and make an impact on the community. Receiving an honor cord today sounds appealing because you would be one of 5000 members to receive one; you also get enough attention at events since chairs still have time to ensure you are accountable for attending, etc. The Power of Context says that when you make people accountable for their actions, the tipping point can happen. The group 8 years ago made a large organization that did nothing into essentially a "smaller organization" by creating the divide between active and inactive members. This is the Power of Context. It also tells me that some day we will be limited by the same rule.
Since I have joined the executive board, one of our goals has been to incorporate a social dynamic into the honor society. This is to facilitate member to member interaction. When members become friends and have someone to go to events with, they are more likely to participate. In the last 2 years, we have had a social committee. As of tonight, we voted a new social coordinator to the executive board to begin in 2010-2011. Perhaps that is the reason that I am writing this blog tonight. I think it's a very exciting change for us to have, and will help to make our message even "stickier". Having people do service events or tutoring students with their friends makes the event seem more appealing, and thus the events will be more likely to stick with members.
With all of these changes, I feel that we are really growing in participation. Perhaps one day, getting more members to participate will no longer be a goal of ours. Instead, we can move onto another of the rule of epidemics---the law of the few perhaps by being even more selective in our committee chairs and then eventually exec members which we are already pretty selective in.
Maybe we can't stop global warming or swine flu, but we can reinvent things to help slow the destructiveness down. We can go green; we create vaccines. Doing these things may seem small for change that happens on such a large level. But small things make a difference. We can make large organizations seem smaller if the cause of ineffectiveness is the size. There are things that we cannot change, and then, there are things that we can.
After reading Tipping Point, I feel the same way. The book discusses three major factors that affect whether a trend will have a "tipping point". With a tipping point, effective change can then occur. These three "rules of tipping points" are: The Law of the Few, The Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context.
In recent years, the honor society that I am president of has a survey for general members to voice their opinions. Tonight we had our reevaluation meeting to go over the responses we got. We do this so that we can change the society for the better and react to everyone's viewpoints, not just our own. This is a very big honor society of around 5000 members on campus, so when we consider any type of change it's important that we consider everyone and really think about the society's mission (promoting academic excellence in freshmen and making a difference in our campus and community). We've done a lot in the past 2 years that I have been on the executive board, and when I think back on all of the major changes in the honor society I realize how much they fit in place with the three factors.
About 8 years ago, the society at the U of I campus was not active at all. This is difficult to imagine because in the last 2 semesters, we have received an award from TIS for Most Outstanding RSO and an award from the Dad's Association for Most Outstanding Organization, both based on impact and differences made on campus. The change happened when the executive board 8 years ago realized that the society was not accomplishing anything since it was so large. By creating a point system for members to receive honor cords at graduation, the participation rate went to about 150 members, with about 10 members receiving enough points to graduate with honor cords the first few years it was instilled. Now, we have about 40 honor cord graduates, with about 300 active members. We are still growing, but I think there will come a point when we are limited by the number of members motivated to get an honor cord, and thus to participate in service events and make an impact on the community. Receiving an honor cord today sounds appealing because you would be one of 5000 members to receive one; you also get enough attention at events since chairs still have time to ensure you are accountable for attending, etc. The Power of Context says that when you make people accountable for their actions, the tipping point can happen. The group 8 years ago made a large organization that did nothing into essentially a "smaller organization" by creating the divide between active and inactive members. This is the Power of Context. It also tells me that some day we will be limited by the same rule.
Since I have joined the executive board, one of our goals has been to incorporate a social dynamic into the honor society. This is to facilitate member to member interaction. When members become friends and have someone to go to events with, they are more likely to participate. In the last 2 years, we have had a social committee. As of tonight, we voted a new social coordinator to the executive board to begin in 2010-2011. Perhaps that is the reason that I am writing this blog tonight. I think it's a very exciting change for us to have, and will help to make our message even "stickier". Having people do service events or tutoring students with their friends makes the event seem more appealing, and thus the events will be more likely to stick with members.
With all of these changes, I feel that we are really growing in participation. Perhaps one day, getting more members to participate will no longer be a goal of ours. Instead, we can move onto another of the rule of epidemics---the law of the few perhaps by being even more selective in our committee chairs and then eventually exec members which we are already pretty selective in.
Maybe we can't stop global warming or swine flu, but we can reinvent things to help slow the destructiveness down. We can go green; we create vaccines. Doing these things may seem small for change that happens on such a large level. But small things make a difference. We can make large organizations seem smaller if the cause of ineffectiveness is the size. There are things that we cannot change, and then, there are things that we can.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Beyond the mentor
Sure, freshmen may feel as if they are in an apprentice role when meeting with upperclassmen. But the best mentor relationships, and those that continue between freshmen and upperclassmen, are when they are not in this apprenticeship role forever. It's when the freshmen and upperclassmen are able to connect on other levels rather than just receiving and giving advice. If a mentoring relationship is going to continue beyond the first meeting, the first few questions, the first few emails, there has to be some kind of other relationship developed in which the two players are "equals". These continuing relationships are the type of mentoring relationships we desire, the types that we get the most out of, and the types that not all freshmen get to experience.
Let's first talk about what all freshmen at U of I DO get to experience. All freshmen have the opportunity to have a mentor, whether it be through their LAS/Eng/Bus 100 Tas, the buddy they are assigned for the freshmen orientation events, their resident advisor(all first semester freshmen are required to live in dorms if they live on campus),etc. The point is, U of I has formed an orientation system that pretty much makes it impossible for you to get by your first week of school without running into an upperclassman that is in a leadership role. Each of the upperclassmen mentioned above are qualified and have obviously learned their way around campus and know how to navigate each of their roles. Each has taken their role because they wanted to teach or help freshmen integrate into the college atmosphere. These type of people fit into our mental model of what a "mentor" is. The TAs, buddies, and advisors will all tell the freshmen to ask them any questions. In the first meeting with these leaders, the freshman will feel like an apprentice and ask any questions that he or she has. The questions will get answered, but from here on out, there may be no further personal communication among the two parties. Or, there may be a few more meetings, but it will always be in a apprentice environment, where the conversation is mostly business with a question-answer flow. The two parties do not communicate outside of the meetings they set up for the older student to help and answer some questions for the younger student. In this type of relationship, there is EXPLICIT mentoring, and most (if not all) students at U of I will receive this type of mentoring. Its efficiency is very dependent upon the mentee's ability to be pro-active in asking questions and setting up meetings.
In the above example, there is no relationship outside of the mentor-mentee one developed, so the mentor has little to no incentive of being the pro active one and setting up hang out sessions or meetings with the mentee. In special cases, the mentor and mentee become more than just that; they develop a sort of mutual relationship, where the mentoring is just intrinsic. The mentoring is something that comes with the relationship, but it is not the reason for the relationship. The hang-out sessions are less forced. It's difficult for these relationships to be formed, because often neither the mentor nor the mentee will make the extra effort to break the sessions out of just advising discussion. The extra effort would take the relationship to a different level, one that is outside of the typical mental model we hold for mentor relationships. Not all students get to experience this type of mentoring because not all students are lucky enough to find an upperclassman that they connect with in different ways. Many students that experience this often find these relationships come from a group outside of what U of I provided them with already(although these type of relationships are also possible with the TA, RA but I think most people find it outside of this). Perhaps this is an RSO, a sports team---some type of group where interests were connected and the same type of people coexist.
As I've mentioned before, in my business fraternity, freshmen pledges have this wonderful opportunity to interact and get advice from fellow business majors who have been through it all before. We've been through the resume creating, job hunt, integrating with school, roommate issues, etc. With the ~100 people in the fraternity, even if a freshman has a very specialized issue, they are likely to be able to connect with someone who has an answer. Because everyone knows each other so well, the pledges can easily ask some of the closest members who would have experience about ____(fill in ANYTHING). Approximately 20 pledges are selected each semester based on their personalities and fit with the fraternity after three stages of interviews. During the pledge semester, each pledge must "interview" (hang out one on one) with 34 different active members. These sessions will last anywhere from one hour to a weekend outing to Chicago (although these are difficult to do since there's only so much time in a semester!) Spending one on one time with 34 members in addition to the time at events really helps to push the development of the relationship. The pledge freshmen have an entire fraternity's knowledge at their disposal---as well as over 100 mentors. Pledges are probably on the 2nd type of mentor relationship that I described with at least 10 of the actives. These people are the ones they connected with the most, the ones that affected them the most, the ones that have pushed beyond just a mentor relationship with questions and answers---but into the type of mentor relationship that will last forever.
Let's first talk about what all freshmen at U of I DO get to experience. All freshmen have the opportunity to have a mentor, whether it be through their LAS/Eng/Bus 100 Tas, the buddy they are assigned for the freshmen orientation events, their resident advisor(all first semester freshmen are required to live in dorms if they live on campus),etc. The point is, U of I has formed an orientation system that pretty much makes it impossible for you to get by your first week of school without running into an upperclassman that is in a leadership role. Each of the upperclassmen mentioned above are qualified and have obviously learned their way around campus and know how to navigate each of their roles. Each has taken their role because they wanted to teach or help freshmen integrate into the college atmosphere. These type of people fit into our mental model of what a "mentor" is. The TAs, buddies, and advisors will all tell the freshmen to ask them any questions. In the first meeting with these leaders, the freshman will feel like an apprentice and ask any questions that he or she has. The questions will get answered, but from here on out, there may be no further personal communication among the two parties. Or, there may be a few more meetings, but it will always be in a apprentice environment, where the conversation is mostly business with a question-answer flow. The two parties do not communicate outside of the meetings they set up for the older student to help and answer some questions for the younger student. In this type of relationship, there is EXPLICIT mentoring, and most (if not all) students at U of I will receive this type of mentoring. Its efficiency is very dependent upon the mentee's ability to be pro-active in asking questions and setting up meetings.
In the above example, there is no relationship outside of the mentor-mentee one developed, so the mentor has little to no incentive of being the pro active one and setting up hang out sessions or meetings with the mentee. In special cases, the mentor and mentee become more than just that; they develop a sort of mutual relationship, where the mentoring is just intrinsic. The mentoring is something that comes with the relationship, but it is not the reason for the relationship. The hang-out sessions are less forced. It's difficult for these relationships to be formed, because often neither the mentor nor the mentee will make the extra effort to break the sessions out of just advising discussion. The extra effort would take the relationship to a different level, one that is outside of the typical mental model we hold for mentor relationships. Not all students get to experience this type of mentoring because not all students are lucky enough to find an upperclassman that they connect with in different ways. Many students that experience this often find these relationships come from a group outside of what U of I provided them with already(although these type of relationships are also possible with the TA, RA but I think most people find it outside of this). Perhaps this is an RSO, a sports team---some type of group where interests were connected and the same type of people coexist.
As I've mentioned before, in my business fraternity, freshmen pledges have this wonderful opportunity to interact and get advice from fellow business majors who have been through it all before. We've been through the resume creating, job hunt, integrating with school, roommate issues, etc. With the ~100 people in the fraternity, even if a freshman has a very specialized issue, they are likely to be able to connect with someone who has an answer. Because everyone knows each other so well, the pledges can easily ask some of the closest members who would have experience about ____(fill in ANYTHING). Approximately 20 pledges are selected each semester based on their personalities and fit with the fraternity after three stages of interviews. During the pledge semester, each pledge must "interview" (hang out one on one) with 34 different active members. These sessions will last anywhere from one hour to a weekend outing to Chicago (although these are difficult to do since there's only so much time in a semester!) Spending one on one time with 34 members in addition to the time at events really helps to push the development of the relationship. The pledge freshmen have an entire fraternity's knowledge at their disposal---as well as over 100 mentors. Pledges are probably on the 2nd type of mentor relationship that I described with at least 10 of the actives. These people are the ones they connected with the most, the ones that affected them the most, the ones that have pushed beyond just a mentor relationship with questions and answers---but into the type of mentor relationship that will last forever.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Do I change my ways?
Do I change my ways? That is how I know I have learned from an experience.
Could I teach it to someone else? That is how I know I have learned from a course.
Can this evidence of learning be communicated to others? ...
I, similar to probably 99% of CHP students, have always cared a lot about my grades. The transition of high school to college is the semester that sometimes throws people off with their classes. For me, it was my first semester sophomore year. This semester, it wasn't that I didn't try. It wasn't that I didn't care. But I didn't try as hard as I should have, I didn't care as much as I should have, and my grades did not turn out the way I liked them to be.
Do I change my ways?
My first semester sophomore year, I was very scattered. Like many business students during the on campus recruiting season (September-October), I was busy interviewing and balancing that with school work and extracurriculars. Having all of this going on as well as having some of the difficult core business classes this semester really overwhelmed me. In some ways, my first semester sophomore year was comparable to many students' first semester freshman year. It was the semester that I realized the "shock" of college and the difficulty of classes merging together. Looking back on it, none of my classes were that difficult. I should have done better in each of those classes, but for whatever reason, I let distractions get the best of me and I ended up with the worst GPA I have ever received. I feel like I lost a lot of things that semester. In my mind, I had lost my GPA, my desire, heart, passion---I was so disappointed. What had caused me to fail? Simply said, I took on too much. I was on the exec board of two organizations---Vice President of Fundraising for my business fraternity, tutoring coordinator of my honor society, an active leader in Business Council, as well as a general member in various other organizations. I cared a lot about each of these, and I put them above my grades. If I did poorly in a class, it only affected me. If I did poorly at fundraising, it affected thousands of other people(both the people I was selling to and the people in the fraternity). A very small amount of my time was allocated to academics between the job search and the work I was doing for my organizations. The time that I did spend studying, I was often thinking about what I should do next rather than focusing on the job at hand. My mind was thinking about something else.
Looking back on it, the only thing I lost this semester was my high GPA. I did not lose my heart; I did not lose my passion. These were still core fundamental values that did not change. My "poor" grades this semester were not reflective of my lost in passion or heart---I had just prioritized my time differently. I wouldn't do any of it differently either. Most importantly, I gained experience. I learned how much I could handle, I learned how to manage my time, and I learned to look to the future.
"Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted"- reads a famous quote. I am unsure where this originated but I am going to credit Randy Pausch as that is where I heard it. This is what I told myself; I just had to bounce back.
I can never get back the course topics that I did not learn as well as I should have. I can never get back those foregone A's. But I CAN look to the future and prove that I have learned from this experience.
My first semester sophomore year, I received my lowest GPA in college. My second semester sophomore year, I received my highest GPA in college. The turnaround is evidence that I learned from my experience. The classes I took second semester were in a progression of classes known as more difficult than the first semester. I managed to do better in--- what students rate as--- the two hardest accounting classes than I did in the two easiest accounting classes. Did I quit all the extracurriculars I was involved in? No. But I did, change my ways. I changed my studying habits. I changed my mindset going into studying. First semester, if I had a problem getting enough tutors for my tutoring program, I would continue to think about it as I was studying for a test. Second semester, I learned to work out any issues I had before going into a study session so that I would be fully devoted to that task. I tried to prepare more ahead of time. First semester, I was happy that I had scored an internship and let myself go a little bit. Second semester, I knew I had more potential to work for.
Peter Senge encourages "systems thinking". During the first semester, I was attributing my grades to the lack of time. But I wasn't considering other areas. I wasn't considering my lack of time MANAGEMENT, and most of all, my inability to acknowledge when too much was too much and I needed to take a step back. We can't attribute an effect to a single cause, because all the operations in a system are intertwined. By taking a look at the big picture, I learned from my experience. Nonetheless, I am sure that there is more to learn in the realm of time management. Just like the time lags experienced in the "beer game", life is a string of experiences that we continue to learn from as time goes on.
In this case, I have evidence I learned because my grades improved, but this is only over one semester. If I have really learned from my experience, the good grades will continue. And I am doing what it takes for that to happen. My fundamental values were never changed or lost.
Could I teach it to someone else? That is how I know I have learned from a course.
Can this evidence of learning be communicated to others? ...
I, similar to probably 99% of CHP students, have always cared a lot about my grades. The transition of high school to college is the semester that sometimes throws people off with their classes. For me, it was my first semester sophomore year. This semester, it wasn't that I didn't try. It wasn't that I didn't care. But I didn't try as hard as I should have, I didn't care as much as I should have, and my grades did not turn out the way I liked them to be.
Do I change my ways?
My first semester sophomore year, I was very scattered. Like many business students during the on campus recruiting season (September-October), I was busy interviewing and balancing that with school work and extracurriculars. Having all of this going on as well as having some of the difficult core business classes this semester really overwhelmed me. In some ways, my first semester sophomore year was comparable to many students' first semester freshman year. It was the semester that I realized the "shock" of college and the difficulty of classes merging together. Looking back on it, none of my classes were that difficult. I should have done better in each of those classes, but for whatever reason, I let distractions get the best of me and I ended up with the worst GPA I have ever received. I feel like I lost a lot of things that semester. In my mind, I had lost my GPA, my desire, heart, passion---I was so disappointed. What had caused me to fail? Simply said, I took on too much. I was on the exec board of two organizations---Vice President of Fundraising for my business fraternity, tutoring coordinator of my honor society, an active leader in Business Council, as well as a general member in various other organizations. I cared a lot about each of these, and I put them above my grades. If I did poorly in a class, it only affected me. If I did poorly at fundraising, it affected thousands of other people(both the people I was selling to and the people in the fraternity). A very small amount of my time was allocated to academics between the job search and the work I was doing for my organizations. The time that I did spend studying, I was often thinking about what I should do next rather than focusing on the job at hand. My mind was thinking about something else.
Looking back on it, the only thing I lost this semester was my high GPA. I did not lose my heart; I did not lose my passion. These were still core fundamental values that did not change. My "poor" grades this semester were not reflective of my lost in passion or heart---I had just prioritized my time differently. I wouldn't do any of it differently either. Most importantly, I gained experience. I learned how much I could handle, I learned how to manage my time, and I learned to look to the future.
"Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted"- reads a famous quote. I am unsure where this originated but I am going to credit Randy Pausch as that is where I heard it. This is what I told myself; I just had to bounce back.
I can never get back the course topics that I did not learn as well as I should have. I can never get back those foregone A's. But I CAN look to the future and prove that I have learned from this experience.
My first semester sophomore year, I received my lowest GPA in college. My second semester sophomore year, I received my highest GPA in college. The turnaround is evidence that I learned from my experience. The classes I took second semester were in a progression of classes known as more difficult than the first semester. I managed to do better in--- what students rate as--- the two hardest accounting classes than I did in the two easiest accounting classes. Did I quit all the extracurriculars I was involved in? No. But I did, change my ways. I changed my studying habits. I changed my mindset going into studying. First semester, if I had a problem getting enough tutors for my tutoring program, I would continue to think about it as I was studying for a test. Second semester, I learned to work out any issues I had before going into a study session so that I would be fully devoted to that task. I tried to prepare more ahead of time. First semester, I was happy that I had scored an internship and let myself go a little bit. Second semester, I knew I had more potential to work for.
Peter Senge encourages "systems thinking". During the first semester, I was attributing my grades to the lack of time. But I wasn't considering other areas. I wasn't considering my lack of time MANAGEMENT, and most of all, my inability to acknowledge when too much was too much and I needed to take a step back. We can't attribute an effect to a single cause, because all the operations in a system are intertwined. By taking a look at the big picture, I learned from my experience. Nonetheless, I am sure that there is more to learn in the realm of time management. Just like the time lags experienced in the "beer game", life is a string of experiences that we continue to learn from as time goes on.
In this case, I have evidence I learned because my grades improved, but this is only over one semester. If I have really learned from my experience, the good grades will continue. And I am doing what it takes for that to happen. My fundamental values were never changed or lost.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Prioritizing Challenges
"We're in college... we should be able to do what we want!" But alas, we are subject to the restrictions of our majors, the curriculum, and the requirements for graduation. Many majors have so many requirements that students do not have an opportunity to take additional classes. Should some of these requirements be sacrificed so that students can become more well rounded? No, I do not think so. When students graduate from the U of I in their major, graduate schools or companies believe in their ability to succeed at their institution because of the reputation and curriculum that they know to be true about this university. They know the coursework that is required for a certain major to be attained, and by looking at the particular student's GPA the institution has determined that this student is high achieving, and thus would be a success. So, from a professional future standpoint, the coursework would be a less objective measure if some students could opt out (here, we may also consider whether students would even opt out if allowed, knowing that someone is going to be reviewing the students' judgement if they choose to take "wine tasting" instead of their "biology" major course).
First of all, I think we need to prioritize any type of change we are trying to make. The first problem we must solve is the decline of degrees. I believe this is a bigger problem, because the ultimate goal of education is to raise the efficiency of people in the work force. That is, the rate and quality at which employees are able to accomplish the jobs. Once we do this, we can continue to raise the efficiency and quality by concentrating on other areas (such as elective curriculum).
Declining for Degrees discusses the progression of students who are starting to "glide" through the system rather than using higher education as a way to pursue learning effectively (getting the right things done, according to Drucker). If students are allowed to take some electives instead of their current required classes during their senior year, isn't this just feeding into the decline? I feel like, now, is as necessary of a time as any, to impose stricter rules on the major guidelines. Education is taken for granted, assumed as a right. If we can impose stricter rules in terms of degree requirements, then it is possible students will focus more on their learning than just gliding through.
The argument against such a strict major curriculum is whether students are getting a well-rounded education if they do not have room for courses outside their major. From what I know, and perhaps it is different in Engineering, but students should be able to finish their curriculum (including required gen eds) by taking 15 hours a semester. The students who are looking to be more well rounded and have further interests will have the desire to take the 18 hour semester their senior year. If they feel that it is too much, they could take it as credit/no credit. In addition, students could even just sit in the lectures for their electives without even taking the class. This would take away the pressure of tests and homework for those added hours. Professors are pretty good about letting this happen.
There are also many other ways to build a well rounded student outside of coursework. People volunteer in areas of interest. As a business student, if I were interested in medical relief, I could go volunteer at the children's hospital or join an RSO. This is another reason why it is so important for students to know the resources that they have. I know that there is an RSO called Foundation for International Medical Relief of Children (FIMRC), but not that many students on campus may. I also know where to go for resources if I was looking for more information in medical relief. I would ask one of my friends that were Pre-Med majors. I think the project group that is working on publicizing resources to freshmen will help. Freshmen can then build a network and join the groups that are of interest to them---making them more well rounded without having to change or sacrifice any curriculum.
To conclude, I feel that there is no excuse for students to sacrifice their major classes in order to take electives that they are interested in just to be more "well rounded". This is just going to feed into the system of "gliding" There are many other ways to do this, and the costs of allowing electives over requirements would outweigh the benefits.
First of all, I think we need to prioritize any type of change we are trying to make. The first problem we must solve is the decline of degrees. I believe this is a bigger problem, because the ultimate goal of education is to raise the efficiency of people in the work force. That is, the rate and quality at which employees are able to accomplish the jobs. Once we do this, we can continue to raise the efficiency and quality by concentrating on other areas (such as elective curriculum).
Declining for Degrees discusses the progression of students who are starting to "glide" through the system rather than using higher education as a way to pursue learning effectively (getting the right things done, according to Drucker). If students are allowed to take some electives instead of their current required classes during their senior year, isn't this just feeding into the decline? I feel like, now, is as necessary of a time as any, to impose stricter rules on the major guidelines. Education is taken for granted, assumed as a right. If we can impose stricter rules in terms of degree requirements, then it is possible students will focus more on their learning than just gliding through.
The argument against such a strict major curriculum is whether students are getting a well-rounded education if they do not have room for courses outside their major. From what I know, and perhaps it is different in Engineering, but students should be able to finish their curriculum (including required gen eds) by taking 15 hours a semester. The students who are looking to be more well rounded and have further interests will have the desire to take the 18 hour semester their senior year. If they feel that it is too much, they could take it as credit/no credit. In addition, students could even just sit in the lectures for their electives without even taking the class. This would take away the pressure of tests and homework for those added hours. Professors are pretty good about letting this happen.
There are also many other ways to build a well rounded student outside of coursework. People volunteer in areas of interest. As a business student, if I were interested in medical relief, I could go volunteer at the children's hospital or join an RSO. This is another reason why it is so important for students to know the resources that they have. I know that there is an RSO called Foundation for International Medical Relief of Children (FIMRC), but not that many students on campus may. I also know where to go for resources if I was looking for more information in medical relief. I would ask one of my friends that were Pre-Med majors. I think the project group that is working on publicizing resources to freshmen will help. Freshmen can then build a network and join the groups that are of interest to them---making them more well rounded without having to change or sacrifice any curriculum.
To conclude, I feel that there is no excuse for students to sacrifice their major classes in order to take electives that they are interested in just to be more "well rounded". This is just going to feed into the system of "gliding" There are many other ways to do this, and the costs of allowing electives over requirements would outweigh the benefits.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Too Harsh or Just Right?
When we talk about criticism, it's easy for us to say "yes we can take it" and "lay it on us" because we want to improve, etc. But when it comes down to it, I think it's safe to say that the majority of the world doesn't enjoy criticism and would much prefer praise and the feeling of success. Jake's post contrasts two coaches, one who gives strong criticisms to the point of scaring his players, and the other who intersperses his criticisms within positive statements. In Jake's experience, the latter helped him to achieve All-League Honors and gave him a reason to play basketball again. We have talked about how it's important to consider the type of audience when giving criticism. I'm going to address this topic. But, at times, I switch the word from "criticism" to "coaching" because I think that addresses a broader area, and fits more to exactly what I'm talking about. The term "criticism" seems too negative. I wonder how we can draw the line between being too "soft" with positive comments when they are undeserved and too harsh with our overly critical comments that scare kids away from their sport. In some areas, I think harsh coaching is needed, and the risk of being too soft is greater than the risk of being too harsh.
I think one of these areas is sports. Sports are a tough/harsh environment to begin with--often infused with loud voices, contact, and strong competitive desire to beat the other team. Harsh criticisms would fit the environment, and perhaps the type of people playing the sport are filtered because of their desire to play that particular game. These could be the type of people that want to be yelled at to improve. I'm not exactly sure if in Jake's post he meant that the first coach wasn't constructive in his criticism (as in didn't even tell the players how to improve) or if he was just saying that he felt the coach was too harsh. I do feel that coaches need to be constructive--let their players know how to improve. I think this type of harsh-coaching works for sports, especially as the level increases. College sports may need harsher coaches than high school sports. Bruce Weber is often criticized for being too soft, and in the past couple years when our basketball wins have decreased, this is what the media has blamed it on. I'm sure there are other imposing factors, but in at least some areas, his softness does seem to be a factor.
Luther Head was a member of the runner-up 2004-2005 Illini basketball team. At the beginning of Luther's career at Illinois, he had a couple run-ins with the police for robbery. Bruce didn't punish Luther much more than a slap on the wrist. Bruce became known as a soft coach. Fast forward a few years, and Jamar Smith was suspended after driving under the influence and getting into a one-car accident that put his fellow team mate in the hospital. I won't get into the details, but there were many other questionable actions by Jamar such as leaving the teammate in the car before someone else called 911...
Jamar was suspended for the rest of the season but stayed on the basketball team. He stayed on the basketball team after almost killing a fellow team mate. He continued to play. He continued to drink. He continued to party more than he should have. He was seen around campus drinking and it led to him receiving a probation from drinking. Bruce Weber continued to be known as a soft coach. Why didn't he criticize Jamar more? Why didn't he make him red shirt the next season? Why was he not scaring Jamar so that Jamar would get into gear? Why was Bruce not the intimidating Category A coach that Jake described? It seems that the incident itself wasn't enough for Jamar to realize how much basketball meant to him. It seems he needed some harsher coaching. A year later...Jamar was arrested again for violating his probation on alcohol. After the arrest, Jamar was kicked off the basketball team, transferred schools, and the Illini were left without their shooting guard. Jamar contributed a lot to the basketball team in talent, and the season following his departure showed that we missed him.
Sometimes setting the tone as a "harsh" coach is necessary. Maybe if Luther would have been suspended more games, Jamar would have came into the team scared of any consequences for DUIs and then he wouldn't have gotten a DUI to begin with. Maybe if Jamar was punished more strongly after his DUI, he wouldn't have continued to drink and get arrested. The tone that the coach sets does matter, and having an intimidating tone as a coach can be helpful for the team in getting wins.
I wanted to throw my example out there because I feel like in America, we have this strong desire to keep "babying" people into success. Kids constantly get compliments even when they aren't doing well (especially from parents). One of the reasons our obesity rate is so high is because parents are unable to say "no" and feed their kids whatever they want.
This is not to say that it is unnecessary to be positive. I do think that one of the reasons the tough criticism didn't work for Jake is because the coach was doing this at a lower level. The players were just kids, and needed some push and compliments to keep going and have the desire to play. Even in my example, Bruce was able to mold Luther Head into one of the best college players and winning personalities in the nation. It's difficult to decide what the best coaching is and when---but I think that lies on the coach. Perhaps Jake's first coach used to be an upper level coach and was unable to mold his ways to fit a young team. This falls on the coach. I think the situation also completely changes when we go into how to motivate or criticize students in academia.
The academic environment is not the harsh, contact-filled one that I described for sports. Nonetheless, when instilling a mentoring program, it would be necessary to consider whether we think it is possible for peers to give the negative criticisms that may be necessary, or if there would be too much "babying" involved. Professor Arvan brought up in a post that we keep complimenting our classmates on their blogs, but that's not going to help them improve. How do we find the peer mentors that are willing to criticize their peers?
I think one of these areas is sports. Sports are a tough/harsh environment to begin with--often infused with loud voices, contact, and strong competitive desire to beat the other team. Harsh criticisms would fit the environment, and perhaps the type of people playing the sport are filtered because of their desire to play that particular game. These could be the type of people that want to be yelled at to improve. I'm not exactly sure if in Jake's post he meant that the first coach wasn't constructive in his criticism (as in didn't even tell the players how to improve) or if he was just saying that he felt the coach was too harsh. I do feel that coaches need to be constructive--let their players know how to improve. I think this type of harsh-coaching works for sports, especially as the level increases. College sports may need harsher coaches than high school sports. Bruce Weber is often criticized for being too soft, and in the past couple years when our basketball wins have decreased, this is what the media has blamed it on. I'm sure there are other imposing factors, but in at least some areas, his softness does seem to be a factor.
Luther Head was a member of the runner-up 2004-2005 Illini basketball team. At the beginning of Luther's career at Illinois, he had a couple run-ins with the police for robbery. Bruce didn't punish Luther much more than a slap on the wrist. Bruce became known as a soft coach. Fast forward a few years, and Jamar Smith was suspended after driving under the influence and getting into a one-car accident that put his fellow team mate in the hospital. I won't get into the details, but there were many other questionable actions by Jamar such as leaving the teammate in the car before someone else called 911...
Jamar was suspended for the rest of the season but stayed on the basketball team. He stayed on the basketball team after almost killing a fellow team mate. He continued to play. He continued to drink. He continued to party more than he should have. He was seen around campus drinking and it led to him receiving a probation from drinking. Bruce Weber continued to be known as a soft coach. Why didn't he criticize Jamar more? Why didn't he make him red shirt the next season? Why was he not scaring Jamar so that Jamar would get into gear? Why was Bruce not the intimidating Category A coach that Jake described? It seems that the incident itself wasn't enough for Jamar to realize how much basketball meant to him. It seems he needed some harsher coaching. A year later...Jamar was arrested again for violating his probation on alcohol. After the arrest, Jamar was kicked off the basketball team, transferred schools, and the Illini were left without their shooting guard. Jamar contributed a lot to the basketball team in talent, and the season following his departure showed that we missed him.
Sometimes setting the tone as a "harsh" coach is necessary. Maybe if Luther would have been suspended more games, Jamar would have came into the team scared of any consequences for DUIs and then he wouldn't have gotten a DUI to begin with. Maybe if Jamar was punished more strongly after his DUI, he wouldn't have continued to drink and get arrested. The tone that the coach sets does matter, and having an intimidating tone as a coach can be helpful for the team in getting wins.
I wanted to throw my example out there because I feel like in America, we have this strong desire to keep "babying" people into success. Kids constantly get compliments even when they aren't doing well (especially from parents). One of the reasons our obesity rate is so high is because parents are unable to say "no" and feed their kids whatever they want.
This is not to say that it is unnecessary to be positive. I do think that one of the reasons the tough criticism didn't work for Jake is because the coach was doing this at a lower level. The players were just kids, and needed some push and compliments to keep going and have the desire to play. Even in my example, Bruce was able to mold Luther Head into one of the best college players and winning personalities in the nation. It's difficult to decide what the best coaching is and when---but I think that lies on the coach. Perhaps Jake's first coach used to be an upper level coach and was unable to mold his ways to fit a young team. This falls on the coach. I think the situation also completely changes when we go into how to motivate or criticize students in academia.
The academic environment is not the harsh, contact-filled one that I described for sports. Nonetheless, when instilling a mentoring program, it would be necessary to consider whether we think it is possible for peers to give the negative criticisms that may be necessary, or if there would be too much "babying" involved. Professor Arvan brought up in a post that we keep complimenting our classmates on their blogs, but that's not going to help them improve. How do we find the peer mentors that are willing to criticize their peers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)