The CBB :: View topic - Encouraging/coaching girls who could have made more effort

Encouraging/coaching girls who could have made more effort

through

#1: Encouraging/coaching girls who could have made more effort Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:04 pm
—
It just occurred me that the CS seems very accepting of people who don't work very hard. Some people end up in forms with girls much younger than themselves because of "delicate" health, or because of previous poor education (e.g. Yseult Pertwee - although surely someone should at least have suggested more special coaching in her case as it really can't have been ideal for a girl of 16 to've been in the same class as girls as young as 12), but in other cases people don't seem to make much progress mainly because of lack of effort and no-one seems to care.

Emerence Hope spends her last few years at school in forms much lower than those usual for her age (admittedly because EBD made her the same age as Mary-Lou's Gang to start with but then decided that she should be best friends with Margot!) and no-one seems bothered about it, and the Ozanne twins also (I think!) fail to make it to the VIth form. Emerence in particular would not have expected to have to get a job, but even so shouldn't people have been a bit more bothered about it than they were?

#2: Author: Liseke,

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:57 pm
—
What a fantastic idea for a topic and I'm sure it'll open up to the history of women in the workplace and education.

Even allowing for the fact that many girls expected to leave school and marry young, it's very odd that so few were 'expected' to achieve anything in terms of certificates or diplomas in spite of the remedial lessons that make timetabling so difficult. The fees (especially in the Swiss books) with the extras and long uniform list are a significant investment for parents and it does appear odd that so many girls didn't do much with the opportunities offered. Perhaps the general education was deemed sufficient, even if you didn't have a diploma of sorts as proof.

It's only recently that almost all pupils are entered for exams and do need them in life and I do think the age range in forms was exaggerated to prove that the triplets were brilliant.

Possibly, they were just expected to meet other nice girls and network?

#3: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:18 am
—
It makes more sense in the earlier books, particularly with upper class girls who weren't planning on university or career training, but were going home until they married. In that case, finishing school after fifth form wasn't a big deal - they had the academic skills they needed, and were mainly marking time until they were old enough to marry. Even Joey fits into that mould, as she is allowed to do well in the courses she likes, but there is no expectation she will achieve any particular standard in courses she dislikes.

In later books it's more puzzling. Prudence Dawbarn, for example, is held back about three or four times. She starts out in form with Mary-Lou, and ends up two forms below the triplets! And it mainly seems that she is unmotivated, rather than untalented. They don't do anything constructive until she's about 18 and still in fifth form, when they threaten to kick her out if she doesn't improve.

At the same time, Margot Maynard is chastised for being so lazy as to be in form with girls who her own age or a year older, rather than with girls two or three years older like Len.

I could see girls with low IQs or learning disabilities slipping back without the school being able to do much, and in some cases it's recognized that a girl's health is poor, so she has to have a reduced workload. However, for a school with the CS's reputation, I would expect some fairly hefty tutoring for girls who had been kept back a year, particularly when you add in the language issue.

For someone like Yseult it would be a real problem. Putting her in form with 12 and 13 year olds is a bad idea, but she doesn't have the basic skills to handle the seniors work. They might have tried putting her in the upper form, but done private tutoring for her basic skills to try and get her caught up.

#4: Author: CBW, Location: Kent

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:59 am
—

Quote:

For someone like Yseult it would be a real problem. Putting her in form with 12 and 13 year olds is a bad idea, but she doesn't have the basic skills to handle the seniors work. They might have tried putting her in the upper form, but done private tutoring for her basic skills to try and get her caught up.

And there are a lot of comments about Yseult's attitude and they always compare her attitude unfavourably with her sisters who settled in well but the school never seems to look at its own attitude in this.

Even the most sweet tempered of 16 year olds is going to play up if they come to a new school, are dumped with kids very much younger than themselves and then find that that class placing limits them to the bedtimes and activities of these younger girls.

There seems to have been no attempt to separate her academic needs from her social ones. Her work abilities placed her in a younger form therefore she with this form in every aspect of her school life with no-one considering that it might be healthier for her to have some chance to socialise with her own age group and then they are all surprised when she remains difficult.

#5: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:07 am
—
Yseult did get extra tutoring, didn't she?

Didn't someone comment on the amount of time Kathie was giving her, and Kathie said she was only doing it to get her to a level where she could be shoved off on to someone else? (I like EBD's staff room scenes - so realistic that the mistresses dislike some of their pupils and get fed up and frustrated at times.)

And girls who come with no French or German have extra tuition in those, and sometimes a new girl has extra tuition in one subject such as maths to get her up to her form's level - I think Jacynth did, didn't she?

I suppose there's a limit to the amount of time the mistresses could spend on girls who just didn't want to work. It had to come out of their free time, unless they all had timetable space set aside for individual tuition.

And really, if parents are spending huge amounts on a girl's education, and she's consistently in a form below her age group and her reports always say 'could do better' or 'does not try', you'd think they'd want to know why and do something about it - like threaten to remove her. Yet the Ozanne twins, for example, were seventeen before Paul woke up to the fact that they were lazy and had been getting by on looks and charm.

There's only so much the school can do if that's the attitude at home.

#6: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:18 am
—
Polly Heriot receives extra coaching from Joey, to bring her up to speed, especially on the teaching methods. Maybe it was more important for the girls to be able to talk about the fantastic new methods used by the CS rather than what the actual stuff was that they were learning Laughing

But definitely, there seems to be a *level* at which the CS mistresses are happy that Girl X has reached. After that, it depends on whether
- the girl is academically inclined (Len)
- the girl is destined for a social role (Deira)
- the girl has other strong talents that it's worth concentrating on (Jane, Sybil)

I'm reminded of the Farm School (Josephine Elder, late 1930s) where the main ethos of the school was to find out what the student liked/ was good at, and then strip away all extra lessons so that they could concentrate on *that*, whether it be sculpture or chemistry.

(Getting back to the CS) In one way, it's a good policy - it lets people start to specialise early. But in another way, it's dubious - because it lets people specialise not only in *subjects* but also in what we might class as lifestyle these days eg being a socialite, being an important wife, being a nun/missionary, being a companion to their parents. And yet, EBD took these lifestyle decisions (for want of a better description) very very seriously, and why not? In most cases, they also took a lot of hard work and dedication. I always remember Joey and the schoolgirls visiting Madge at some point in Exploits (I think) and Madge meets them at the door and then rushes away saying she has to get back to her work; then it turns out she is making fudge for the children.

Oh I didn't mean to write so much Laughing

#7: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:39 am
—
And I think most of the girls who didn't do well academically still learned valuable lessons that were arguably more important than academic work. Emerence learned a certain amount of self discipline and unselfishness and about living in a community.

Blossom was one of the girls who was allowed to coast along academically - her family was well to do and she was going home to help her mother. But through her tennis and being Games Prefect she learned self discipline, team work, leadership and responsibility. They'd all be more useful than A Levels if she took on any voluntary work after leaving school.

#8: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:07 pm
—
There's an inconsistency in it all somewhere ... they are obsessed with form lists and who comes where, and yet at the same time some people get away with making no effort Rolling Eyes

.

A lot of it must've been down to the parents, as JayB said: if I'd been Emerence's parents I'd've been furious that after paying all that money on school fees Emerence wasn't even considered up to getting past Vb (or was it Va)? You can't expect everyone to come out with brilliant exam results but you can at least expect them to make it through the form structure Rolling Eyes

.

Madge's own attitude towards it is interesting. She says - regarding taking time out to go to Canada - that David couldn't afford to miss a term of school (quite rightly so - he was 15 or 16 at the time and so coming up for public exams, and as he wanted to get into med school he would have needed very good results) but that it didn't matter for Sybil who wasn't academic (or presumably for Primula). And in the early books we're told that Joey doesn't make much effort in subjects she doesn't like - understandable for someone in their early to mid teens but you'd think that the school would have tried to get her to try harder.

#9: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:19 pm
—
Joey's attitude was appalling, and not just when she was a Middle. When she was a Senior (and a Prefect?) she made herself so obnoxious in class she was thrown out of maths and art. I think she had to do extra something or other instead of art, but nowhere do we hear of Madge or Mdlle giving her the dressing down she deserved, or making her apologise to the staff concerned.

Yet for some girls who are seen as having the potential to do well academically, the school seems to go to the other extreme and put on huge amounts of pressure from an early age - the Maynard triplets, Margot in particular, for example. And Bride was ahead of her age group at eleven. And Josette too, I think.

Partly I suppose it's because EBD wanted to hurry these characters on so she could have them playing a leading role in the books, which they couldn't do so easily while they were in Junior forms.

#10: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:41 pm
—
If I had been Mlle Lepattre, Joey would have spent the remaining art periods sitting silently on a chair in my office. Twisted Evil

#11: Author: Simone, Location: Newton le Willows

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:14 pm
—
Didn't she have to spend her time doing extra maths, which she hated?

#12: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:37 pm
—

Simone wrote:

Didn't she have to spend her time doing extra maths, which she hated?

I think that's right. I thought that Joey being chucked out of Art reflected badly on both her and Herr Laubach.

I think we probably don’t see the attempts made my the school to make certain girls work harder as they wouldn’t make very interesing reading and might also be subtle ways not easy to convery on paper. To be fair there are plenty of kids these days who don’t make much of an effort, there’s only so much a school can do.
I think the point with Margot was that she was easily capable of working at the same level as Len and Con were so, by the way the CS worked, she should have been in the same form as them. I think the fact that she was the same age as the girls in her form is immaterial, she wasn’t working to the best of her abilities.

#13: Author: JS, Location: Perthshire

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:13 pm
—
We did get people whose expectations changed. I'm thinking of Ros Yolland whose folks lost money so she suddenly had to earn a living. And even Deira ended up working, didn't she (before filching Grizel's chap)?

#14: Author: Tara, Location: Malvern, Worcestershire

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:26 am
—
Can't remember the exact book (one of the later ones), but Miss Annersley goes to some lengths to cure a whole form of laziness at one point. IIRC their form-teacher is changed to a games enthusiast (Kathie Ferrars????) so that they can't complain when their games periods are docked for skimped work. When the staff are discussing it, someone says the girls will hate them, to which Miss A replies, more or less, too bad, we can put up with that, but they're going to learn whether they like it or not.
I must say that's more the attitude I'd expect from the school.

#15: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:18 am
—

Tara wrote:

Can't remember the exact book (one of the later ones), but Miss Annersley goes to some lengths to cure a whole form of laziness at one point.

Of course, she threatens to leave down the entire form, including those few who work steadily, which I don't like - there's a strong implication that it's up to the other girls to get their classmates to work if they don't want to fail too. I can see that going down well with the parents - "I'm sorry, I know your daughter has an average mark of 95%, we're keeping her back to teach some of her classmates a lesson!"

Actually, you can see a change in attitude going on now. In reports on universities in the US there is a strong trend for upper and upper middle class families to put a great deal of emphasis and pressure on their kids going to top universities (we're talking Ivy League, and places like Caltech and MIT). They have private tutoring, and career coaches, SAT preparation from a young age, carefully selected extracurricular activities and volunteer work to round out their applications and so on. In some cases, it seems to border on hysteria - if the kid doesn't get into Harvard, their future life will be meaningless.

#16: Author: Dawn, Location: Leeds, West Yorks

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:55 pm
—

Liseke wrote:

The fees (especially in the Swiss books) with the extras and long uniform list are a significant investment for parents and it does appear odd that so many girls didn't do much with the opportunities offered. Perhaps the general education was deemed sufficient, even if you didn't have a diploma of sorts as proof.

.......

Possibly, they were just expected to meet other nice girls and network?

One of my sons ended up at a private school so he could get the specialist support he desperately needed for his dyslexia. It's part boarding and not exactly cheap and I was shocked that some of the kids had parents who were paying a lot of money (often for 2 or 3 siblings) and then didn't seem bothered about getting them to school on time, making sure they stayed there or worked while they were there. One lad left before his GCSEs because he didn't want to sit them (any of them!) and there were others who put no effort in at all. Obviously a majority of kids did work hard and were encouraged by their parents, but I really couldn't understand why some parents paid so much and cared so little - or maybe they really didn't care about their kids and were just "keeping up appearances".

I think in the early CS days, school work for girls was seen as a very much secondary thing - especially for those who were expected to make good marriages at an early age and were really just "rounding out their characters" until then. As a young child I was always shocked by Simone and the extra effort that EBD implied she was putting in. As an older reader, I'm concerned that she felt she had to work so much harder than everyone else because she wanted to go to the Sorbonne and knew how behind everyone else she would be and that she didn't necesarily get the support from the staff that she needed. I know that EBD doesn't spell it out that clearly, but it's the impression I get.

Later on, it often seems that if you were bright you were pushed, if you were mediocre you were given a bit of help, and if you were totally unmotivated you were often just left alone or given a bit of nagging when the form lists were read - which may be justice of a sort but... Confused

#17: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:53 pm
—

Quote:

I was shocked that some of the kids had parents who were paying a lot of money (often for 2 or 3 siblings) and then didn't seem bothered about getting them to school on time, making sure they stayed there or worked while they were there.

A friend teaches up to A level in a girls' independent school. She says some of the parents seem to think that because they've paid, that will guarantee good results, without the girls having to put in any effort at all. And that attitude is picked up by their daughters.

She also says that some of the girls coast through never failing at anything, never having anyone say 'no' to them, and it's a big shock when RL hits them in the face. One girl was devastated when she didn't get in to her first choice university - apparently that was the first time in her life she'd failed to get what she wanted.

(She also says that most of the girls are lovely, and she loves her job.)

#18: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:23 pm
—

JayB wrote:

...She says some of the parents seem to think that because they've paid, that will guarantee good results, without the girls having to put in any effort at all. And that attitude is picked up by their daughters.

This attitude is becoming so prevalent in universities now that it's ridiculous. It's the 'customer service' idea. We've paid our money, now hand us our firsts. Mad

The subject of many midnight msns between Kathy S and I Confused

#19: Author: Rosie, Location: Land of Three-Quarters Sky

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:53 pm
—
1) Scrap tuition fees.
2) Stop trying to push everyone into university.
3) Am fairly sure I read something recently about the emotional effects on teenage girls who have never failed anything. Probably BBC News website as this is where I read most things these days...

#20: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:16 pm
—
I should have said, to be fair, that it is only visiting students who have this attitude in my classes. Third level education is free in Ireland for Irish students (there is a means test to achieve it though so it's not across the board but the majority of students don't pay tuition fees).

#21: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:32 am
—

Róisín wrote:

JayB wrote:

This attitude is becoming so prevalent in universities now that it's ridiculous. It's the 'customer service' idea. We've paid our money, now hand us our firsts. Mad

The subject of many midnight msns between Kathy S and I Confused

Add that to the "I pay taxes so you work for me" approach some parents have towards their child's teachers. Rolling Eyes

The Taiwanese term for the coddled younger generation is "strawberries" - they bruise easily under any sort of pressure.

#22: Author: Rosie, Location: Land of Three-Quarters Sky

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:33 pm
—

Rosie wrote:

3) Am fairly sure I read something recently about the emotional effects on teenage girls who have never failed anything. Probably BBC News website as this is where I read most things these days...

Found it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/02/2008_13_tue.shtml

Bring on the Woman's Hour! Am just off to listen to it...

ETA: It's actually quite scary. Shocked

#23: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:42 pm
—
Which Chalet School girls might fall into this category?

Quote:

‘brittle, high achieving’ teenage girls who are ‘unable to cope with failure’ and who fall apart if they can’t live up to their own impossibly high expectations of themselves.

I think Len Maynard would be a contender.

#24: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:44 pm
—
No-one at the CS ever really does seem to "fail": the people who don't make the VIth form don't seem bothered about it Rolling Eyes

. The odd person has to make a slight change of career choice, but we never hear of anyone failing/not getting the required pass level in an exam (not even in a Malory Towers type way, i.e. when it can be blamed on an extrernal factor such as illness), and of course they all walk straight into the top universities. And the first book Joey writes is accepted by a publisher.

Especially given the way that plotlines ran out in the later Swiss books, it'd've been interesting to see someone having to cope with e.g. not getting on to the uni course they wanted, or being accepted but not being able to cope when they got there. Preferably someone who'd genuinely tried hard, not someone getting their come-uppance for not being a good Chalet School girl.

#25: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:35 am
—

Quote:

‘brittle, high achieving’ teenage girls who are ‘unable to cope with failure’ and who fall apart if they can’t live up to their own impossibly high expectations of themselves.

It's kind of sad to see. You have a bright, nice kid, who's been programmed to think that they *must* succeed (highest marks, perform well in various sports and artistic pursuits, do volunteer work, get into the best university). Unfortunately, if something goes wrong with their plan or their expectations they have absolutely no resources to fall back on, and they mentally thing "Failure at X => I am a worthless person". The longer they wait before they fail, the harder the lesson is to absorb.

I think I feel particularly sorry for kids of average ability who are being pushed to excel. Extra tutoring and really hard work and dedication will carry them to a point, but they will reach a stage when they simply can't keep up, no matter how hard they work.

#26: Author: Lisa_T, Location: Belfast

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:40 pm
—

Quote:

JayB wrote:
...She says some of the parents seem to think that because they've paid, that will guarantee good results, without the girls having to put in any effort at all. And that attitude is picked up by their daughters.

This attitude is becoming so prevalent in universities now that it's ridiculous. It's the 'customer service' idea. We've paid our money, now hand us our firsts. Mad The subject of many midnight msns between Kathy S and I

Oh don't get me started. Here in the UK they do need to pay. Through the nose, as it happens.

Do the little(!) darlings bother to turn up to tutorials? They do not. I started off the semester with a supposed class of five. One student didn't turn up at all, but turned out she'd been having a horrid time so I passed her over to the Exams person in the school. Of the remaining four, I don't think I ever saw all of them in the class at the one time throughout the entire semester. More than that, only one pupil bothered to hand in the unassessed essay. I spent the first five weeks sending nasty emails, but after that (and after their names had been passed on to the school office) I didn't bother nagging them any more. What was the point? They are all adults, after all. I'd followed the procedures and I couldn't do any more.

So - puzzle. Do you teach in a secondary school, where you have a captive audience that doesn't want to learn, or in uni where attendance is optional(!) but there's a degree of motivation when they do turn up?!

#27: Author: Rosie, Location: Land of Three-Quarters Sky

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:00 pm
—
Our dept is so small you'd blatantly end up wandering into the lecturer later anyway (unless of course you never make it to the dept). Or, as has been known, they catch you in Tesco...

Will admit though, you'd struggle to get me to do an unassessed essay. I've managed unassessed translations every week all year but only because we go* through them in class...

*Tense: went. Last trans class this morning, last lecture this afternoon, and last seminar in the morning!

#28: Author: Clare, Location: Liverpool

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:10 pm
—

Lisa_T wrote:

So - puzzle. Do you teach in a secondary school, where you have a captive audience that doesn't want to learn, or in uni where attendance is optional(!) but there's a degree of motivation when they do turn up?!

Don't talk to me about pupils not wanting to learn in secondary... I am so sick and tired of the growing numbers of kids who just aren't interested ruining lessons for everyone else. My hands are tied by SMT - we can't send them out, I'm sick of logging incidents and contacting home and getting no support; SMT's hands are tied by the government - we can't exclude pupils or we'll get fined, we have to keep Year 11 in school until the end of June as exam leave is now forbidden (even though a lot of schools are disregarding this).[/u]

#29: Author: Sarah_G-G, Location: Sheffield (termtime), ? any other time!

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:58 pm
—
Sorry, but why is exam leave forbidden? I have vivid memories of being annoyed enough at our very short period of study leave for GCSEs (we had it for the "important exams" apparently. This helped not at all when I had Latin and music on the same day but had to go to maths in between, or when doing a French exam in the afternoon after a German lesson in the morning).

I have to admit as well, at this point I agree with Rosie about the unassessed essays thing- I've always done my best, but I do study 3 languages ands when things clash (such as now, when I'm simultanrously trying to write 3 essays, prepare for 3 orals and ignore the fact that between all this and ordinary lessons I have no idea when I'm going to prepare for my 7 written exams!) the non-assessed things sometimes have to fall by the wayside. I genuinely don't see how you can miss too many language lessons and still pass but sometimes you do have to prioritise if sleep is ever going to happen!

Anyway, on topic... I've always wondered about the middle people in the forms, actually. I mean, we hear about the real "duds" who need extra coaching, and the bright ones who get promoted once a term or so, but when did the others get promoted? Just as a matter of course at the end of the year, unless they did really badly? Or does it work a bit like football league tables- a certain number get promoted, others stay until they achieve the required position in form?

#30: Author: Lisa_T, Location: Belfast

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:37 pm
—
I think, as far as possible, they tried to keep people in the correct form for their age, but made special arrangements when necessary for both the G&T and the SEN part of the spectrum - bearing in mind that in a trilingual school, only being able to speak one language fluently could legitimately be considered a 'special educational need'. I think as well, though, the CS liked girls to take a certain amount of responsibility for their own learning, and they were realistic. The setup of the school with its emphasis on languages could mean that people ended up being held back because they were genuinely not good at languages, and given the circs, this could cause real problems with a range of subjects.

For example, I went to a school for the deaf. Most of us were severely/profoundly deaf, and a high proportion of pupils had learning issues that came about as a direct result of poor language acquisition. This meant that at exam level, they could potentially do very well in subjects such as Maths, Art, Science and (bizarrely, but logically) French. Subjects that required an ability to use English well and fluently - English lit and lang., the humanities - they tended to do less well. If you transfer this principle to the CS setting, I can see why it might be necessary for girls to be kept down, especially if they were going to attempt public exams at any point.

#31: Author: keren, Location: Israel

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:14 pm
—
From the examples you all have brought
I think that the CS attitude to all this does change slightly through the series.

#32: Author: Clare, Location: Liverpool

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:09 pm
—

Sarah_G-G wrote:

Sorry, but why is exam leave forbidden?

The idea is that if exam leave is forbidden, we won't have 16 year olds roaming the streets and causing havoc. In theory. Clearly the government are not factoring in truants!

#33: Author: Tor, Location: London

Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:11 pm
—
I actually think that CS girls, duds or otherwise might very well have struggled at university.

Joining the ranks of all those so far despairing at university undergraduates (and actually some taught Master's students too), I just cannot fathom the attitude of so many of the people I tutored/tutor. Basically, they come into 3 main categories:

(i) those who are great, but these are increasingly rare, particularly in the more "I am doing this to get a job" degrees
(ii) those who want to do well, but cannot get beyond spoon feeding, and having their work load managed for them by frequent assessment and marking - this is where I think the CS girls might come unstuck, having been used to prep etc.
(iii) those who seem to think they are entitled to do well, and that they ought to be provided with model answers, and who don't speak in tutorials, hand their work in late, think they have got away with it because no one has chased them, and then complain when they get their end of term marks back

The problem basically stems from immaturity, because no-one has prepared students to have ownership for their own education/learning. It's worsened by the fact that many people go on to university because they feel they must to get a job, but don't really love their subject, and basically want to do the minimum work for maximum reward. As there has been so much focus on getting high grades/passing exams/exam technique in their senior schools (I'm at a uni that asks for all A's), they get really narked at not being told how to do well! The answer is easy, work work work!

I feel for them, and totally understand, but really. When I was an undergrad, and partied all night, skipped lectures, came in with hangovers, and passed on anything i didn't *have* to do, I never blamed the university or tutors etc for my lack of achievement! Grrrrrrr...

I suppose that is why I am not a teacher, but still enjoy teaching at an advanced academic level, if you get what I mean. I don't want to teach people how to learn, but I want them to learn from me! When a discussion actually takes off in a tutorial, full of bright, interested people, it is the best!

So I do wonder, would the CS girls have struggled without organized prep (as many of my ex-public school peers did), and would the new found freedom have gone to their head? Or would their ingrained sense of obeying the rules meant they would have done every piece of un-assessed work regardless, and may actually have benefitted from the schools practice of ignoring the duds (only those that could self-motivate would make it through to uni). Of course, this approach would have been quite cut-throat and would have left a number of those who could have been successful by the wayside.

(*tor trying to deviate back off topic to whinge, but pretending it is somehow relevant!*)

#34: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:17 am
—
In my experience, the people who struggle a lot when they hit university are

1) People who did all right in high school through working hard, but can't handle the different type of work at university - fewer small assignments, less emphasis on rote learning, more synthesis required, more emphasis on exams. Basically, someone who was a B student in high school, but is really only ever going to be a C student at university.

2) People who didn't have to work at high school to get good marks. They have been able to coast with little effort, and while they are capable of doing the level of work, they don't have the study habits to put it out.

3) The Golden Child: This is the child who has been coddled through high school. They're probably fairly bright and high achieving, but they're used to being the top of the class, and having their lives micromanaged by over attentive parents. They fall apart when they aren't the best, don't have someone personally directing them, and they just can't handle failure.

4) The unmotivated: They just plain don't really want to be there, and are going to university either because their parents said so, because they couldn't think of anything else, or as a magic pass for a good job.

#35: Author: Catherine, Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 12:46 pm
—
Exams are ongoing here at the moment and so far, we've had at least one student who literally hasn't done much more than put her name on the paper! Shocked

The Programme Director has said more than once to me that a year out between school and university should become compulsory as so many students are incapable of thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for even simple things such as looking on the noticeboard to find out exam times etc.

#36: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:32 pm
—
One hears almost nothing in the CS books about the likelihood of people having adjustment difficulties at university, whereas in Enid Blyton's Malory Towers books, there's a quite pithy little piece about how 'solid' Darrell and Sally will do much better at St Andrews than witty, brilliant Alicia and Betty, who will flutter around parties and have not settled work habits etc etc. Given the CS's routine (albeit interrupted for rambles and sports at times), highly involved staff, and organised prep, I'd be surprised if some CS girls didn't find difficult the necessity to work entirely on their own, potentially being one among very large lecture groups with only fairly tenuous contact with the academic staff, and not having the spur of competing for class places with their form.

Entirely agree with other academics on the board (didn't know we were so many!) about the lack of ownership of their own education and immaturity of our undergraduates. I was on research leave last year, so haven't marked any of the big undergraduate lecture courses in two years, and was shocked this year at the level of writing problems, as well as lack of motivation and interest - and the tendency to come to me as head of year to ask for endless extensions, rather than attempt to take responsibility for their own procrastination.

I also find myself increasingly gloomy about the possibility of teaching English literature at an advanced level to teenagers who are increasingly young for their age, despite a surface sophistication. With increasingly involved and protective parenting, more cyberlife than actual life, and a school system that focuses on exam results, larger and larger numbers appear to only want to 'identify' weakly with some literary character who somehow resembles them, and to be unwilling or unprepared to deal with something that's not immediately 'relevant' to their own lives, making literature pre-1980 or so a desert as far as they are concerned.

Mind you, we never hear anything about how the CS mistresses teach English literature, do we? The odd reference to Madge teaching Austen and Miss Annersley giving a lecture on Augustan poetry - and that hilarious scene (in Genius maybe?) where some mistress makes them write terrible-sounding sonnets and then criticises the appalling results. There are lots of references to the history mistresses teaching the girls to argue from cause to effect etc, but we never hear whether the majority of the English classes are lectures or dsicussion groups, or what kinds of texts they study.

#37: Author: LizzieC, Location: Canterbury, UK

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:52 pm
—

Sunglass wrote:

I also find myself increasingly gloomy about the possibility of teaching English literature at an advanced level to teenagers who are increasingly young for their age, despite a surface sophistication.

Shades of Margot! Laughing

Sunglass wrote:

With increasingly involved and protective parenting

I work the clearing line at the University closest to me, and I'm always shocked at the number of parents who call to ask if their children are in or to apply for clearing on their behalf. We ask to speak to the applicants themselves, but sometimes it's a battle to get the parents to yield the line. We also get lots of calls from parents asking why their child wasn't allowed in. I hear through the university grapevine about parents who call the university throughout the children's stay on their behalf. It's quite sickening really.

Sunglass wrote:

shocked this year at the level of writing problems

Agreed. I mark GCSE history, and the levels of literacy appear to fall year after year, handwriting getting poorer and text language creeping in. As for SPAG... Rolling Eyes

It's rather demoralising really, and I finish marking sometimes barely knowing which way is up (or which spelling is correct).

#38: Author: april, Location: Edinburgh

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:19 pm
—
The 'helicopter parent' thing really isn't helping. I had one poor student look like he wished the earth would swallow him because his mother was marching him around the university library, stopped me and demanded to know where X, Y and Z were, with his book list in her hand and when he tried to get a word in edgeways she just spoke over him. What was she even doing there? Why couldn't the lad be allowed to use the catalogue all by himself? The attitude that they're too young to deal with basic life skills in their early 20s is just... Horrendous. I'm not sure whether to feel more sorry for the kids or the parents who cannot let go, at all, even a bit.

No wonder the school stories are still popular. Kids are probably desperate to read about a world with relatively few adults where they can make decisions for themselves and have some independence.

(I think this might be a bit off topic. Sorry.)

#39: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:21 pm
—

LizzieC wrote:

Sunglass wrote:

With increasingly involved and protective parenting

In university we used to get our parents to ring when we wanted a straight answer about something. Our uni would fob us off, but as soon as they'd hear a 'real adult' on the line, they'd start offering actual assistance. Actually, last year (after I'd graduated) I rang up to get results transcripts. The girl on the phone was soooo nasty to me until I mentioned I was a graduate and then she turned into sweetness itself. It was bizarre. I wrote down the conversation straight after it happened so I'd have an accurate record; the turnaround is blatant.

Obviously I'm not saying that's your problem! I know the problem is the other way around too - my brother is 18 and applying for uni and won't ring anyone. He begs my mum or me to do it for him. I was the same at that age. I'm okay now. But it is amazing the amount of people that blow him off but listen to Mum or me seriously.

#40: Author: Sugar, Location: second star to the right!

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:33 pm
—
I'm amazed that current undergrads need spoon feeding so much. Overheard a first year undergrad asking a tutor for the hyperlink to an article on EBSCO the other week. She had no idea how to use the print catalogue or how to find an article online. The department have also provided an idiots guide to writing an essay (complete with SPAG and referencing examples!) Admittedly I have skimmed it as my academic essay writing skills are a bit rusty but it does seem very basic. And as for parents ringing up. I'm sure my uni woudn't discuss anything with anyone other than me. I'm speechless.

As for CS girls not coping. Yes I can see that in some cases as the need to self motivate is important at uni to get work done but I have a feeling the redbricks in the 50's and 60's would have had weely tutorials as well as lectures.

#41: Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:50 pm
—
I can imagine Chalet girls thinking that they might die a premature death if they didn't adhere to the 'books away by eight o'clock' rule. No burning the midnight oil for revision or to finish an essay!

#42: Author: Tor, Location: London

Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 2:46 pm
—

Quote:

I can imagine Chalet girls thinking that they might die a premature death if they didn't adhere to the 'books away by eight o'clock' rule. No burning the midnight oil for revision or to finish an essay!

Ah... but then there are *so* many much more exciting things to do after 20:00 at university.... and that, I fear, is where some CS girls might come unstuck...!

And quick apologies to all the nice undergrads on the board for my little rant (though I did provide a small caveat that not all were bad)... sometimes I need to vent my frustration, but I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush.

I'd forgotten the comment about Betty and Alicia, that is interesting. I bet they did fine though, maybe not stellar, but fine, and had a fine time too at the parties. Unless Mallory Towers work was just easy, and that was they they did well without any work at all.

#43: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:02 pm
—
Am now trying to imagine sharing a student house with a CS girl. She would no doubt have 'opened her eyes widely' at my frequent burning of the midnight oil before an essay deadline, the all-consuming love-affair that devoured second year, the fact that I was running a club night the night before my first finals paper, a 'cramming', study style closer to Margot's than Len's steady work - but still did reasonably well. I, and my imaginary fellow-students in this imaginary house share, would have opened our eyes widely at her insistence on regular hours, no night study, a 'dainty' appearance, bedside prayers and hair-brushing, and bringing us hot milk in bed if we happened to go to the loo in our bare feet.

#44: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 4:17 pm
—
It depends on the girl ... some people who've led a rather sheltered life get a bit intoxicated by the freedom at uni and do completely the opposite of what they've done before. I remember there being a lad at our hall of residence who'd grown up in a small out-of-the-way village where there wasn't much to do, and whom I gather had been rather strictly brought up, and he was so excited at being "free" in a big city that he ran a bit wild Laughing

.

The costs of repairing the damage that he did to the common areas of the said hall were deducted out of everybody's deposits Evil or Very Mad

#45: Author: Billie, Location: The south of England.

Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:51 pm
—
I wonder if the Chalet School had a subconscious effect on me when I was a student, because, in second and third year at any rate, I very rarely worked later than 8PM. It seemed to have worked as I got a first. Smile

The CBB -> Anything Else

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT + 1 Hour

Page 1 of 1