Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2009, 02:30:13 AM
-
To continue my misanthropic streak, what is it with teachers always making you work in groups these days? I hate that crap. I'm not in class to make friends. Nor do I need or want any "help" from any of my fellow students.
-
I've heard that it's because you have a high chance of working on projects in groups when you get into your career.
-
the problem is that you usually end up with folks who don't work, work too much or just can't figure out what the hell they need to do.
its rare you end up in a group that can work together.
i used to end up going "shut up! now the project is this, so..." after about a hour of useless chatter.
-
It's obviously conditioning for our future conversion to Communism by Obama.
-
I've never been a big fan of group projects in college but...it's the default for 90% of jobs out there (if not more) that you're going to be working in groups with other people towards a shared goal. So, there is some validity to reasoning that it'd be a good idea to have people work in groups and get used to it before you release them into the job market.
I think my biggest problem with group projects is that they lack the direction and cohesion you normally encounter in the real world, and that can lead them to be a great deal more frustrating than is normal.
-
1. Because much work in real life requires working with others. On any given task in my job, I might need the input or participation of 1-10 additional people due to the complexity and scope of my work.
2. Because a group will ferret out details or points of view missed by an individual. Happens all the time in my line of work (IT, specifically "internet operations").
Chris
-
because its easier to grade 6 projects
-
College was OK because 1) the groups were small; and 2) we formed OUR OWN groups.
I used to HATE group assignments in elementary school because the nuns (yep, went to a Catholic grade school) always seemed to inflict my group with one or more dopes - they were anchors that dragged down the group.
And hoo, boy, did one of the nuns get mad when a couple of us on one of the groups - mere STUDENTS - had the audacity to object IN CLASS about some of the people we were saddled with. :rolleyes: (There's a long story here . . . one I don't feel like typing out . . . but it ultimately involved parents and the PTA.)
-
the problem is that you usually end up with folks who don't work, work too much or just can't figure out what the hell they need to do.
That sounds surprisingly like the last committee I was assigned to here at work!
-
Haven't you heard? We're all Socialists now.
-
I also hated group projects. In college, I would always pick the weak/lazy students to work with. They wouldn't complain when I just did everything myself, got the A, and went on with my studies.
I think that real life is working in groups but that colleges largely fail at replicating the situation.
In real life, you work in a group because other people in that group either (possibly both)
a) Have different expertise/knowledge than you. (i.e. An electrical engineer with a mechanical engineer to design an automated assembly line)
b) Are closer in ability to you. (Students of different abilities get different level jobs. If you graduate as an A+ student, you shouldn't expect you'll land a job with a company where the C student is your equal)
-
A friend of mine went to University of Phoenix for a master's degree. She despised it due to the focus on group work. Invariably, the groups she got were 3/4 populated by slackers or idiots, with 1-2 people to actually pull the weight and get the project done.
Talked to several people who attended UniPhx since then and they concur: the group focus allows for a higher graduation rate of leeches.
Yep: Socialism at work in education. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
-
I think that real life is working in groups but that colleges largely fail at replicating the situation.
In real life, you work in a group because other people in that group either (possibly both)
a) Have different expertise/knowledge than you. (i.e. An electrical engineer with a mechanical engineer to design an automated assembly line)
b) Are closer in ability to you. (Students of different abilities get different level jobs. If you graduate as an A+ student, you shouldn't expect you'll land a job with a company where the C student is your equal)
Let me add that in the workplace, most groups have a manager and/or designated leader involved. Helps to attenuate the ceaseless dithering found in some groups.
-
I'm fortunate in that most of my history profs don't do the group work thing.
Invariably, it's the low level gen education classes that do.
The worst group problems I've ever had are lab groups. Both of my lab groups were populated by lazy worthless idiots, and I had to work with them each week.
Like AZRedhawk says, it's for the higher graduation rate of leeches.
-
If I had to guess, then I would say in grade school it is to teach social skills to children. Not really a bad idea.
In my engineering courses it was for four reasons (that I can discern):
1. Engineers don't like talking to other people, but will have to anyway at their job.
2. In the professional world if only one person designs something, there is probably something seriously flawed with it.
3. Communicating in a group increases total knowledge. Often my group members would point something out I missed in the lecture, because I was too busy daydreaming about guns.
4. Engineers suck at communicating, and working in a group kind of helps.
I hated the group thing for a long time, but towards the end of my college career the people who didn't work had been either reformed by failure, or weeded out entirely. I started to appreciate it more then.
-
there is a team building execise they used to use at management seminars a long time ago called walking/stranded on the moon. its supposedly done with a lil help from nasa. you are supposedly stranded on the moon with a list of supplies. you need to orioritize since you can't keep em all. you do it by yourself then with someone else and in theory your score should rise . they use it to help folks who don't play well together see the value of the other person in their joint effort. they did it with me and david hantoot the restaurant manager after i threatened to kill him. i scored a 90 he scored 80 when we did it together he managed to bring it down to 80 for us both. my boss was most unhappy when i said thanks for proving my point. i eneded up catching a beating from my boss before it was all over but it was worth it
-
I always hated the group assignments because of the very theory of the "group" grade. Invariable, one or two would be slackers who knew the rest of us that actually *wanted* a good grade would get the work done and they'd just bask in the glory (gee, that actually *does* sound like the work environment.....)
Until I had a professor that saw a way around it. We were to work in groups on the project, and yes, there would be a group grade, but your individual grade would be based on your portion of the group assignment. Each group would divide the list of tasks amongst themselves and submit it to her so she would know who worked on what segment of the assignment. You should have seen the slackers in our group get the "deer in the headlights" look.... Was priceless.
-
because its easier to grade 6 projects
*Ding!*
We were constantly working in groups in my major (MIS). It usually ended up being me and one or two others that did the work, while the others piggy-backed. I understand them wanting to "prepare" you to work in groups in the workplace, but the whole dynamic is much different in the workplace, at least for me.
In school, 2 or 3 people can just do nothing and leech off the hard work of others. At work, most members of the group have different roles and if they don't do their job, it doesn't get done and it's obvious they weren't working.
-
To continue my misanthropic streak, what is it with teachers always making you work in groups these days? I hate that crap. I'm not in class to make friends. Nor do I need or want any "help" from any of my fellow students.
Harold hit the nail on the head. It cuts down on the number of papers or results to grade. Plus, it allows idiots to pass thus boosting attendance, thus more money.
I just told the rest of the group to STFU, "proofread" the paper I wrote, and then turn it in claiming the entire group helped write it. If there were intelligent people in the group, we'd rotate who did the work.
In the real world, folks eventually do notice who are the workers and who are not. If you provide a bit of viciousness and ruthlessness, the time required to differentiate is significantly reduced.
-
[b If you provide a bit of viciousness and ruthlessness, the time required to differentiate is significantly reduced. ][/b]
a man after my own heart! i have a review that says "works with a chain saw but gets results"
-
If you provide a bit of viciousness and ruthlessness, the time required to differentiate is significantly reduced.
a man after my own heart! i have a review that says "works with a chain saw but gets results"
My last review included "Does not play well with others", just prior to "customer relations" section of my review being removed. The Powers That Be determined that my effectiveness can best be gauged by how many people want my head on a pike.
People can and will tolerate chainsaws so long as the chainsaw in question is reasonably polite, even in application, and first and foremost, discreet.
-
I like group work, that isn't graded. I HATE group work that is. I do not want my 4.0 depending on some other idiot. I work hard, usually get stuff done right, and always on time. Too many other people just don't. All too often I end up taking charge, and doing half the work because too many other people are too damn dumb to do it well enough themselves.
Sorry, I've got a group project that just started, and it worries me. I have nightmares of my 97% in the class dropping hard because of some lazy incompetent... guess I just needed to rant, too. =D
-
and if you deliver the bottom line. when i interview for management jobs i point out i've never had an unemployment claim in 20 years outside of a couple cases where places just closed. and that i've fired a union shop steward.
the same guy that gave me the chain saw review also gave me one that said outstanding employee should be watched at all times. he was a great boss knocked the crap outa me once though and did such a good job i never wanted it to happen again. former pro hockey player with bad knees knees did not affect his fighting and he held back on me. i know he did cause i saw him hit someone else once full tilt and the guy went to his knees and cried. obviosly i'm not too bright cause we fought AFTER that
-
Let me add that in the workplace, most groups have a manager and/or designated leader involved. Helps to attenuate the ceaseless dithering found in some groups.
Amen, group think drives me up the wall. I'm cool with group work as long as there is somebody in charge, doesn't necessarily have to be me, but somebody better be calling the shots.
-
(Students of different abilities get different level jobs. If you graduate as an A+ student, you shouldn't expect you'll land a job with a company where the C student is your equal)
Nope, the C student's Frat brother's Father is the CEO, The C student becomes your boss
-
I'm fortunate in that most of my history profs don't do the group work thing.
Invariably, it's the low level gen education classes that do.
I've got two classes this year. The third sememster spanish class qualifies as low-level, so no surprise we're always "grouping" in there. The other course is a 3000-level course on the U.S. Constitution. Every other class, we break up into the under-grad group and the grad-student group, to discuss the readings, and give little oral "reports" to the whole class, to answer the discussion questions. My fellow under-grads tend to be real ninny-hammers. I have no problem at all discussing America's imperfections. I just wish they could have a little bit of respect for the Americans that gave them the freedoms they have today, even if they did have slaves back then, or wouldn't let their wives vote.
-
Group projects get dumbed down to the IQ of the most competitive and overconfident folks in the group.
Senior year in college, went back to finish. Pretty much skated, since it was SO much easier than what I'd been doing... Had a marketing/advertising class. For a competition, had to design a campaign/media buy for selling new entry-level American cars.
I laid out my ideas to the folks in the group, and they promptly told me that I was an idiot, and out of touch, and decided that the target market for the vehicles was (a) college students; and (b) reachable via MTV (fairly new at the time), Rolling Stone, campus newspapers, and campus radio stations. Even after I asked them, "So, would you buy our car, or would you buy a Toyota?" and got the Toyota answer...
Fine. I did their arts and charts, and they got #1 for the school. Went to some regional or state thing - By now, I was just taking up space in the bus as all the bright young minds twittered along, reinforcing each other...
We present the new arts and charts, and end up coming in second or third.
Who was first?
It was a group who said that the best target market was military folks (because they actually had disposable income, and there was a big "buy American" push in the military), reaching them by military publications/media.
So, what idea do you think I'd presented? Yup...
Sometimes groupthink doesn't work all that well...
-
I hate hearing "Please work with _________ on such and such." Doesn't matter the person.
I think that's why my current job suits me as it does. 25 hours a week I am Lord and Master, and do things MY way. 'Cuz there's nobody around to tell me otherwise... :laugh:
The other 15 hours a week I have to do as I am told. :mad: :laugh:
-
Nope, the C student's Frat brother's Father is the CEO, The C student becomes your boss
Touche. But if he is your boss, he probably won't be assigning himself to your group.
-
I've got two classes this year. The third sememster spanish class qualifies as low-level, so no surprise we're always "grouping" in there. The other course is a 3000-level course on the U.S. Constitution. Every other class, we break up into the under-grad group and the grad-student group, to discuss the readings, and give little oral "reports" to the whole class, to answer the discussion questions. My fellow under-grads tend to be real ninny-hammers. I have no problem at all discussing America's imperfections. I just wish they could have a little bit of respect for the Americans that gave them the freedoms they have today, even if they did have slaves back then, or wouldn't let their wives vote.
It quite simple, they're attacking the source. Much of the opposition to their leftist agenda stems from the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't agree with pretty much any of their socialist/statist nonsense. So by bringing up the next generation to view the Founding Fathers are wrongheaded bigots, they can more easily convince people to give up the ideals the Founding Fathers cherished, such as those in the Constitution. After all, "the same people who want us to keep and bear arms also thought slavery was OK. Our society has evolved beyond these foolish ideas."
-
I hated it every time in undergrad. It was simply never done well. Profs in undergrad tend to have a fairly crappy pool of students and in gen ed type classes and they tend to not pay much education to doing a decent job of teaching. It is usually about poorly thought-out ideas about being modern and up-to-date combined with ease of grading. I especially hated the group discussion thing. Typically, except in language classes, it meant "I have three hours to fill, but only prepared an hour lecture. Sit around and chat with your classmates."
Now, when I taught middle school, I once did a group project on the American Revolution. That was pretty cool and got good feedback from the students. Each student was responsible for her own work and only got graded on her own work, but each group had to turn in one completed project. The group's job was to choose designated people for specific roles, like assigning the various components tasks, assembling the component parts into a binder, and keeping me apprised of the group's progress. The students, as it turned out, were more apt to read and learn materials assembled by their own group than materials presented in any other format.
I recently learned that one of my students, who has recently enlisted in the Navy and is planning a career in the military, ascribes her interest in American history and resultant patriotism to the year I taught her in that class. Considering that the school opposes non-religious life choices by the students, I'm pretty proud of her. I think that project may have planted some seeds. Got a lot of kids to pay attention to stuff that they otherwise would have ignored or forgotten.
In law school, profs in lecture classes frequently require students to form "firms" for collaboration on various levels. I've seen that work very, very well, but often it is similar to the undergrad approach--a time-eating, poorly thought-out device.
I've had endless headaches this year from partners in the elderlaw clinic--first a disaffected and annoying partner, and now an over-enthused, over-emotional partner, prone to getting way, way, way too caught up in helping our clients regardless of the strength of their legal claims. It's endlessly frustrating. Kind of like working with a co-worker on a project. I'm pretty sure my clinical experience mirrors common professional experience in that regard.
-
Unless your major is "Hermit" you will end up working with people. And yes, the are a PITA to work with.