When the rest of the freshman class and I arrived at Princeton just a few short weeks ago, I could not have been more excited to start the next four years. It felt like all of the University’s possibilities were open to me — the renowned professors, amazing study-abroad programs and countless student organizations.
But I most looked forward to the discussions I expected to have with the other students in the Class of 2015. In my precepts and smaller classes, I hoped to have stimulating and thoughtful collaborative conversations in which we built upon each other’s ideas and achieved a deeper understanding. But while I have had some truly amazing and dynamic class discussions, I believe these experiences are the exception to the rule. University culture on the whole prevents these conversations from occurring.
We have a two-fold problem: a competitive rather than collaborative approach to class discussion and an emphasis and value, real or perceived, placed on quantity of remarks over quality. This attitude is unfortunate and misguided, as further developing someone else’s point demonstrates the ability to make connections and think more deeply — traits which are just as indicative of intelligence and effort as bringing up a new idea.
I first experienced this culture during orientation. Many of the freshman orientation programs include a presentation followed by smaller group discussions. Even in this relatively informal setting, freshmen were already jockeying for position. People didn’t respond to one another’s points or carry on a conversation; instead they took as many opportunities as they could to speak, simply rewording and repeating the ideas of others, or bringing up completely unrelated points that brought the conversation to awkward stops.
School hadn’t even begun yet, and we were already behaving as if we were being graded on our “performance.” People who spoke in this manner didn’t seem smarter or better informed; in fact, they came across as just the opposite. Ignoring others’ comments in favor of promoting one’s own is presumptuous and disrespectful, and tainted what could have otherwise been an intellectual bonding experience. This type of “one-upping” lowers the quality of the conversation and diminishes its value. The phenomenon only worsens once we are in a classroom setting. Some of the discussions in which I’ve taken part have turned into a cacophony of voices all grappling to be the center of attention, convinced their point is the most important. Participation grades seem to be the main concern.
A different approach to participation grades could help to change the situation. Just as it is our responsibility as students to contribute thoughtfully, preceptors must value quality over quantity of comments. As Brandon Davis argued in his April 2011 column, “Re-evaluating precept participation credit,” the uncertainty of participation grading guidelines can cause students to talk for the sake of talking. But this grading flexibility also means that preceptors have the opportunity to value relevance and depth of thought over frequency of remarks.
But a higher grade isn’t the only motivation for this behavior. Coming into Princeton as freshmen, most of us are used to being very vocal in class. In our high schools, we all occupied leadership positions. It was expected of us to be the first to talk in a class discussion; many of us were the students everyone turned to for an answer when the room was otherwise silent. We don’t expect to change our behavior once we get to Princeton, and despite everything we know about the accomplishments of the incoming class, we don’t expect our status as discussion leaders to change either. But here, we can’t all be the smartest person in the room. Although individuals have expertise in some areas with which we cannot compete, everyone also has something to contribute to any given discussion.
So much of Princeton requires individual work — projects, papers, exams. The precept or class discussion provides a rare opportunity to work together. We should ideally have a forum in which we can collaborate freely and learn from our peers. If class discussions are just one more outlet to prove our supposed superiority, they lose their purpose. We can only superficially skim the surface of thought and discourse if we don’t truly listen and respond to one another.
From what I’ve heard from upperclassmen, this competition in freshman classes is the beginning of a pattern. I was told that as I become an upperclassman, I would gradually perfect the art of the class discussion as self-promotion. But we don’t have to perpetuate the situation. As freshmen, the Class of 2015 and I have a unique opportunity. We have the chance to recognize the trend and consciously create a more collaborative discussion culture. Whether or not the institutional requirements change, we as students are responsible for and able to begin a culture shift. We should celebrate creativity and ingenuity, but we should also celebrate our abilities to listen, reflect and contribute.
Sarah Schwartz is a freshman from Silver Spring, Md. She can be reached at seschwar@princeton.
Read More
Calls for VP Calhoun's resignation mislead on free expression
Bill Hewitt“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
Deciding disciplinary matters by popular vote of the faculty sets a harmful precedent
Jonathan Mummolo"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
Princeton, practice what you preach: SPIA graduate students on protest and dialogue
Guest Contributors"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
