Are My Expectations Out of Whack?

I became a professor after 20+ years as a corporate figure--first as a worker bee and eventually the boss. I think I showed initiative, drive, and independence from the get-go and I think those attributes were the rungs on my ladder of success. As I moved into managerial roles I expected the same of my new hires and existing employees--simply, getting things done without being prodded or beaten-up. If you showed initiative, you got ahead, if you waited until you were told what to do or you needed deadlines to get things done, well, you were not my kind of employee.

I brought that same view here 12 years ago. I think I'm right. The folks who are going to get a job, keep a job, and advance in a career are those who get things done. They go so far as to pull the company rather than being pulled by the company into doing things. Not sure you agree? Look in the help wanted ads or ask your boss about the importance of initiative, being a self-starter, taking responsibility, working independently. I would be very surprised if your boss didn't rate each of these as more important for an employee than specific technical skills. I'll go so far as to tell you I know companies who hire new grads with these attributes and NO specific job skills. It's that important.

So, I manage my classes the way I would manage in corporate. I see you as "employees" and I'm hoping to give you the opportunity to prove yourself. My rationale is that you need the opportunity to practice these attributes I've mentioned. Fail here, if you must, but don't fail on the job. If I continue to TELL you what to do you will miss the opportunity to do things on your own.

But, this is not exactly working. Most of you are behind on using the tech tools and writing your reflections. For the my undergraduate students I found I needed to establish some hard deadlines. I haven't done that with the graduate students, but I am certainly being pushed in that direction. So, in a period of self-reflection I ask "Are my expectations out of whack?"

Some theorists believe we're all lazy and the only way to get us to do things is to bring out a big club. Maybe we're not lazy, just busy? Maybe you're too young or too busy smelling the roses. Maybe we don't know what to do and are afraid to ask? Maybe we don't see WIIFM (What's In IT For ME?). Maybe we don't see the link to being hired, starting salary level, salary increases, and the like. Maybe my easy-going manner confuses my seriousness about my expectations of you and my grades for you. I'm curious--what do you think the explanation is?

I have a little secret--I'm an easy grader. I have another secret--my grades are among the lowest of the 40+ faculty in my department. What gives? Well, when I look back at my grades for past semesters I see a distinct pattern: the low grades were not GIVEN by me, but rather EARNED by the student not handing in assignments! In my view, as your employer, not handing in assignments is akin to refusing to do work assigned to you by your boss. At work it's called insubordination. We don't have a name for it here, but it sure is disheartening--and frustrating--for me. Look, to be perfectly frank with you, I made a ton of money in business. I know what it takes and I know how to get you there. And, I can't imagine that my goals for you are not akin to your goals for you.

So, again, are my expectations out of whack?

More on Retention Rates

There was more than usual reaction to my blog on 6-year graduate rates (62%) so I thought I would add to the picture. Consider these facts:
The 4-year graduation rate (% of entering students who graduate in 4 years) = 31%
The 5-year rate == 55%

A big part of the problem is that we lose students from year to year:
The second-year retention--students who come back for a second year = 82%
For a 3rd year = 74%
For a 4th year = 68%

While we lose 8% between sophomore and junior years and 6% between junior and senior year, the main problem is keeping students for the second year. 18% drop out. Is college too hard? To expensive? Are they ill-equipped for college studies? What else?

One more thing--and no surprise here--men and women drop out after the first year at about the same rate (17% for females and 19% for males), by the end of the second year the difference shows: 75% of females vs 71% of males make it to the junior year, and 73% of females vs 61% of males make it to their 4th year.

Any thoughts?

Luddities Are Wrong, Too!

I saw this news item in BusinessWeek

The point of the article is that every invention has had its distractors, people that scoffed at the "latest and greatest" thing. Socrates thought the invention of writing would reduce memory, Thoreau thought there was no need for the telegraph, the telephone was originally rejected because it provided no permanent record of a conversation the way the telegraph did, and the New York Times thought the typewriter would create too many would-be authors. So, when we scoff at Twitter and its limiting 140 characters, or the next thing after that, beware.

That said, how--or maybe when--do we know that an emerging technology is the next thing? Mostly, I think, it has to do with adoption rate, the speed with which the technology is embraced by an ever-growing number. I remember when when not having a fax was a sign your company was not very well established. That same attitude never made it to instant messaging. Sure, IM is sometimes used inside a company, but I see few people using IM today. Twitter, FB, maybe Skype, and some other techs have replaced it.

My quick read is that FB and LinkedIn are hear to stay, blogs are going to diminish except for professional bloggers, Skype will be big in the international phone niche, collaborative sites (e.g. Google Docs and wetpaint) will grow as bridging sites. How do you see it?

Bowling Alone

In 2000 Robert Putnam published "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community" in which he argued that many traditional civic, social, and faternal organizations--typified by bowling leagues--had changed over the year, declining in membership, while bowling had increased dramatically. Why is it, he wondered, that people were, at the same time, more active and less social. Putnam described two kinds of social capital: bonding capital in which people socialize with those who are the same age, same race, same religion, and so on; and, bridging capital capital, as in when we make friends with people who are not necessarily like us, but who may have a common interest with us such as football or Michael Jackson.

I wonder if we can think of Facebook as creating bonding capital and LinkedIn as creating bridging capital? We have different purposes for these sites and we hope others do as well. How many of you have said that employers should not look at your Facebook?

In this vein, Google Docs and Wiki are bridging technologies as they seek to create a common ground around a document or subject. Interestingly, in these two tech tools we hardly use the profile section and I am generally surprised when someone asks me to be their "friend" from the wetpaint site.

I'm curious if you think bonding vs bridging capital is a useful distinction.

BTW,"capital" in this sense is the value you build up by connecting to and sharing with others. The more capital you have in the "bank," the more likely folks are to respond positively to you. It is both the quantity of your network and the quality of it--whom do you know?