Theo May
Photo Editor
One of the most compelling arguments I’ve seen against tenure is my literature professor this quarter. He often rambles on about subjects with no bearing on the course, and his lectures frequently devolve into complaints about his personal life. It’s not shocking that most of the seats were usually empty. That is, until midway through the quarter when he started taking attendance.
This change, however, is not having the desired effect. Previously, people simply didn’t show up. Now, they just sit and scroll on their phones until they can fill out the sign-in sheet and leave. In my opinion, unless the class has an important in-person component, like in-class discussions or lab experiments, requiring attendance is an admission that your lectures are useless. Without being forced to, nobody would go.
The basic concept behind mandatory attendance isn’t a terrible one. It’s a way to ensure that students consistently attend class and don’t miss out on material. And I believe that attendance should be mandatory for labs. By not being there in-person, you miss out on valuable experiences, and it’s disrespectful to your lab partner as well.
Aside from instances like this, there aren’t many justifications for it. I’m sure everyone’s gone to an exam only to find that half of the class is sick, wheezing as they struggle to finish the questions. This is a byproduct of mandatory attendance — even when some students obviously shouldn’t be there, they don’t have an option not to be. I wonder if a reason college campuses are so prone to flu waves comes from these “mandatory” classes.
In addition to health concerns, college is different from high school; people choose to be there. If a student decides to skip all the lectures and fail the class, that’s their choice. Alternatively, let’s say they understand the coursework well and have other, more pressing things they could be doing, then let them do that. I know students who work nearly full-time alongside school, and they specifically try to find classes without these attendance requirements — they need all the free time they can get.
Another reason why it’s a poor idea comes down to the teachers. Some professors aren’t good at lecturing, and it can be easier to simply teach yourself. This seems to be a side effect of UC Santa Barbara’s status as a top research institution. Many professors view teaching as a burden rather than one of their responsibilities. For every engaging professor that makes learning enjoyable, there’s another that reads off PowerPoint slides created 10 years ago.
I believe that mandatory attendance has an obvious solution: make lectures captivating and teach material that’s genuinely useful to students. If people gain something by being present, then they’ll show up. Sure, some won’t, but it should ultimately be their choice to make.
Interesting points raised. I tend to agree that flexibility is key in college. Mandatory attendance doesn’t guarantee engagement and can penalize students with jobs or other valid reasons for missing class. Focusing on making lectures more engaging, as the article suggests, seems like a better approach.
This article covers the debate well. While I understand the need for attendance in discussion-based or lab classes, for standard lectures, maybe focusing on why students aren’t attending (lecture quality, accessibility) is more productive than just making it mandatory.
thank you – ali ahmadi
Comments are closed.