Some students want it, but many do not. It is almost always a waste of time to do what you explained.
Now, I don't expect a long winded explanation about what was wrong, but does it really take all that long to circle a problem and scribble "See theory X" or whatever is suitable to it?
My experiences both as a TA and lab assistant last century probably still apply, I doubt the eduction system has changed that much. MOST students understand the theory or know where to look for it. MOST students have a fairly good understanding of the concepts and use the exams and assignments to help cement the learning. MOST students only need a tiny bit of guidance, and will seek it out themselves. MOST students are able to find and correct the mistakes on their own after knowing the answer is wrong or not expected.
VERY FEW students honestly don't get it or cannot correct the mistakes on their own, and those students will either drop out or come visit in person. Back in my college days these represented fewer than 5% of the class, generally 1:30 or even 1:50.
It sounds like you are a member of the small group who needs that bit of extra help.
The fact that I went to University rather than a public Library is, to me at least, a pretty damn clear sign that I WANT feed back, and to be told where I'm going wrong. Not having that feed back just wastes everyone's time. it means I have to go track down the professor and hope they aren't busy, possibly working my schedule around a meeting time, then the prof has to go and read the assignment again, think about it before giving me the initial reply of what was wrong. Then usually I would thank them and leave to first go try to solve the problem myself. If I can't work it out on my own, then I have to go back.
That is a lot of steps cut out if they just gave that initial feedback in the first place, and saves both of us a meeting.
[/quote]Your stated view of academics is very different from the view I had both in undergrad and graduate studies. It is different from what I observed in the faculty. And it is different from what I observed in the student body at both of the schools I attended.
University studies it not about being told where you are going wrong. Even if you disagree with the professors, they are educated enough to know that there is still a possibility that you are right. They are educated enough to understand that what is right and wrong is debatable, and if you disagree with them you are expected to discuss it. The very concept of "saving you both a meeting" to discuss a concept is somewhat contrary to the nature of University education. The entire point is to meet together and logically argue and discuss the topics under study, so that everybody grows from the experience.
Students are expected to learn ON THEIR OWN. The primary job of the professors is to help guide the students down a path, and to answer questions whey they get stuck. It is not their job to spoon-feed the information to students.
The best professors I had would only one lecture. It was the first day of the course and he explained what was expected. Generally on the second day of class he asked if there were any questions on the assigned material. When nobody raised their hand, he gave out a quiz on the material. Once it was collected he stated the assignment for the next day, and asked if there were questions. When there were no questions, he dismissed class. The second day of class would typically only last about 10 minutes. First-time students were confused by this, expecting a lecture even though he clearly explained the first day that he expected the students to learn on their own and use the class as a forum for discussion. Over time everyone learns that the time for class is a time for discussion of the details that aren't explained in the required reading, and that students are encouraged to bring in knowledge from other books and other fields, and to help each other. These types of classes tend to be far more instructive on the field than a series of daily lectures.
If you learn only one skill from university studies, that skill should be the ability to learn and study on your own. It is a basic skill that university graduates are expected to have. That skill is why finishing the program is more important than the content of the program, and why I'd rather have a college graduate in an unrelated field than a non-graduate.
If someone doesn't want to help students learn and become useful members of their fields, then they should stay the hell out of academics. They're not helping the students, and they're wasting our time and our money.[/quote]University education is not job training. If that is what you want, go to a trade school.
