What's Your Style?

[Two Espressos]

My question is: Do professors ever look down upon more reticent students?

I consider myself the epitome of a reticent student, and I've never had professors look down on me for speaking little. In fact, I have pretty solid relationships with several professors. I attribute this to chatting with them outside the classroom mostly.

[Alephantiasis]

I certainly appreciate your feedback and recognize that there will always be room for personal growth and development; however, I was hoping to keep this topic on track with learning more about everyone's class style rather than an open critique and analysis of my own personal style. Part of the reason why I shared my initial story was to demonstrate that an overly aggressive demeanor can create negative consequences. It's something that happened quite a long time ago, though, and I have since continued to make strides to be more accomodating and constructive toward my peers.

Depending on your focus and your goals, you might want to switch gears and embrace aggressive behaviors. Any article or book on stylometrics will convince you that academia can be very similar to the jungle. Subtlety is key to bring down someone else's argument without making too many enemies.

My question is: Do professors ever look down upon more reticent students?

Once, during my undergrad, a professor held me after class thinking that I had a learning disability, a personal problem, or an issue with her teaching. She was worried because I was neither participating, nor taking notes. Needless to say, after the first assignments, she realized how wrong she was.

[Phil Sparrow]

My question is: Do professors ever look down upon more reticent students?

In my program, it's quite common for professors to note, in their class evaluations, that quiet students did not (and should) speak up more in class. You are supposed to participate in graduate seminars. Think about it as a workshop or discussion at a conference; why are you there if you don't participate? Still more, grad seminars are often really small. A three-hour-long class of four or five people? It will be really obvious if one person consistently clams up. And when almost the entire grade is based on a single big research paper, you don't get to make up any participation points with small homework assignments. That's what seminar is for. However, this is not to say that students will necessarily be penalized if they are extra judicious with their comments, so long as they still actively participate each week.

[bdon19]

My question is: Do professors ever look down upon more reticent students?

From my experience, the answer is both yes and no. My first year, as I've mentioned before, I rarely spoke in class. I know that my first term I got an A- where I could have gotten an A because participation was worth 25% of the grade. Other English courses I took freshman and even into sophomore year went similarly. I'd get comments on written work or e-mails from my professors telling me I had some great ideas and should speak up more. At that point, speaking up simply did not happen. Once I did start participating in class, I saw a solid increase in my grades. I went from getting A-minuses and B-pluses in my classes to getting As across the board. I know that my writing skills have improved as I've gotten a bit older, but I definitely see my consistent participation in class as having a positive effect on my overall grades. Even still, I frequently have professors telling me to speak up more often!

As far as professors "looking down" upon more reticent students, I don't think that is necessarily the case. However, I definitely think, depending on course expectations, it can impact your grade. And personally I've found that speaking up in class has helped me create far better relationships with my professors than I had previously. It seems to me that professors will be nice to quiet students but really end up harboring the best relations with those students who are quiet on occasion but at other times really show that they're not always intimidated in the classroom.

[Two Espressos]

I'm one week into the semester, and I'm finding myself talking a lot more in class. So much for being a reticent student.

[dimanche0829]

I'm one week into the semester, and I'm finding myself talking a lot more in class. So much for being a reticent student.

Ha! I think a lot of it depends on the classes being taken and general comfortability. Now that you've entered a higher grade level, you've probably got some added confidence that younger folks might not have found just yet. I'm on Day 2 myself and am happy that, so far, my undergrad peers are much more engaged in class discussions and are more interested in bouncing ideas off one another. I'm taking another grad course this semester, too - because what's life without a little chaos - and only hope I'm not as dead as I was last semester, where I spoke mayyyyybe twice.

[Origin=Goal]

Ha! I think a lot of it depends on the classes being taken and general comfortability. Now that you've entered a higher grade level, you've probably got some added confidence that younger folks might not have found just yet. I'm on Day 2 myself and am happy that, so far, my undergrad peers are much more engaged in class discussions and are more interested in bouncing ideas off one another. I'm taking another grad course this semester, too - because what's life without a little chaos - and only hope I'm not as dead as I was last semester, where I spoke mayyyyybe twice.

Not me, for better or worse I've always been brazenly vocal in class...when I think back on some of the things I said in my first graduate level course, which I took when I was a freshman---wait, I'd rather not think about it!

[asleepawake]

I absolutely have to force myself to speak up in seminars. I have to have an idea that I can easily defend and have fully thought out before I share it, even though I realize that the point of discussion is to aid in this development in the first place. I have a pretty bad case of impostor syndrome (or am I actually an impostor? How can I know?) and I always worry about appearing stupid (even around those I silently deem myself smarter than). I am getting better at speaking candidly, but I still follow conversation more than I dominate it. What I enjoy about writing is the process of developing my ideas and finding the right words - something I am obviously unable to do when put on the spot. As an instructor, I appreciate the quiet students as much as the talkative ones, maybe because I can relate to their silence. It doesn't mean they aren't thinking important things (though it certainly doesn't mean that they are).

In response to a few earlier posts - I am absolutely in shock about how many of my peer who are in a master's program for literature brag about not having read (including a few very proud "I haven't done a single reading all semester" folks). Absolutely shocking and kinda sad. I want to shake them and say "why are you here?" I mean, do these types eventually either catch on or give up?

Two Expressos - If the people in your class aren't having a good discussion and you're silently suffering through it, it might be a good idea to speak up and lead them in a more complicated direction. Your professors would probably be thrilled to hear from you.

[Two Espressos]

In response to a few earlier posts - I am absolutely in shock about how many of my peer who are in a master's program for literature brag about not having read (including a few very proud "I haven't done a single reading all semester" folks). Absolutely shocking and kinda sad. I want to shake them and say "why are you here?" I mean, do these types eventually either catch on or give up?

I'd imagine that these pathetic individuals will fail utterly if they choose to pursue a PhD (assuming they even get admitted, which seems unlikely). One cannot choose to "not read" the books that one will be tested on for comprehensive exams; you cannot bullshit your way through a dissertation.

Two Expressos - If the people in your class aren't having a good discussion and you're silently suffering through it, it might be a good idea to speak up and lead them in a more complicated direction. Your professors would probably be thrilled to hear from you.

I suppose that you're right. The other day in one of my seminars, we were discussing our thoughts on Lilian Hellman's "The Little Foxes." Mostly everyone brought up rather banal things, like discussing which characters they liked the most. Which is fine (I guess), but it grows tiresome when eight people--most of whom openly admit to having only read a small portion of the play--bring up essentially the same points consecutively. When it was my turn to speak, I purposely censored myself to avoid looking like a prick. Only after another student suggested that the work was a satire of capitalism did I mention Marxist theory, which I had intended to discuss originally ("The Little Foxes" begs for a Marxist reading, in my opinion.). The professor stated that much Marxist criticism had been written about the work, but after her fascinating digression, the other students again returned to discussing which characters they liked the most.

I had planned to discuss the Marxist theory thing with the professor after class, and I wish I had so done: no one engaged with it at all, lol.

[dimanche0829]

I had planned to discuss the Marxist theory thing with the professor after class, and I wish I had so done: no one engaged with it at all, lol.

My guess would be that no one engaged with it because they don't know much about it...probably due to lack of reading - especially if they are sticking to character likes/dislikes. I have to say that my professors have been making more of an effort to lead discussions away from the surface level and will usually ask a bunch of follow up questions to those who start at surface level. If nothing else, it certainly calls attention to those who haven't done the readings, but it helps keep class interesting.

Most professors at my school made some big changes for this school year, largely adopting the policy that students are allowed only two absences before their grade suffers 1/2 to a full letter grade for each subsequent absence (with exceptions being granted to those who can prove they weren't just sleeping in), lengthening papers from the usual 5 pages to 7-10, or more, and increasing the weight of participation in class from 10% to 25% of the total grade. Should be interesting to see how things pan out here in my final semester.

[asleepawake]

I'd imagine that these pathetic individuals will fail utterly if they choose to pursue a PhD (assuming they even get admitted, which seems unlikely). One cannot choose to "not read" the books that one will be tested on for comprehensive exams; you cannot bullshit your way through a dissertation.

Yeah, but then I'm not sure how they are surviving in an MA program, either. Some of them are struggling, but others are highly skilled in the art of BS and are actually managing decent GPAs. I try to only worry about my own work, but it is a bit irksome to hear the bragging. Some of them, though, are MFA students fulfilling their lit requirements, so their experience with a thesis will be very different.

I had planned to discuss the Marxist theory thing with the professor after class, and I wish I had so done: no one engaged with it at all, lol.

Well, it sounds like you are significantly ahead of the others in your class. With people who are new to the study of literature, discussing "favorite characters" can be turned into a discussion of what is appealing about those characters and then eventually into something productive... but these students might not have words for things like Marxist theory yet. They might know Marx in passing or perhaps not at all. As an undergraduate, I minored in English, and so in class I was mostly unfamiliar with critical theory. I was probably one of these students you bemoan. Their ignorance doesn't necessarily mean they aren't capable, and it might be the professor's fault for not trying to lead discussion in a critical direction. It sounds to me like you ought to be in graduate seminars instead of these courses, anyway.

Edited September 5, 2011 by asleepawake

[Two Espressos]

I was probably one of these students you bemoan. Their ignorance doesn't necessarily mean they aren't capable, and it might be the professor's fault for not trying to lead discussion in a critical direction.

Yeah, I apologize if my prior post sounded bitchy or elitist; I didn't mean it that way. I just get really excited about seminars, being able to engage with others' ideas. So when class discussion fall short of what I (perhaps fallaciously) expect, I am disappointed.

It sounds to me like you ought to be in graduate seminars instead of these courses, anyway.

Haha, well I wouldn't give myself that much credit! I would like to audit a graduate course or two, but my university is essentially undergrad-only. There are no nearby universities where I could take graduate-level courses either. So I will just have to wait until graduate school.

[bdon19]

When it was my turn to speak, I purposely censored myself to avoid looking like a prick. Only after another student suggested that the work was a satire of capitalism did I mention Marxist theory, which I had intended to discuss originally ("The Little Foxes" begs for a Marxist reading, in my opinion.). The professor stated that much Marxist criticism had been written about the work, but after her fascinating digression, the other students again returned to discussing which characters they liked the most.

Two Espressos, while it might be frustrating to have to deal with students like this in your classes, perhaps you should give your classmates a bit more credit. Maybe they'd actually be interested in Marxist theory if they had the correct terminology to know what they're trying to talk about. You mention that one student read the text as a satire of capitalism; I'm sure (s)he would definitely be interested in what you (and Marx!) have to say.

One of my required classes in Restoration comedy was full of theater majors who knew nothing about lit and didn't know how to approach the texts we read. Our prof gave us tiny snippets of theory--Judith Butler, Engels, etc--to apply to the text. Often we'd just read them at the beginning of class and then discuss them. That seemed to work very well and got even the most unaware students something to hold onto. If you're talking to your professors outside of class, maybe you could suggest that they introduce just a tiny bit of theory into the classes. As asleepawake suggests, it's possible that many of your classmates don't even know that such theory exists, and if they do, it probably exists for them only as some vague term that they will never have to use themselves. I've found that such students find theory welcoming, as long as it's given to them in small enough pieces that they can handle it. It gives them something concrete to hold onto, which often mirrors some of their own ideas about a text!

Also, I can't believe that MA students would brag about not doing readings, let alone not do the readings in the first place. After spending a year not doing readings (and consequently not doing well in my classes) I made a resolve that if I was going to be an English major I'd better be willing to read. I guess it's hard for me to relate to posts like these and like that of Two Espressos because the quality of discussions at my school is so high. Sure we have a few oddballs who can't get beyond a surface level reading of the text (if they do any reading at all), but that's the exception, and they stick out. A lot. Like the girl who insisted on talking about Little House on the Prarie instead of My Antonia in our advanced seminar on Gender and Modernism.

Like you, TwoEspressos, I go to an undergrad-only institution, and don't have an opportunity to take grad-level seminars at my school. What I might suggest--which, of course, may not be the same at your school as at mine--is to take as many small courses as you possibly can. Even though my upper-level courses never surpass 25, or 30 at the most, in enrollment, anything over 20 can be a bit overwhelming at times, even if some of the smartest people in your class are in such courses. Smaller enrollments lend themselves to higher quality discussions, even if some lesser "qualified" people are in them. My Modernism seminar consisted of three English majors and about five Gender Studies majors who needed to fill a requirement prior to graduation. Some of them had never taken an English course, but the mix of perspectives made for fruitful discussions. It was a fabulous class, and gave me space to ramble on and word vomit for up to ten minutes in some cases, leading me to some lines of thought I never would have reached had the class been larger and my time quota that much smaller.

[Two Espressos]

One of my required classes in Restoration comedy was full of theater majors who knew nothing about lit and didn't know how to approach the texts we read.

This is the case with the course I've previously mentioned: lots of theatre majors.

Sure we have a few oddballs who can't get beyond a surface level reading of the text (if they do any reading at all), but that's the exception, and they stick out. A lot. Like the girl who insisted on talking about Little House on the Prarie instead of My Antonia in our advanced seminar on Gender and Modernism.

Once again, this perfectly describes the level of discourse to which I'm accustomed at my university. Sigh.

But you're right, I shouldn't be so dismissive. I have this class shortly (within 15 minutes of this post's publication), so maybe today will be different.