In my four years at the University of Massachusetts, I’ve skipped my fair share of classes. I’ve slept late, I’ve been sick and, sometimes, the lecture isn’t worth attending. I get away with this because none of the classes I’ve taken have had compulsory attendance policies. Instead, my professors and instructors prefer to penalize my final grade by an insignificant amount for each class I miss. Whether the class is a large lecture or an intimate seminar, mandatory attendance doesn’t motivate me to come to class. I know that missing a class here or there won’t have major consequences to my life. Like many undergraduates, I don’t have specific ambitions of education after I graduate, so my grades aren’t always my paramount concern. I’ve also never been penalized enough to fail, or even get a C, based on poor attendance.
Enforcing small penalties against students for sleeping in is not the best way to motivate them to come to class. At most, it incentivizes them to sit in the lecture on their laptops, doing other assignments or browsing Amazon. Professors claim that this behavior is disrespectful and distracting to other students; I agree, but why incentivize disinterested students to attend lecture if you also believe they’re a distraction to students who care about the material?
The alternative is to not take attendance. This approach could produce better results regardless of the format of the class. In large classes without attendance, the only thing motivating a student to listen is the value of the lecture. Perhaps the lecture supplies the student with information they need for a test, it might prepare them for their career or it may offer intrinsic value for their lives. If a lecture accomplishes any of these, students will attend regardless. In lectures without mandatory attendance, a student who doesn’t come to class has made the judgment that the lecture does not deliver them something worth their time. This is a choice that students make whether absence is penalized or not. By penalizing absence, professors send the message that a student can’t be trusted to make choices about the value of the lecture. The logic behind taking attendance is not rooted in pedagogical good intentions; rather, it is a paternalistic tactic that can shield a professor from judgment or criticism.
The same criticism applies to small, intimate classes. Even if I don’t value the class, I am very likely to attend because I feel uncomfortable disrespecting a professor who I have an academic relationship with. If a student skips this kind of class, it shows they have no regard for the subject matter or being polite. A small penalty on their grade is a pittance in comparison to the hurdles already preventing them from skipping this kind of class. Alternatively, not including absence penalties shows that a professor in such a class respects their students. If attendance is not included on the syllabus, I know that the professor respects my judgments and grades me based on my work and how well I learn the material, not how much I respect them. Very few small classes follow this model, but they should. It would be an easy step to combat paternalism in education. One of my classes this semester has about 15 students and the professor does not take attendance. Despite the relaxed policy, class is well-attended because the subject matter and the teaching are phenomenal; the students want to get every minute out of it. The way to convince students to attend is to design better, more engaging classes, not to levy insignificant penalties that incentivize students to misuse their laptops during lecture.
William Keve is a Collegian columnist and can be reached at [email protected].
