Which kind of undergrad do you prefer: a bright but lazy student or a weak but interested student?Ooh, tough call.
In theory, a lazy student means less work for me. If s/he never shows up to project meetings but still hands in work on deadline then I've just saved myself contact time that I can spend on research. Also in theory, having a student that is actually interested in research is great. And rather rare.
Of four academics sitting around the table, three opted for the weak-but-interested student on the grounds that it's difficult not to care about someone who's making a genuine effort. I was on the fence ... but only because I've had experience with individual students who were enthusiastic but draining in their desire to seek my opinion on every little detail.
One final-year student I had a couple of years ago made my heart sink every time she knocked on my door because I knew I was going to spend the next half hour re-explaining things I had gone through the previous week. My suggestions of how she might try to work more independently had no effect: she simply wasn't capable. Even some textbooks were beyond her intellectual grasp, never mind empirical research papers. By the end of the academic year, she graduated with a 2.2 degree. How such a weak student managed to attain an honours degree is something I'll come back to another day.
Weak students tend to be less independent than bright students, so if you couple weak academic ability with strong interest you often end up with clingy students who need a lot of hand-holding. I empathise with their desire to grasp a particular theory, and their frustration when they cannot, but eventually I run out of empathy if a student takes and takes without giving anything back. As unrewarding as lazy students are to teach, as least they don't consume every spare minute.
So, sitting at the restaurant table, I demurred. Until someone invents a time machine, I think I'm probably leaning towards bright-but-lazy.
No comments:
Post a Comment