Hello R,
Nice to hear from you!
I thought you were now in New Zealand. But it's good to know that you are going to renew the contract [...].
During the last month I have been busy and had to spend much energy for readjustment. It became clearer for me than before that Koreans are very good at doing unnecessary things. Fortunately, I feel that I have grown enough to handle them.
Hopefully, I could see you during your stay in Korea and have opportunity to hear about your writing.
With very best wishes,
S. B.
Hello again,
[...] You say Koreans are excessive in some things, but you think you have learned how to handle this. For me, the hardest thing (here, but maybe it is not only a Korean thing) has been the need for those higher in the hierarchy to impose foolish burdens on those below them. Often these burdens are purely psychological, but psychological burdens can be as damaging as any other. Being an easygoing and rather straightforward New Zealander, it has been easy for me be blind to these forces until I have been hurt by them. One thing I haven't learned quickly enough is that collegial friendship is an oxymoron wherever there this is a power/authority imbalance (even to the slightest degree). As a rule, it is better to be remote and polite with colleagues and give most attention to those whose power/authority is less than mine - i.e. the students. I most value student relations and the challenge of teaching effectively. Without them, my work life would be barren desert!
R
Hello R,
I agree with you when you say that the foolish psychological burdens are damaging. Also I think I can imagine your situation with respect to the collegial friendship in Korea.
But I don't know if the power/authority of students is less than mine. Maybe the power/authority balance is changing rapidly. Everywhere it is said that students are customers, i.e. kings!
I feel often pressed to give them better notes than they deserve.
S. B.
Hello again,
In the classroom, the teacher occupies the superior position because s/he has greater responsibility, but yes you are right when you say that the days of the uncritical, submissive student are passing. I have always feared student assessments, even when I taught in New Zealand. In Korea, my assessment results have been mostly nothing to worry about. At CNU I often got 4.5/5, and never went below 4; here, it has been a bit more varied, but the average for the last assessment was about 4.2. (Teaching here has been more difficult because I have taught a greater range of subjects to a greater range of abilities; the best students are the same as those at CNU, the worst are rather terrible, academically! :)) I was pleased and a little surprised with my assessments last year because last year the university abandoned open grading for major students and went back the tough 30/40/30 curved grading rule (that existed when I first went to CNU). By this system, at least half of the students get joyless grades, so I imagined that students who knew (because I have a transparent continuous assessment policy) they were going to get those grades would have rewarded me with a similarly low rating, but they didn't. Thus, the concurrent emergence of critical students and tougher grading did not affect their assessment. There is another factor, too, that (if the students had been cursed with genuinely poor characters) might have worked against the assessment. This factor? I increased their workload. Why did I increase their workload? One significant reason is that because I would have to give low grades to half of the students, I wanted to more rigorously differentiate between the students. That is, I wanted to be certain that the best students got the best grades and vice versa.
The conclusions I have inferred from my own experience are these: (1) students are basically fair minded, (2) increased difficulty may be an opportunity for professional growth rather than a cause for lamentation. Concerning the second point, I would say that the most important ways my teaching has changed in the 10 years I have been in Korea are (1) I have made the study material more and more simple and learn-able, and (2) I have made my classes much more intensive and interactive, and (3) I have maximized the work done by the student while making my own effort more efficient, less time consuming.
I do not envy you your job of teaching Western philosophy to Korean students. [...] Excluding the three giants of Greek thought who (in my view, even though much of Aristotle gives me a headache) are relatively easy to understand, Western philosophers are rather difficult to get into. However, there must be a way to make the study material more simple and learn-able. Last summer, I read an attempt to make Western thought accessible - Alain de Botton's The Consolations of Philosophy (not to be confused with the book with a similar name by Boethius). The fascinating challenge would be finding ways to draw the minds of students safely and confidently into W. philos - a way they can go out of the classroom each day with something interesting, helpful, memorable. Why? Because philosophy IS interesting! The key principle to observe is that knowledge, even though it requires labor to acquire, should increase joy - not sorrow! :)
[...]
R
Hello R,
Thank you for your suggestion! In principle, I can support what you say about your teaching experience. It is quite interesting and instructive.
Yes, you are right, students are not always unfair. Even the opposite is the case, I guess.
The problem is that they are also under strong pressure. That is, they have to get better grades in order to get a job or at least a scholarship. Most of them in my class want to be either a civil servant or a teacher, and want to have more time for preparing for the relevant exams. It is not easy to persuade them to invest more energy in philosophy study. It is true and sad that they have a tendency to choose the courses which are comparatively not so demanding.
In your case, I can imagine that most of students are better motivated to be cooperative for the class because it is mainly about English! You know how much time and money Koreans invest for that language. I find it absurd and stupid that many Koreans think they all have to have a good command of it. But from the state president to some of my colleagues, they seem to be obsessed by an English complex. I have a very strong suspicion about the quality of the lectures which are held in English by my Korean colleagues at my university. Do you think that they have enough English skill? Or should the students be handled like guinea pigs? Is it not only for material incentives that the lecturers get for their awkward performances?
Thanks for your indication of the book The Consolations of Philosophy!
S. B.
Hello S. B.,
[...]
I have no doubt what you say about the special case of English is not without validity; however, I also feel that it would be excessively disheartening to give too much emphasis to it. The challenge is always this: how can I best give instruction in what destiny has decreed to be my field of study. :) One may think that the lot of English teachers is easier than that of philosophy teachers, but is there not a common human tendency to incorrectly think that things must be better elsewhere? Mainstream English major students in Korea have fairly good SAT scores, and I have always found it easier to teach brighter students, but I would fight the idea that all is darkness outside of the English department! :)
Korean professors giving instruction in English? I do not think it matters what language they use, in essence. But what they use should be effective. When I teach, I teach in the "dialect" (from my limited store of language) that I deem most suitable for the situation. Thus, I Koreanize and Americanize my language, spice it up with humor and youthfulness, and so on. The language I use is specific to that context. Consequently, I think it could be foolish for a non-native speaker to try to give a purely non-native speaker's lecture to Korean students because (1) it is beyond the scope of almost every non-native speaker I have met in Korea, and (2) it would not allow the lecturer to make use of all of his or her teaching strengths. The second point is by far the more important one, in my view.
It is so tiresome for me to encounter Korean professors who are very sensitive about their English-language skills. This produces a defensiveness that destroys confident interaction, and – critically - I think it limits their effectiveness as teachers (when they are English teachers). Yes, a teacher should be well-informed, but the teacher should be humble, too. Being humble is more important: he proud, defensive teacher imposes a barrier between the student and progress. The truly learned person knows that s/he (1) knows only a few things, (2) can impart to others only a little bit at a time, and (3) must give the greatest importance to non-academic things like kindness, generosity of spirit, fairness. […] These days, I always tell my students that I am a chon-nom, a farm boy. They say, no, no, you are not, but I say, yes, yes, I am; and we enjoy the situation. It is highly instructive to remember that Socrates, the immoveable drawer-out of others, was the son of a stonemason and a midwife, yes?
[...]
Best wishes,
R
