Feminist Pedagogy

PAGE 2 OF 2

My experience was similar to Leah's; I took a seminar with a renowned
scholar; he strode into the class twenty minutes late on the first class
session, threw a blank map with the countries of Latin America on it and
told us to fill it in, the secretary would correct it and notify us if we
were going to be allowed to continue in the class.  When the seminar
actually began, he lectured to us without looking up from his notes and
scarcely acknowledged our questions. Two of my professors made deprecatory
remarks in my evaluations about the fact that I had a daughter I was
raising, "RP has the potential to become a good historian if she spends
less time on extra-curricular activities like taking care of her
daughter."  As an undergraduate, I studied Greek with a professor who,
among other things, didn't want me in the class because I would "just get
married and never put it to good use."  His favorite trick was to call on
me first every morning, torment me for a while and then move on to the
priest and two seminarians in the room who he dealt with far more gently
than he did with me.  Another male professor in grad school, a brilliant
scholar, lectured to the class in a muffled mumble through his beard, to a
class with 80 people. When students beyond the first row complained that
they couldn't hear him, his response was that that wasn't his problem, so
there was a daily scramble for the first couple of rows.  When I was in law
school, one professor, a very devout Christian of some sort, who wore a
cross on his tie pin, had a crucifix on his wall, etc., would make the most
embarrassing sexual remarks whenever the women students responded to his
questions in class. (This is one I remember from law school: A woman
student was reciting the facts about the sale of lead pipe. It was 8 inches
long and  1.5 inches in diameter. "Is eight inches good enough for you,
Miss H? "  Silence from the student brought a chuckle; a blush brought out
a full chortle. He did it in one section of class, and did it again in the
next section.  Legend had it that he did it with every class since women
had been admitted to the college.)

There were always good teachers but I think that the presence of women in
the academic profession has made certain things--sexual jokes in the
classroom, harassment of women in general, greater concern for egalitarian
learning--from straight lecture to discussion in the round,  and
diverse  teaching strategies more the norm that straight lecture.  All of
my classes, except for the seminars, were straight lecture, midterm, final,
paper.  Just as they were not taught to teach, they were not able to teach
alternative strategies to their students.

By championing alternative forms of teaching, the atmosphere in classrooms
has, in my opinion, improved, and these changes are due to rising number of
women in academia and women's studies programs. One has only to talk with
women academics in predominantly male programs such as exercise physiology,
pharmacy, business, engineering to hear descriptions of teaching methods
that have not evolved to allow the entrance and advancement of women,
whether you are talking about the atmosphere in the classroom or journals
that routinely disregard articles by women, making it harder for them to
get tenure.

Happy Hanukkah to my Jewish friends; Merry Christmas to those who observe
it, and a joyous Winter Solstice to its celebrants.

Rosie

Hi everyone,

I think what Daphne is refering to here is something that I've been
thinking about with this discussion, too.  I find it helpful to
differentiate between "feminist pedagogy" (as someone else has called
it: the work of feminist pedagogues) and "Feminist Pedagogy" (which
is a particular approach to the praxis of teaching that is based in a
critique of patriarchal structures--including education--and
reinforces specific theorizations of teaching and learning).  And it
is true: often we elide the differences between the two.

While I think many of us would say that it would be "ideal" for those
of us who consider ourselves to be "feminist pedagogues" to practice
"Feminist Pedagogy" I don't always find this to be possible.  As Leah
U. pointed out, many of us are discouraged from learning about the
various pedagogical theories, either explicitly (as she was) or
implicitly (through merit and promotion systems that prioritize our
research/scholarship over our teaching or, for those of us not
eligible for merit or tenure, through simple over-work, which keeps
us from having the time or energy to devote to theorizing about our
teaching).  In addition, some institutions make it very difficult for
people to practice Feminist Pedagogy, even if there is a stated
interest in encouraging faculty to improve our teaching.

I am not intending, here, to criticize the people who have been
trying to work through these concerns on this list--only to offer
another layer of analysis to the mix.

Feminist Pedagogy, as I understand it and try to practice it, is
about decentering the authorial "voice" of the "professor" in the
classroom, and empowering my students to critique the education they
are trying to "claim" (in Adrienne Rich's terms--thanks Maria, for
mentioning this essay; it is one of my favorites).  It is in this
spirit that I would like to offer the following:

1. some of the terminology that has defined this discussion concerns
me (and I do believe that language helps to shape our understanding
of our experiences).  I *never* "give" students grades and I
certainly do not "fail" a student's assignment.  This language steals
from students the ownership of their work and over-empowers the
instructor.  My students "earn" their grades, and they, themselves,
may "fail" an assignment, but they are never "failures" to me.  I am
very insistent about this.  Nothing makes me cringe like the student
who, upon seeing the "A" on his or her paper, says to me "Thank
you!"--as if *I* were responsible for that A!  This same dynamic
leads students whose grades are not as high as they would like to ask
me "Why did you give me a C on this?"  Since I have stopped using the
language of "giving" and started pointedly using the language of
"earning" when I talk about grades in my classes, I have fewer
students coming to me with complaints about their grades and *more*
coming to ask for assistance with their work.

2. decentering the professorial authority in the classroom does not
(to me) mean totally abdicating my responsibilities as a "teacher."
Teachers/instructors/professors are granted power by the
socio-cultural institutions that we work for (including, in my own
case, both the educational system and the State).  If I pretend I do
not have that power, then I am only reifying the status quo.  (Just
like when wealthy people pretend that class-based privilege doesn't
exist, they are reifying the disempowerment of the poor.)  I spend a
lot of energy trying to work out ways to be a good teacher and to
practice Feminist Pedagogy without pretending that I have no power.
I own my power, and then work to decenter it.

3. if I have knowledge or abilities that my students do not have, and
I withhold that, then I perceive myself to be cheating them.
Therefore, if I were to evaluate a student's paper as "passing" when
it clearly needed much more work, I would be cheating that student
out of a clear sense of what her/his efforts yielded, as well as out
of the opportunity to improve.  Therefore, I agree with Maria that
the colleague that called a failing grade evidence of a teacher's
lack of commitment to Feminist Pedagogy (or to feminist pedagogy, for
that matter) was either terribly misunderstanding of what such
pedagogy is or was uncharitable, at best.

Good Feminist Pedagogy *is* good pedagogy, Daphne.  But, as you
suggest, it is also a bit more than that.  And there is also "good
progressive pedagogy" and "good traditional pedagogy" and "good
liberal pedagogy," etc.

Best of luck, everyone, with end of term (if indeed you are at the
end of your term!).
Jeannie

I would like to support Jeannie's three points below about language, power,
and knowledge.

I, too, speak consistently of students "earning" their grades, and I
encourage my colleagues to do the same.  I find that this language is not
common, which may be related to Jeannie's second point below, about power:
it seems to some people there is more power for teachers in "giving"
students grades than in their students earning them.

I also would like to comment on the connection between power and knowledge
below:  I can remember a couple of grad school courses taught by avowed
feminists who would "decenter" the classroom and, as a result, withhold
information from their students.  I felt cheated of their *expertise*,
which I was paying for with my tuition.

It is indeed an evolving process and practice, teaching is.  As an earlier
poster noted, that unbalance/rebalance is one of the reasons I like this
profession.

Julie

Julie K. Daniels
English Department
3300 Century Ave. N.
Century College
White Bear Lake, MN  55110
danie029  @  umn.edu

"Earthworms are so pleasant."  Zoe K. Daniels, age 3

While John Bean's _Engaging Ideas_ (Jossey-Bass, 1996) doesn't offer a
specifically feminist pedagogy as such,  he's so interested in some of the
same goals (encouraging student participation, writing-to-learn, desiging a
range of carefully articulated, variously purposeful assignments) that I
think his suggestions are relevant.  He spends several chapters of this
really accessible, upbeat book talking about various strategies that can be
used to humanize large classes across the curriculum.

shelley


E. Shelley Reid
Assoc. Director of Composition
English Department
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK  74075

esreid  @  hotmail.com
esreid  @  okstate.edu

---------------------------------------------------------------
All times are changing times....Archetypes turn into millstones,
large simplicities get complicated, chaos becomes elegant, and
what everybody knows is true turns out to be what some people
used to think.  (Ursula LeGuin)
----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: failing a student because of poor writing skills

Getting back to the original issue of the student's poor writing skills, I
have been wondering if perhaps that person has a learning disabililty that
contributes to this problem. And in my teaching experience, even if a
student knows they have a learning disability, they may choose not to
disclose it to their instructors, even if they have some idea that it
affects their academic work.

I'm certainly not suggesting that someone with a learning disability
receive a grade higher than their performance merits--in Women's Studies or
anywhere else--but I do wonder if a referral to your school's testing
center might be in order.

Elizabeth Cahn
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque NM 87131
ecahn  @  unm.edu

Part of recognizing our power as teachers is realizing that, no matter how
much emphasis we place on students' "earning" their grades, in most cases
we are the ones who decide what grades to assign them.  In fact, this is
part of the very power to which Jeannie refers below, and pretending that
we don't have it does indeed "reify...the status quo", as she writes.
This topic has come up in my classes (esp Feminist Pedagogy, but in others
as well), and my students have felt frustrated by articles which endorsed
this language of "earning" rather than "giving".  This wasn't because they
didn't want to take responsibility for their grades, but because they felt
such language served only to hide the fact that, at the end of the day,
the professor was in charge of assigning grades and thus "had the power".
When I speak of "giving" a student a grade, it's not because I want to see
myself as powerful, but because I don't think it serves any purpose to
hide the reality of our power as professors under the pretext of
empowering the student.  That said, I do agree to some extent with the
comments below; for example, I do make a point of working with students so
that they understand that their grades are largely in their own hands in
the sense that they can put in the effort required and seek help in order
to make their work of better quality, they can choose whether to turn the
work in on time, etc.  I also think it's important to challenge the notion
that students are passive and bear no responsbility for their grades, and
that when they fail an assignment or a course it is the prof's fault, and
when they succeed it is the prof's gift.  But I don't think it's
especially useful to talk about students "earning" grades unless they are
actually grading themselves or in some way have control over the grading
process.  (And I'm not sure I even like this idea, though I know people
who have used it successfully.)

Jessica Nathanson


--- "Julie K. Daniels" <danie029  @  UMN.EDU> wrote:
[snip]
> I, too, speak consistently of students "earning" their grades, and I
> encourage my colleagues to do the same.  I find that this language is
> not
> common, which may be related to Jeannie's second point below, about
> power:
> it seems to some people there is more power for teachers in "giving"
> students grades than in their students earning them.
[snip]

> On 17 Dec 2001, Jeannie Ludlow wrote:
> >
> > 1. some of the terminology that has defined this discussion concerns
> > me (and I do believe that language helps to shape our understanding
> > of our experiences).  I *never* "give" students grades and I
> > certainly do not "fail" a student's assignment.
> >
> > 2. decentering the professorial authority in the classroom does not
> > (to me) mean totally abdicating my responsibilities as a "teacher."
> > Teachers/instructors/professors are granted power by the
> > socio-cultural institutions that we work for (including, in my own
> > case, both the educational system and the State).  If I pretend I do
> > not have that power, then I am only reifying the status quo.
[snip]

Jessica Nathanson
Doctoral Candidate, American Studies
Concentration in Women's Studies
State University of New York at Buffalo
janathanson  @  yahoo.com
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jan3

I normally don't disagree with what what Dr. Pegueros writes, but I do wish
to take issue with one comment here -- and it's not hers alone, it's
something I've heard from many sources.  In describing the bad pedagogical
methods she experienced as a student, Dr. Pegueros recalls:

> All of
> my classes, except for the seminars, were straight lecture, midterm,
> final, paper.  Just as they were not taught to teach, they were not
> able to teach alternative strategies to their students.

Since starting to learn about feminist pedagogy, I have been given, time and
time again, the example of the "lecture"  as the ultimate nadir of bad
teaching.  I find this, frankly, risible.  Some of the best and most
exciting learning I have ever done in my life, has happened in classrooms
where the students sat in ROWS, not a circle, and looked at a professor who
was lecturing.

As an instructor, I have used both styles:  I have lectured to rows of
students, and I have conversed with a circle of students.  I find that both
are perfectly appropriate methods, depending entirely on the subject matter.
In an introductory course on the subject of race/class/gender, when students
are getting their first exposure to issues that require an examination of
personal beliefs, then the circle/conversation format is better.  In classes
that are more ... oh, what's the word... "less personal," shall we say, the
lecture format is just fine and may even be preferable.

I think it's unfair and perhaps even irresponsible to claim that professors
who do "straight lectures" have never been "taught to teach."  Lecturing is
an art that does, indeed, require learning.  There are excellent lecturers,
and rotten ones.  Excellent lecturers can really _fire_ their students'
imaginations, excite them, inspire them -- just as my marvelous lecturing
profs at UCLA did for me.  In no way should this method of teaching be
considered "anti feminist" or a sign of "bad teaching."

I believe the motivation behind championing the circle/conversation method
is that it feels more relevant to the student, and more inclusive.  I agree
that it's *easier* to make a student feel relevance and inclusivity in this
method... but that doesn't mean that the lecture/row style makes the lesson
seem irrelevant or exclusionary.  Let's not forget that the student in the
classroom has a few responsibilities, too:  commitment to learning,
concentration, and a little respect for the scope of the subject.  These are
the only qualites necessary for a student to get the most out of a good
lecture. If you do these things, then even a lecture can feel relevant and
inclusive.  Some of the burden rests on the professor's powers of
performance; some depends entirely on the student's ability to be a
disciplined listener.  Perhaps it takes a bit more effort, in this day of
computer games, to listen attentively to a lecture. OK -- let them make the
effort.  It's a good intellectual skill to learn.

I am deeply distressed whenever I see feminist pedagogues rolling their eyes
and waving their hands whenever "lectures" are mentioned.  Let me make this
as plain as I can:  I would not be a scholar today if I hadn't had
professors who lectured to me.  Listening to them expound on the subject of
their expertise -- without interruptions, with full freedom to develop a
nuanced and intricate argument with full concentration -- was an experience
that could sometimes put me in such a trance of happiness that I actually
jumped out of my seat when the bell rang.  Full hours melted away like ten
minutes. It was a genuine pleasure to see bright, articulate experts reveal
the beauties of their field to me.  It was inspiring, in the true sense of
the word: it made me feel that the breath of God was being blown into me. It
was like being given a glimpse of an enormous, endless sea of riches that
the professor was inviting me to explore with him/her.

Now, it's hardly likely that I'm the only person in the world who feels this
way, is it?  If I responded so well to lectures, so can other students.  As
I said -- I do believe it depends partly on the subject matter and on the
intended goals of the course. In an undergrad course, when the goal is to
present students with a thorough grounding in a body of knowledge, the
lecture style can be best, IF the professor is a skilled public speaker --
which, I admit, many are not.

I believe graduate school should teach us public speaking skills. It would
not only benefit our students, but would come in handy at conferences, too.
But to dismiss the entire style of lectures on the basis that some people
are bad at it, is really to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Ilana Nash
American Culture STudies
Bowling Green State University

I didn't mean to deplore all lectures; I too, went to UCLA (for grad
school) and had some wonderful lecturers (did you ever have E. Bradford
Burns?)  My problem is when lecturing is the only form of teaching
employed; when there is little interaction between students and teachers in
the classroom. I lecture; sometimes it's the only way to deliver the
material.  But I try to vary it because I believe that engaging students
involves problem-solving, working with the issues in the course.  I do a
lecture on Columbus but I like to have the students discuss the ethical
issues that he faced, to look at how he is regarded today vs. the way his
accomplishments were taught a generation ago.  How indigenous peoples were
treated by him, etc.

I don't think we disagree that much, Dr. Nash.

Rosie

<< Restricting my comments to this particular discussion only:  Are people
using "feminist" as a stand-in  for "good"?  Doesn't any conscientious
teacher do most all the things Jessica Nathanson enumerated,...(snip)
I am sure thousands of teachers all around the
country do this without thinking it has anything to do with
feminism.
So, my question is: what is feminist about the pedagogy currently being
discussed? ... >>


I agree that a great deal of what feminist pedagogy is about is essentially
good teaching. The problem is that good teaching (in my experience, anyway,
having attended about 10 different institutions of higher learning), is not
all that prevalent, and it requires strong political movements to shore it up
and keep it going. A good deal of feminist pedagogy derives from pragmatist
(Dewey, et al.) and critical (Freire, et al.) pedagogy, just as a great deal
of feminist theory derives from pragmatist and critical (Marxist, etc.)
philosophy. The difference is the angle of view--looking at what might be
best for women (or rather, what might be best in order to promote an
egalitarian society, with a special concern for gender).  Passive students
rarely become politically or socially active. Authoritarian education remains
the more common experience even today for elementary and high school as well
as college students. I say this from personal observation, including what my
daughter went through, and now my several grandchildren (except for the two
lucky little ones who have gotten to attend a Montessori school). And, of
course, also the time I would spend with my own students trying to overcome
their resistance to doing more than sitting back and letting me "give" them
their education.

It is true, good feminist pedagogy is also good pedagogy, period. Ain't it
wonderful how that works out? I mean, what if good feminist pedagogy was not
good pedagogy?????

Still, I think it is important to acknowledge more of the roots of feminist
pedagogy in prior pedagogical (as well as other) movements. I came to my
feminist pedagogy and my feminist non-hierarchical organizational commitments
FIRST through my commitments as a Quaker. Feminism gave me additional solid
rationales for maintaining those commitments.

Georgia NeSmith
Rochester, NY
gnesmith  @  aol.com

<< Should effort be rewarded even if the student is not (at this point,
anyway) capable of first-year university level writing?  The student
probably did work hard on the paper, but the results did not show clear
thinking and writing and organization, strong thesis, sources properly
cited, etc.  Maybe I am being unduly influenced by my English studies
background! >>

I agree with others on this list that assigning a failing grade is not in and
of itself in contradiction with feminist pedagogy. I do not recall anywhere
having read or heard that it would be, and if it has been said somewhere
under the rubric of feminist pedagogy that giving "f's" is anti-feminist, I
would strongly disagree. I've certainly given a few myself, and more often
than not it has come down to writing skills. However, when I was teaching I
usually had a short writing assignment early in the term so I could get some
sense of where people were in their writing skills so I could head off
problems (send them to the writing center, etc.) before it came down to a
question of failing. Those who did fail did so after ignoring my advice to
seek extra help.

I have always found it best when assigning research projects (regardless of
the subject of the course or the skill levels of the students) to pace them
out, starting with proposals, bibliographies, introductions with thesis
statements, etc., as distinct assignments. That way I could head off problems
from the beginning. (It is also an excellent way to fight plagiarism.) If the
class was small enough, I'd even allow them to turn in a first draft and
re-write following my comments and/or the comments of their fellow students.
It is also helpful to provide grade criteria check sheets, so the students
know what they will be graded on.

I don't think it is ever helpful to pass a student who does not have basic
skills. However, it is good pedagogy (feminist or otherwise) to create
opportunities for students to find out, before failing a *major* assignment,
that they lack those skills, and to connect them with the appropriate
resources for acquiring them. I also found that this process helped ensure
that the best students would do even better and would take on more
challenging projects.

Incidentally, my original background is in writing skills courses. I have
always been committed to the process-centered approach to writing skills--a
commitment that became even greater after I spent some time as a scholarly
editor and found that certain well-known scholars would never have made it
WITHOUT good editors!

Georgia NeSmith
gnesmith  @  aol.com
Rochester, NY

OK, I see the difference Dr. Pegueros means.  Some of the profs in my
lecture classes (which were in the subject of English Lit) would break-up
the lecture to pose a questions that solicited students' response, so it
wasn't _entirely_ a Talking Teacher at the front of the room.  But I have to
say... even classes that consisted solely of talking teachers (in, say, 300+
person lecture halls) were often extremely exciting! I *discovered* my
interest in several fields through such classes -- the power-differential
actually worked in my favor.  I was so impressed by the profs' knowledge
that I couldn't take my eyes off them, wanted to drink in every word.  I
saw, and spoke to, many students who felt the same.  And our
discussion-sections proved that many of us had been listening to those "pure
lectures" with real concentration, and we had plenty of questions. We did
not feel oppressed or silenced. I also took several smaller classes with
much more student involvement, and I found those satisfying, too -- but they
didn't *replace* the pleasure of hearing a brilliant lecture. That's an
experience for which there's no substitute.

I guess what puzzles me is this:  does feminist pedagogy acknowledge that
the "other kind" of pedagogy has its place?  And if not, isn't it creating a
gap for students like me, who found incredible JOY  in attending a
straight-lecture delivered by a brilliant scholar with excellent performance
skills?  Here's a hypothetical:  if those of you who self-identify as
Feminist Pedagogues were in a position to ban the pure-lecture format from
your university, would you do so?

Ilana Nash

----- Original Message -----

> I didn't mean to deplore all lectures; I too, went to UCLA (for grad
> school) and had some wonderful lecturers (did you ever have E. Bradford
> Burns?)  My problem is when lecturing is the only form of teaching
> employed; when there is little interaction between students and teachers
> in the classroom. I lecture; sometimes it's the only way to deliver the
> material.  But I try to vary it because I believe that engaging students
> involves problem-solving, working with the issues in the course.   <snip>

Ilana writes:

>  I *discovered* my
> interest in several fields through such classes -- the power-differential
> actually worked in my favor.  I was so impressed by the profs' knowledge
> that I couldn't take my eyes off them, wanted to drink in every word.  I
> saw, and spoke to, many students who felt the same.  And our
> discussion-sections proved that many of us had been listening to those "pure
> lectures" with real concentration, and we had plenty of questions. We did
> not feel oppressed or silenced. I also took several smaller classes with
> much more student involvement, and I found those satisfying, too -- but they
> didn't *replace* the pleasure of hearing a brilliant lecture. That's an
> experience for which there's no substitute.

As an undergrad, I, too, enjoyed and even preferred lectures and had some
excellent lecturers who turned me on to their subject matters. BUT these
folks were also pedagogues, in the sense that they designed their lectures
to address the needs of their students. Their courses had a structure and a
purpose. They did not lecture to feed their own egos or to enjoy the sound
of their own voices. Preparing an excellent lecture that works in whatever
classroom context it is intended for requires just as much work and
thoughtful awareness of audience as any other kind of classroom strategy. On
the other side of the coin, I had profs in grad school who didn't even
bother to order the (foreign language) primary texts we were using. They
chose to presume that we already owned the books and the assignments were
always to "re-read so-and-so." The handful of students who did own the texts
shared them with their friends. They became very popular.

>
> I guess what puzzles me is this:  does feminist pedagogy acknowledge that
> the "other kind" of pedagogy has its place?  And if not, isn't it creating a
> gap for students like me, who found incredible JOY  in attending a
> straight-lecture delivered by a brilliant scholar with excellent performance
> skills?  Here's a hypothetical:  if those of you who self-identify as
> Feminist Pedagogues were in a position to ban the pure-lecture format from
> your university, would you do so?

I have absolutely no objections to the lecture format. My only objections
are to lecturers who are willfully indifferent to the needs of their
students. There are ways to lecture so as to include students at various
levels of preparation--but you have to get to know the students a bit in
order to do that. And you have to care.

I have one other reservation about an education based exclusively on
lectures. Ilana  writes, "I was so impressed by the profs' knowledge that I
couldn't take my eyes off them, wanted to drink in every word.  I saw, and
spoke to, many students who felt the same." I was the same way myself, very
much to my detriment. I did not learn critical thinking until much later and
I developed a naive faith in the educational system and its representatives.
The lecture system can also create a personality cult around the prof; the
adulation Ilana describes can go to the prof's head and distract the prof
from the actual work at hand. I wish I had had more student-centered courses
with a critical pedagogy approach, to steer me toward self-reliance at an
earlier stage. Consequently, I would advocate a balance between lectures and
student-centered approaches, so that students can take in their lectures
without forgetting that THEY are the ones claiming an education.

Leah Ulansey
Maryland Inst. C. of Art
leahu  @  earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
> I have one other reservation about an education based exclusively on
> lectures. Ilana  writes, "I was so impressed by the profs' knowledge that I
> couldn't take my eyes off them, wanted to drink in every word.  I saw, and
> spoke to, many students who felt the same." I was the same way myself,
very
> much to my detriment. I did not learn critical thinking until much later
> and I developed a naive faith in the educational system and its
representatives.
> The lecture system can also create a personality cult around the prof; the
> adulation Ilana describes can go to the prof's head and distract the prof
> from the actual work at hand. I wish I had had more student-centered
courses
> with a critical pedagogy approach, to steer me toward self-reliance at an
> earlier stage. Consequently, I would advocate a balance between lectures
and
> student-centered approaches, so that students can take in their lectures
> without forgetting that THEY are the ones claiming an education.

Yes, of course. I never said "education based exclusively on lectures."  I
actually was very clear (I thought) in saying that a balance is necessary.
I also don't necessarily consider it a detriment to be so awed by my
professors; it was only a problem with the ones who, as you say, let it go
to their heads.  The good ones didn't.  And my adulation didn't stop me from
formulating intellectual disagreements with them. Of course, the bad ones
were *really* bad, but that in itself can be a blessing of sorts, because it
can give a student a big reality-check about her/his admiration. Case in
point: one day I was debating something with one of the lecture-profs I
looked up to, and he cut me off in mid-sentence.  "Can't I finish what I was
saying?" I asked.  He then said-- with a straight face -- "Given the
differences in our ages and levels of education, it would be impossible for
you to have a thought that hasn't already occurred to me."  At that moment,
he sank several notches on my admiration scale.  Moral: jerkiness will out.
The prof who is _really_ on an ego trip always gives him/herself away.

The dangers of adulating a professor are not much worse, I think, than the
dangers of thinking that the prof is really "your friend," or "your mom,"
which can happen in the more decentered classrooms.  This, too, can lead to
problems -- like serious confusions of professional boundaries, and feelings
of betrayal. Giving the impression that you're "always" available to your
students, or that they may call you at home, etc., etc., can invite students
to think of you too casually -- which can anger you, as the teacher, and can
also hinder the student's ability (to his/her intellectual detriment) to
take your lessons seriously enough. I have seen this happen to several
colleagues who are committed to feminist pedagogy, but who then have
legitimate worries and frustrations with how it plays out.  So going too far
in that direction is just as dangerous as going too far the other way:
getting an ego the size of Europe and demanding that students "kiss your
ring," like you were royalty.  There are drawbacks and benefits to both
styles. I, like you, prefer to see both given equal time.

Ilana Nash