[hilbert42]

Despite my comments above, some examiners can be bastards. Deliberately setting examinations to fail students is counterproductive and demoralizing (sometimes to the extent that potentially good students leave the course).

In practice, examiners who do this are usually inexperienced and they soon learn to discontinue the practice for all the obvious readons. That's why in this instance I'd be inclined to think the students are at fault as this NYC prof has long and extensive experience (he'd have learned not to so long ago).

[forgetbook]

I don't mean to assume malice where incompetence will suffice. You're correct that its generally inexperienced instructors, and in this case was a very experienced instructor.

Is it possible then, that this very experienced instructor, experienced a difficult time adapting to teaching in a new setting, and failed to adapt their examination?

The solution likely isn't for pandemic students to be told they have experience they don't have, but the structure in place created a situation where an entire class experienced the fallout from their professor's failure. In this case, the professor was fired. In many more, students bear the same punishments (both to their academic records and actual learning), while inexperienced instructors are simply told to do better next time.

Why shouldn't students have the same option to do better next time?

[hilbert42]

Clearly, I'm not fully cognizant of all the details in this case so I can only comment in general terms and obviously they can be wrong if I've not access to sufficient information.

It's quite a while since I was at university and back then there would have been very little chance of a professor being fired that easy or on those grounds.

That said, back then, the system was very fair. Students were treated with respect and often given benefit of the doubt. There were appeals mechanisms in place if students failed and they could do so if they thought they had good reasons to appeal, and so on.

Looking in at much of academia these days I see a volatile, messy quixotic buisness and I'm glad I'm not there. (It's still not fully clear to me how things have gotten so off the rails in recent years.)

In direct answer to your question I'd repeat what I said above with respect to my university experience. The system should be fair and flexible and students should always be given a chance to do better next time.

[forgetbook]

I also don't mean to make this so big as to have you throw up your hands at it--that reaction is how systems fail.

There is still very little chance of tenured professors being fired. This exception occurs notably in the case of a longtime, but untenured instructor.

When you say the system should be fair and flexible, it really is as easy as giving students a chance to do better next time. If every student fails the final, let them retake the class and use the second grade in transcripts. If they're unable to retake, refund their tuition or give them a voucher for when they can schedule.

I'm restating other comments so you don't have to hunt them down because its a point worth making--students have no recourse against their colleges, the companies they aspire to move into, or the federal government barring declaration of bankruptcy on their loans. If we want a highly competent workforce, we need to help students train.

I'm glad your university experience worked out well, and aknowledging survivor bias in that and resisting the urge to say "glad its not me" can equip you to help future generations of students, a role that is filled by people who become your reports in your career and your children in your personal life.

[hilbert42]

"...students have no recourse against their colleges, the companies they aspire to move into, or the federal government barring declaration of bankruptcy on their loans."

I've quoted all that because each part is relevant.

1. Students had no recouse against the uni or colleges in my time either, it's just the system was fair and worked reasonably well. If the uni or colleges clamped down because you'd screwed up big-time then you could do nothing about it.

2. If you had a cadetship with a company etc. then you were essentially in it's hands, you had no recourse against it but there were rules as to how those arrangements were managed.

3. When I first went to university, fees were trivial when compared with today (I recall having to pay a little over $400. Some years later, the government made fees free and one got there solely on one's merit (there was no buying one's way in). Two decades later the government reversed the decision and the fees went up to tens of thousands of dollars overnight and students became indebted. That fucked the system up big-time.

4. My university time wasn't all plain sailing, there were many ups and downs but they were my fault or related to my situation, they were not the fault of the university.

5. The single biggest difference was that back then people didn't have the sense of entitlement that they do have today. One's situation was what one made it, no one owed one a living and one was responsible for oneself. One either put up with life or one changed it. As that was the accepted norm there was far less trouble and volatility associated with education back then as compared to now.

Also, it was not the norm for everyone to go to university, only a small percentage of the population did so.

[forgetbook]

2 & 3] So, the students now bear the risk/burden of their training costs, where in the past they were heavily subsidized by the University capping costs ($400), the fed paying what remained (made fees free), and in some cases the company taking on an obligation to hire (cadetship).

5] Spot the strawman. How are students entitled when they are the ones paying tuition and shouldering risk of failure, while institutions in return offer no obligation to train (university), no obligation to hire (company), and no escape from debt (fed)?

Again, I'm glad your experience worked out well, and I'm glad we agree that the conditions students operate in today are materially different. You certainly have the option of throwing up your hands at the entitlement of the youths, but it seems to me that the entitlement here is on the part of institutions that now expect access to a highly trained workforce with no part in supporting the training.

If your goal is that only a small percentage of the population be highly competent in their field, then by all means support the norm that only a small percentage of the population be supported in training.

(edit: additional comments below)

I'd like to reiterate that I am not advocating for lowering standards here. I want a highly competent workforce, in and out of the medical field. At no point have I asked that students be given unearned passing grades. What I am asking for is that students be supported, financially and otherwise, in their attempts to learn and earn passing grades.

[hilbert42]

I've really no issue with students, essentially they're the same as they have always been. My criticism is with the era, things have gotten a lot rougher and less certain for students since my time.

The fixes are obvious, but then I'm not in possession of Aladdin's lamp.

[dsq]

I think the relative reward for completing higher education in any field was greater than today. Being college educated provided such a clear advantage that it was a no brainer to put up with some academic arrogance.

[hilbert42]

Very true, see my reply to forgetbook.