Academic Poll: Bribery

Seems ok to me in theory at least, I'm 29.

I have to say in practice it can be a pain. In grad school there were weekly seminars that the grad students were required to attend. Some of the professors offered bonus points to their undergrad students if they also attended. Sadly, there weren't anywhere near enough seats and frequently grad students ended up sitting on the floor or standing outside the room for an hour.

The idea of getting students to go hear someone talk about science is good, even if it requires a bit of dangling a carrot in front of them.

Occasionally a prof here will bribe students with a mark or two to come to the library reference desk and put their mark on a sign-up sheet.

I have a standing extra-credit assignment. They can go to ANY extra-curricular event on campus. They have to write a 2-page reflection paper on the event.

I teach at a CC. My students work, go to class and have family obligations. They also pay for the on-campus events via student fees. I don't want them to miss one of the important parts of being a student. Sure, it may be bribery, but I look at it as a reason for them to do something they don't realize they should do because it's inherently good.

Is there extra credit for going to Rugby games?

Back in the day... I remember going to events and lectures after hours, but I don't remeber Socrates giving extra credit. Yeah. It's been a while.

I'm 35. I think it's fine, especially if it is only one or two events a term. I see it as kind of an extention of points for class participation. I don't remember being offered anything specific as an undergrad other than the general idea that it would reflect well on you to attend.

I can't see how it is much different than what they will encounter in the real world. I go listen to my co-workers present on work I'm doing with them, not because they have anything to say about the work that I don't know, but to support them, and because senior people who influence my career notice and reward attendance at these kinds of things.

Plus, the adult world in some fields has there own version of bribery for these things like continuing professional education credits. I'm required to get 80 hours in two years. Some of it is silly, but in some ways it allows and requires me to make time for speakers and thing that might get pushed aside by everyday demands.

I'm 25.
I don't have problems with the bribery angle (I love the "it's training for continuing ed!" thing, Kate)
But it really has to be a totally trivial amount of points, or there's a level on which it unfairly penalizes students who have evening obligations (which are frequently family or job responsibilities).
That said, I can see how it would add attendance to the evening lecture.

On that note- if you want grad students to attend an evening lecture, bribe them with food.
If you want working adults to attend an evening lecture, you'll need at least free childcare (which actually might not be at all difficult or expensive- I remember working as a babysitter for our village hall during community meetings- it's very reasonable to get a youngish teenager to do this kind of job, since the parents are typically available down the hall if anything major comes up).

I'd attend either way, but it'd be a nice surprise. I'm 20.

I'm 34.

I'm highly in favor of encouraging students to participate in this kind of thing, by any means necessary. I was an undergrad physics major, and dropped my major at the last minute, crammed in an english major instead. My reasoning at the time was that I enjoyed the classroom stuff, but none of the lab work, which was, to me "the work that real scientists do". I deeply regret that choice now, and (from reading this blog, as well as cosmic variance), see how flawed my reasoning was - the stuff I did in lab was nothing at all like what actual working scientists do.

Going to seminars is a key part of being an actual scientist, and for that reason alone, I think it's an absolutely invaluable opportunity for an undergrad to get a glimpse of the world he's thinking of entering. Worth a hell of a lot more than 5 points on a test, if you ask me.

I have mixed feelings. When students sign up for a course, they are making a commitment to be available at meeting time of a class and to put in time outside of class hours, but they are not making a commitment to be free at any time that the professor later announces. It may be called "bonus" credit, but there's really no difference between it and regular credit - either affects the students' final grades.

On the other hand, I think that the goal is admirable. There are fairer ways to achieve this goal, though.
* Students could be given "bonus" credit for attending lectures, but would be given an option of a number of different lectures throughout the term so that time conflicts could be avoided.
* Departmental seminars could be a required course. (probably low-credit & pass-fail)

Incidentally, I'm amazed in retrospect about how well Union's departmental seminars were attended. I've almost never seen undergraduate students at my graduate or postdoctoral universities' departmental seminars.

---
Topics like this remind me of one professor I had who told the class that her course (an introductory American lit. class) should be *at least* the second most important thing in their lives during that term. I was taking 4 courses and most students were taking 3 - it was pretty self-centered of her to expect that her course should be prioritized above everything else - including other courses.

I have no problem with giving students extra points for attending lectures, plays or concerts. As others have said, I feel it is something that they should do, and if the tiny carrot I offer them is all it takes, then I'm happy to enable them. Several students have thanked me, not for the points, but for spurring them to go to events they might not have normally attended. I'm 42.

Fitty! (Career changer too..)
Art history is a required course for fine arts majors. However, artists are not keen on reading and writing, they just want to produce art. So providing alternate avenues for obtaining points is de rigueur.
What I found to be the best was to provide a curriculum with built in padding. Students are awarded "points" for an assignment or test. The point total for the entire course is 1500, equally divided between examination and writing assignments. However, if a student gets the highest point total allowed on each assignment or test, they'll amass 1600 points. That's without the additional bribery. I do not award points for just "showing up." A short essay or class discussion is also required.
On the other hand there is a requirement, not mandated by me but by the faculty senate, that students be given an assignment outside of class. Ours is to visit a museum and find a work of art related to the course content and write an essay about it.

As a 19 year old undergrad, I think this is NOT the way to get students engaged and this type of bribery only perpetuates student apathy. I'm in favor of instructors encouraging and providing students with the opportunity to expand their learning outside of the classroom but the fact that they have to use bribery and the lure of an extra mark is disappointing. I know that some students appreciate this trickery and end up genuinely benefiting from the experiential learning but many others fail to enjoy, fail to be respectful observers and fail to get engaged at these events (just like in-class).

I forgot to mention that I'm 30.

Continuing education usually comes with a choice of times to fulfill it, which differentiates it from a one-off lecture. There is also often more notice to allow scheduling.

A requirement to visit a museum also has a significant difference from attending a lecture. The museum visit can be done when it fits into the student's schedule. The lecture is one time only.

I have a hard time understanding the "this is bribery" argument. Grades themselves are a form of bribery to get students to do the work necessary to learn. In a perfect world, students would do the work and learn without having the threat of low marks dangling over their heads. But that's now how our world works. Assigning a grade or point value to a given activity is no different than assigning one to a test.

I don't see any real problem with such 'bribery'; as far as I can tell, that is the definition of 'extra credit'.
I would second the statement by Matt that it is only 'bribery' if you consider all methods of grading 'bribery': assigning a grade to anything -- tests, homework, labs, attendance -- is a way of encouraging the students to do it at all.

The only constraint on such EC would be making sure that it is 'extra', i.e. it doesn't affect the grading curve of the class, if there is one. Also, I would think that it should be used sparingly, and only for speakers who are known to be very good and might actually encourage the students to attend future lectures on their own.

So, if the 5 points has a negligible effect on their grade, you didn't really bribe them. You fake bribed them. They thought it was a bribe.

In general, I am not opposed to fake bribing. Giving significant points for stuff that is good for the students is like paying your kids to eat their veggies. Well, it is not quite the same because kids are not adults, they have to be made to do what is right. Maybe that was a bad analogy (but still funny).

I am 27 in hexadecimal.

I'm (a) 57 and (b) cautiously in favor. I dragged one son and some of his friends along to last year's Jansky Lecture and coffee afterwards, and it was a good mixture of:

* Gratifying that I could still follow after decades away from research physics,
* An utter hoot for its own sake, and
* Fun beyond words seeing physics students watching the stuff they're learning applied on the (pardon me) fringes of human understanding.

100% supporting a field report, though, and never at the cost of overflowing the room available.

Care must be taken to ensure that the lecture is appropriate for undergraduates and that they are well mannered. I've been to many colloquia in both physics and philosophy that were nearly ruined by large numbers of undergraduate students behaving poorly. Often this was because the lecture was well beyond what they could be expected to follow, so they get bored and often get up and leave in the middle. Then there are cell phones, texting, and all the other standard issues. I'm not against the bribery aspect per se, but I find that large numbers of uninterested students have the potential to wreck it for the people who really want to be there. This depends upon the culture of the school and I don't mean to insinuate that all undergrads are poorly behaved or anything like that. I think it is important not to send hoards of freshman to a graduate level cosmology colloquia.

I'm 24 and a graduate student. I'm currently required to attend my department's weekly seminar, Fridays at noon. (There's a sign-up sheet for attendance; if you miss more than two in any given semester, uh... something bad happens, I guess.) Since graduate students are committed to being on campus all day, I think this is a fair requirement. For undergrads who might have responsibilities outside of class, I'm against mandatory attendance for events that fall outside of class time. If extra credit points have a significant effect on peoples' grades, then I'm against this as well -- it's unfair to punish some students for having less free time than others.

However, I had an undergraduate class that required all students to attend two talks/seminars/etc. related to the topic of the class at some point during the semester, and write a one-page summary. The instructor provided a list of several different regularly-scheduled seminars on campus that would be appropriate, and also gave us information about a few colloquia happening that semester where we'd be able to attend many talks in one day. As long as there are plenty of options to earn that sort of credit, I think it's a good way to get students to think about something new.

For me, this really depends on the situation -- mostly, how often it happens. If there's some weekly/bi-weekly lecture that happens, and you offer extra credit points every time, that's not kosher -- someone's grade could be seriously affected just because they have a schedule conflict with the regularly scheduled time of the talk. If it's a once-a-semester opportunity, and the points are relatively small, I think it's fine.

One option I would *definitely* be OK with is a requirement (for actual credit, not extra credit) to attend, say, one appropriate academic talk during the course of the semester (and maybe submit a brief written summary.)

Also, if a class is curved, the curve should be applied *before* anyone gets extra credit points -- otherwise they're not really extra credit points and you *are* really directly punishing people for not going.

No. What your students do outside of class is none of your business. It's up to them to decide what activity is most beneficial for them, for their academic progress, or their life in general. It also isn't fair, for some of them might just not be able to make the time commitment because they have family or jobs.

Forgot to mention - I'm 28.

I'm 50.

One of my teachers used to encourage such out-of-class participation by adding a couple of bonus questions off the end of whatever test was upcoming, based on the guest lecture. The idea was not just to get butts in seats, but also to give incentive to pay attention, rather than napping or chatting with friends. I certainly appreciated the chance to pick up a few points.

I often give a few points for two or three events that I want my students to attend. As you say, it doesn't really affect their final grades.

I like Cicely's idea of putting bonus questions on the following exam.

I'm 42 (or 101010 in binary).

First, a course grade should reflect astudent's achievement with respect to that course and material related to it. To broadly offer extra credit for any extra-curricular material or events dilutes the meaning of the grade.

Second, extra credit, what you refer to as "bribery," is for many an attractive way to learn more about a subject in a non-traditional setting. As you point out, the actual points as a proportion of overall course points are small, but small bits make a difference. Non-traditional settings and methods may be very attractive to students who have difficulty with whatever methods an instructor has chosen for the classroom.

Third, my attitude with the high school and college level classes I have taught is that I want to see some kind of evidence that the student has learned (or at least "absorbed") something from the extra credit opportunity. Marking "present" for a lecture wouldn't suffice. A short quiz, a short summary, even an open-ended "what did you learn and why was it interesting (or not)?" goes a long way toward assuring me as an instructor and evaluator that the student was engaged and some kind of worthwhile outcome was achieved.

So in summary, to the extent that "bribery" enhances or extends learning related to the course for which it is offered, and to the extent I can garner some concrete evidence that actual learning took place, I approve of it and have used it frequently in my own teaching.

Started college after the beginning of time (Unix).

Two factors: fairness, and course type.

I don't do it at all in my intro physics class. The main idea behind professionalism, you get credit for doing what you are supposed to do, when you are supposed to do it, underlie this view. There is some "extra credit" built into the class (a bonus problem so an exam is worth more than 100, the ease with which a diligent student can get a perfect score on the homework because of what I use in the divisor), but that is for normal things done in the course and are accounted for in my grading system.

I do something like this in a general ed class, although it is built into the syllabus from the start and is something that is available to all students in the class. This last point is a bigger deal at a CC (where most of our students work, and some work a 40 hour week) than at a SLAC.

If I was at a SLAC, I'd consider making attendance at every "majors" event (like a physics talk suitable for undergrads) a mandatory part of the "homework" for a junior and above class taken by physics majors. Those sorts of things are an invaluable part of an undergrad experience, although it is even more valuable if only kids who want to be there are in attendance. I wouldn't have had a chance to actually talk to Anthony Burgess about "Clockwork Orange" if either (a) an army of extra credit students had been there or (b) the movie had already been in theaters.

21, Junior UG, Engineering/Science Major.

I don't have a problem with "bribery" of this sort. I know many students who have fallen into engineering (fewer in physics or bio), and they really seem to wander aimlessly in the major. I suppose there is nothing wrong with being good at math/science and then using that strength as a means to make a living, but I imagine if some of them had more outside exposure (talks, knowledge of the areas of research, etc) they would choose their major/focus with greater care and interest. If bribery gets them more exposure (classroom discussion is generally pretty focused on some linear set of topics), then I'm all for it. Not to mention I am a point-grabbing fiend and would take those opportunities without a thought. :)

(20, undergrad science major) I think this is ok if you give students several different events to choose from or if the event occurs during regularly scheduled class time. If there is only one event outside of regular class time, then you are in effect penalizing students who have a legitimate time conflict with this event (like another professor's class for example).

21, recent physics graduate.
I'm more concerned about disturbing the lecturer than the ethics of the point system.
In a large lecture (something announced to the general college population or even the general public) I'd encourage attendance and offer credit for a report from anyone.
The speaker should be prepared to handle a crowd and answer questions from all levels of understanding.

But if it's a small to medium sized lecture (we had seminars from visiting speakers almost weekly, mostly interviewing faculty presenting their recent research or doct. thesis. typical audience ~15-25 faculty, grad students and a few undergrad) Iâd be more hesitant.

For this level talk Iâd reward attendance in sophomore to junior level undergrad courses.
Announce an extra credit opportunity in a freshman 101 lecture and you'll flood the room with the uninterested masses (even with a report requirement).
The room will almost certainly be the top and bottom of your class distribution, the kids who'd give both their thumbs for two extra points and the kids that'd be there with or without points.
At the senior level they should probably be going to these lectures anyway.

I would still announce and strongly encourage anyone to attend, maybe with a content warning if the topic warrants it. But Iâd be very hesitant to offer extra credit to a 100 level class.

As far as time conflicts: c'est la vie, that's why it's extra credit. This isn't a one time thing.
We could work out something else, I could get him recent publications on the subject... that's what the rest of us have to do when we can't make a lecture due to time constraints.