<p>Ah, I kind of disagree actually. However, that depends on the discipline. If the sciences, of course many professors are rigid (this can be said at most schools, especially research universities, where many profs. don’t really have the patience to even try to implement a more inquiry based approach to learning) and will usually not be receptive to other interpretations or ways of viewing concepts/material. However, fortunately, there are many who teach upperlevel courses who encourage this sort of approach. If you have been talking to parents of freshmen/science majors, I would give it some time if these students are indeed looking for profs. who are actually flexible and encourage alternative viewpoints. Also, it is up to the student to choose these professors. I think many students who actually complain about such rigidity find that they actually like the profs. who have extremely structured course formats that basically call on the student to accept and recall the material. The science professors with looser course structure that build more inquiry and creativity into the curriculum are often regarded as difficult because they remove the existence of magic formulas (just being obedient and doing all the work) to success that exist in more structured courses (the open structure profs. are usually avoided by the average student). I really enjoy the more open learning format and sought out professors that built it into their courses. This was really easy to do for social science and humanities courses as many of them, by nature, are such. However, science profs. w/the format have to be cherry-picked. And yes, you will likely end up being more challenged in these profs. classes than another good lecturer w/a more traditional course structure. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, while I get what you’re saying, if it was freshmen, I think a lot of them mainly meant tough (they often want “openess” so that it benefits them when the prof grades exams or assignments. Not necessarily intellectual openness) when they said “rigid”, because the reality is, as I said. Many freshman really struggle with introductory courses that have less rigidity. For example, while most students really liked Dr. Passalaucqua’s teaching, many of the freshmen really did not like the case studies which involved a lot of critical thinking and perhaps some creativity (instead of them having a “case day”, many students preferred lecturing. As in, did not want the active learning at all. However, this is apparently a common pattern amongst pre-medical students for some reason). The freshmen who took Eisen when he ran the case based section really found it overwhelming (his cases and exam structures were very rigorous when compared to every other intro. biology section at Emory. He also did not really lecture on book material and would more or less expect students to read that so that they are prepared to come and discuss more provocative topics that would help with the week’s case). This is just my insider perspective though. Students can easily obtain flexible profs. They really need to make sure that it is indeed what they want and that they can learn that way. The more open formats, when applied to the sciences, requires a lot of independent learning which goes against the grain of many students who believe that the teacher is supposed to teach exactly everything they need to know for the test (including how to apply and think…lol).</p>