The Name Game

“Schoolchildren obey (or are expected to obey) the schoolteacher, not just because he or she has a certain sort of personal character, but because he or she has a role of schoolteacher (pg.42).” According to Weber, in modern Western society, bureaucracy reigns everywhere. Even in the classroom, students are expected to give an unspoken respect to their teachers because of their educational credentials and their expected expertise in their subject. Yet despite our underlying expectation of a purely professional professor, there is something to be said about professors who educate their pupils in a more personable manner. Specifically in college, professors are not expected to take much interest in the personal lives of their students as secondary or elementary teachers might. An example of a college professor who seems to take more personal interest in students is a professor who learns students’ names. Should a professor be expected to learn the names of their students? Are students deceived in thinking a professor really cares about them personally merely because the professor memorizes their name?

First I’d like to focus on the ethical implications of learning a student’s name. Is it something a professor should do? When I asked a fellow student he stated, “In a small class, I expect them to know my name. In a large class I don’t.” Class size seems to play a significant role in whether it is to be expected of a professor or not. Regardless of the fact that the professor probably has many other classes and students that they teach, the students might be subconsciously mislead to think that a small classroom size will output more individual attention and care. In a large classroom setting it is easier to visualize that the professor probably teaches a lot more students, because the individual’s class size already seems large. So should a professor learn students’ names? I think that decision should be left up to the professor: as an individual extracurricular goal, not necessarily an expectation of their colleagues.

Another topic to be examined is the effect of a professor knowing a student’s name on the student’s interest and learning success. I asked another college student if they value a professor who knows their name and why. “Yes. It engages me in the class. It makes me feel like the subject is more important. For example, at KU (University of Kansas) there are like 600 kids in a class and everybody is only there to get a grade.” Even in everyday life we realize that memorizing someone’s name doesn’t mean you necessarily ‘know’ that person as more than a casual acquaintance. Yet, somehow this illusion that a teacher is taking personal interest in a student merely because they know their name, affects the way a student behaves in a class. From my own experience and in observing other students, when a teacher knows a student’s name, the student attends class more consistently, they become more interested in the subject matter, they engage in more class discussion, and they seem to respect the teacher on a more personal level. So, maintaining an illusion that they ‘know’ you, albeit artificial, may be educationally beneficial.

The text states (pg 45) “we can see all sorts of particular facet of modern life as rationalized and bureaucratized, even those which seem the most emotionally charged or expressive of free and unfettered individual expression.” Inglis states that even the professional situations that are emotionally driven are rooted out of bureaucratic rules (examples used: doctors and flight attendants). In contrast, most college professors use their undergraduate and graduate courses to study their field, not to study how to educate (like an elementary, middle school, or high school teacher might). In light of this it becomes quite clear that professors should not be expected to memorize student’s names. However, it should be individually taken into consideration based on the fact that it has a direct correlation with students’ success level in class.