As the semester comes to a strenuous end, professors are piling on the last assignments. To their credit, many attempt to ease our stress by making our final assignment a group project — more people, less work. That sounds ideal, right?
In this utopia, the work is divided equally and each member provides exceptional information and input. However, theory and practice result in two different situations. The ideal is unlikely. So, is it fair for professors to assign group projects as the last say on our overall grades? I’m leaning towards “no.”
As a kid, group projects meant outside get-togethers, colorful posters and, ultimately, less work for me. It wasn’t until I was older and the projects got harder that I realized how much I detested group work. There was always one problem: the other people. By saying that, I wholeheartedly expect any of my group members to feel the same. It is the different work ethics that lead to a lot of the issues.
There are three different types of group members: the leader, the slacker and the indifferent. The leader is the one who automatically takes charge, whether it is outlining the project or even forming the group itself. Assigning tasks and other housekeeping jobs are the leader’s forte.
There is always one leader in a group, self-appointed or voted. Potentially, two leaders may arise; but there will always be one alpha leader. Ultimately, this position holds the most responsibility and demands the most organization and time.
The middle ground is occupied by the indifferent. Filled with apathy, they don’t really care which tasks you give them, as long as it’s not all of them. The indifferent could also be seen as the followers.
Given their assignments, the indifferent will do as they are told, but no more. Though they may not appear as involved as the leaders, they submit their work and contribute to the project equally.
It is the slackers that create the most trouble in the group. Reluctant to do the work at all, slackers tend to wait until the last minute. This sends the leaders into frenzies and may irritate the followers.
Their work ethic is nonexistent, and their hopes of riding on the others’ coattails are alive and thriving. With the presence of slackers, conflict and a bumpy road are inevitable. What the slackers fail to realize is the grade of the group depends on them. It is the weakest link that ultimately decides the strength of the chain.
And what about when that chain just so happens to be a student’s GPA? No slacker is safe from the fury of the group.
I’m not saying other problems do not arise. For instance, there could be two alpha personalities in the group. If that is the case, a power struggle can be the downfall of the group.
Maybe there isn’t a leader at all, which leaves the group vulnerable to faulty time management and no direction. There is also a possibility the group could be full of slackers and one leader. The unpleasant combinations are innumerable.
My point is, the more people put into a group, the less control you have over your grade. You are essentially giving other students the opportunity to make or break your GPA. Luckily, professors are also giving students a chance to evaluate peers.
By giving students the chance to explain the group members’ cooperation, professors get a sense of the work ethics of the individuals. However, the peer evaluations don’t take back the anxiety and frustration from the project experience.
They can’t save a sub-par project from getting a sub-par grade. When that grade is the final grade of the semester, students are less likely to volunteer for a group project.
Group projects can prepare students for real-life scenarios. We won’t always work with people we like, and there will always be a slacker, in the college classroom or in your workplace.
No one is going to have your exact work ethic and discovering that now is favorable to finding out when your paycheck is on the line. But when your overall grade, which you have worked hard for, depends on another person, students are less excited to comply.
