No idea if this is a controvercy or not, but I am going to rant nevertheless.

You are a student. A fairly good student, although there are always people who do better than you for some reason. You are in a class with lots of people you've never met before and/or get randomly assigned a group, with whom you have to devise a paper, 20 or 30 pages in length.
Am I the only person who thinks that this is a complete waste of time and entirely futile and that the work would much, much better have been done by one person alone? I am always, always worse off when I work with a group, never better. I never gain anything from what other people contribute, except, maybe, for a little time. But this is deceiving, as I usually spend more time in total with group work than doing the same amount of work alone. So... where is the benefit? It cannot be that they are actually trying to teach us co-operation through this, seeing as most of the time the members of a group are so different that individual parts of the work need to be distributed among them. Also, one cannot go and actually write a paper in joint effort. It is just not possible.

Argh!

Therefore, I think that group work at universities is entirely useless and should be terminated from the face of the earth.
Ook. I spoke. (To mix Terry Pratchett and Karl May.)

I usually don't like group work for the very fact that sometimes the people one is paired with might not feel that they have to do the work. I have lucked out a few times with having people who have been screwed into having to do the majority of the work as well in past group/team assignments, and we all were able to divvy up and contribute equally and effectively on the project(s) assigned. So, I think group work works better when all people realize what's at stake and know that it isn't appreciated when a particular individuals slacks off and doesn't pull his or her share of the project.

I work better on my own, too.

I remember I didn't find out I was actually good at Physics lab until the year I decided to take it during the summer, by myself. It turned out I just need more time to get used to the lab equipment and play around with it. When I had a partner and the time constraint of lab period, I couldn't do that.

I've very rarely had partners for school projects and can't remember offhand if I ever had a group class assignment, although I suppose I must have.

In the work world, though, the most fun, creative and efficient system I've known is when you have a small group of specialists who understand and respect each other. And I've had the great fortune to be in that situation a number of times. In my case, it would be a team consisting of coder, data architect, graphic artist, content specialist, writer, administrative support. A team like that can truly do magic.

I can't imagine enjoying working in a group where everyone had the same skillset I do, though. It's nice to check in with peers in my specialty from time to time, but I don't think I'd like working on the same exact project or part of the project with them.

I always HATED group projects because I was the one left to do the work and the rest rode my coat-tails to split the grade. Joint papers are pretty much useless, without distinct separation of subjects within. But even so, the writing styles should flow together and contain good segues.

Only one group project did I enjoy. It was an advertising project containing a paper, a presentation, a commercial, and adverts. Sure, I did most of the work, but one of my two partners did the speech (TG cause I suck at oral reports) AND I got to grade the rest of the group on how much work each person did. This grading led to an A+ for me and a C for the laziest person in the group. [insert satisfied smilie]

That's an interesting variation on the usual.

Yeah, Crocky, that sounds like a bummer. Maybe just an attempt by the prof to not have as many projects to grade?
You could try keeping a log of how much work you did (time and type) and either:
complain to the prof if it's appearant early on that you are pulling the others along, or just turn in the log along with the paper (and maybe a few footnotes as to what participation you received from the others,) and see what happens.

I usually hated group projects in school since I was the one who wound up doing everything. Teachers who allowed you to grade your group were good though. That's about the only way it works.

I think it's supposed to be teaching you how to work with others since in the workplace you often need to do things with a group, but at least in my job, the people I work with don't dump stuff all on me, and things do really get evenly distributed. Nothing like school at all.

Reading this thread, someone could get the impression that we're all a bunch of ambitious overachievers here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Ha, ha! Overachievers!

I never had to do group papers when I was in school. Thank God! I think the aim of such endeavors is to get people to work together, but I don't think this is the way to go about it. Especially since you can't choose who you want to do the group paper with. My daughter had to do lots of 'group' papers in school and she always picked the same group--they were allowed to pick who they worked with--and everyone pulled their weight and produced great papers. I definitely believe that choosing who to work with is the way to go, and not being stuck with someone who doesn't do their share and you don't know them personally anyway. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I've heard of a supposedly very effective way of grading group work, which works well if you have a 15-point system in sixth form, as German schools do. 15 being the top mark. The teacher I spoke to said he tends to give an overal grade for the work done, say eight points, and multiply it by the number of group members. He then leaves it to them to distribute the points among them. That way, the person who did the most has a chance to get 15 points, if everyone is fair. I didn't believe students would be as fair as that, but apparently the system worked for him.

I don't like team work, either. It can be very great and productive with a motivated team but I have never once during my school years seen a motivated group of students who were randomly assembled for some boring task "due in fifteen minutes - OK, who needs more time?" *grmblmoanmeh* "OK, five more minutes!"

I've always despised group work. When I was in public school, as the top student in my class, for some reason, my teachers always thought it was a great idea to pair me with special ed kids. What the heck? It's not my job to teach people with learning disabilities. That's why they're the teacher and I'm the student.

Yes, it's incredibly insensitive of me, but, as long as I'm not gaining anything from helping them out, there is no reason for them to be holding me back. I go to school for the sole purpose of expanding my horizons, for actually gaining some knowledge. That doesn't mean I want to be stuck in a group of people far beneath my intellectual capacity, when all of us would be far more satisfied if I just did the assignment myself and let them share the pretty grade.

I don't understand when teachers do things like that. It's like they're trying to make a conformist, average garbage bin of students trapped in the C range; their logic seems to be, if those kids get smarter, and I get dumber, everyone'll be average.

No, that's not the way it goes. YOU try to help those who are struggling. You ALSO help me go farther so that I'm not essentially attending glorified babysitting.

Sheesh. Didn't know I had so much rant in me. That's four pathetic paragraphs of raving. Look at me, I'm so scary when I'm angry. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

Fen--you should be angry. It's definitely not your place to teach chidren with learning disabilities. I know I'd be angry. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/hissyfit.gif)

A common problem in schools. The special needs people (and those who are just generally slow) get special treatment, and so do the brilliant ones, who get bored and thus disturb the lesson. The quiet intelligent ones or the mass assembling around B or C somewhere are usually not treated according to their actual skill. They just happen to be there and no one notices.

This is a good topic to rant about, isn't it? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/icon_mrgreen.gif)

Yes, it's excellent to rant about! I can go on for days about how much I hate the public schooling system. The US just has awful education. It's sad that we're spending all of our money to intervene in the lives of Iraqis when we could be trying to teach our students more effectively.

I've never understood grouping people by age. Capability makes far more sense. I don't want to be around fourteen and fifteen-year-olds. I didn't go to school to socialize. I'd be much more comfortable among people at my level, even if they're older than I am.

Grouping by age is a rather new thing, isn't it? Many of my over-50 relatives did quite well in one-room schools, where it was understood that you worked on specific material until you'd mastered it. Then you moved on. If you had to miss a bunch of school to help at home, you just took longer to finish. I don't get the impression that there was much stigma involved in not "keeping up" with your age group in those schools. Of course, they didn't have lab equipment or arts or sports much. There's only so much you can do with such a tiny school. Still, I think the general idea of advancing in each subject at one's own pace makes way more sense than what's common now.
Another thing common in those schools was older or more advanced students helping the younger. (But I don't think they shared a grade on the assignments!) I do think teaching something to someone else does help you understand it better. It's certainly true of my teaching now. Something to think about...