It has become a rule that university teachers call students' names in class and count their scores into their final grades according to their attendance. Rules exist to urge students to overcome inertia, attend classes on time, and let students acquire a knowledge. However, as a student, I think it is totally useless or even wrong to call the roll in college class. There are two reasons:

First, do college students still need high school supervision?

We college students are adults with independent judgment. From primary school to high school, we spent 12 years under the supervision of teachers. If we still need teachers to supervise us during our college years, who else will supervise us when we enter the society after graduation? We might as well talk about it separately. For students with unsatisfactory academic performance, it is true that these students call the roll to attend classes on time, but if students attend classes under supervision, they are absent-minded and unwilling to attend classes. Although people are there, they have no effect in class. If you don't call the roll, students don't come to class and don't have knowledge, you may waste a year. But people are very thoughtful. When they wake up, they will definitely redouble their efforts to catch up on the lessons they left behind. I think these students who stay behind for one year will gain much more after studying in the university than those who stay outside the classroom. Besides, for students with good academic performance, they have mastered the knowledge that the teacher wants to teach, but the teacher still requires them to appear in the classroom. Has it lost the meaning of supervision and become a waste of time and life? You should know that there is no causal or proportional relationship between class attendance and knowledge acquisition.

Second, what is the teacher's responsibility?

A teacher standing on the platform, quoting classics and imparting knowledge and truth is the right way. But if a student already has that knowledge and can prove his knowledge level through exams or other means, why should the teacher let him fill in the blanks? The form of filling in the blanks is to give up the basics, that is, to make the mistake of not seeing the trees for the teacher. Has the teacher's sense of accomplishment changed from being full of peaches and plums to pursuing the number of students? If a student is absent from class repeatedly without that knowledge, the teacher will naturally eliminate him after passing the examination, but the reason for eliminating him is that you didn't get the knowledge, not that you didn't call the roll. Teachers should be "strict" with students, which must be based on substantive knowledge and academic truth, not rigid forms. Through the examination, the teacher gives questions flexibly and assesses the knowledge points that students should master. If they don't master it, they can't pass the exam by luck, so they can only go back to the classroom to study again. He will know that he didn't master knowledge because he was absent from class, and he will pay the price if he didn't pass the exam.