You have to look for the cause of the apathy to have any hope of "curing" it.
Was the apathy caused by depression? Then you have to treat the depression. Was it caused by lack of interest in the subject? Well, then you have to get students interested in the subject, and so on. Usually there are reasons for the poor attitudes some students have towards learning, and helps to understand those reasons before one can be effective at channeling them towards something more positive.
"If a student can't devote 5 hours a week to a 5 credit course in homework then they likely won't do well. The reason for their inability is somewhat irrelevant in the sense that one needs to put in the effort. If you can't you won't learn the material. Nothing I do can change this fact."
You can't change the amount of work required, but you and the school as a whole can influence the student's willingness and ability to put in that amount of work.
"Is a teacher supposed to be a great motivator? I don't know. I do know that I'm not particularly good in the inspiration department."
If you're not, then you're just not going to be as effective as a teacher who is good at inspiring students. Whether or not a teacher is "supposed to" be a great motivator, there's no denying that when the goal is having students learn, and when student apathy is a real problem, having inspiring teachers should be a priority.
With a 100 students each semester I don’t have the time or inclination to find out about their personal struggles. We are here to learn mathematics. If that is not true of a person then they shouldn’t be taking math classes. Such is my general view in the matter. I’m not an extremist and exceptions do apply.
If a student, for whatever reason, can’t devote the required time to a course then they shouldn’t take it. The best teacher in my department, the most inspiring one too, complains about student apathy all the time. Some people just shouldn’t be in college. Many would benefit from waiting to mature and otherwise be prepared.
I can’t magically make someone want to learn. I like the Chinese proverb that says a teacher can only open the door to the house of knowledge, he can’t make you enter.
I'm not convinced that that's true, in the US, anyway. There is widespread anti-intellectualism and contempt for education in this society. Funding for education except among the wealthiest schools is frequently cut. Teachers have to go on strike to get even small raises above their already small salaries, and are expected to work far beyond their miserably paid hours to create lesson plans, grade homework, participate in student extracurricular activities, and help students. At universities research and "publish or perish" are the priorities, and teaching is often seen as something to be avoided or delegated to TA's as much as possible. "Those who can't teach" is frequently bandied about. Teaching to the test, having to teach politician-decided curricula, or just babysitting students in class quite is common. Violence against both students and teachers is common.
In such a corrosive environment, is it any wonder that the most talented people might want to work in any of a number of lucrative professions, where they are highly respected and rewarded for what they do rather than go in to teaching, where they'll be held in contempt, paid a pittance, and possibly become a victim of violence?
It is my firm belief that there are a lot more talented teachers (or people who could be talented, inspiring teachers if they valued becoming such) than choose to go in to the profession, and many talented teachers who have quit the profession because they are just fed up with dealing with all of the BS and being treated like garbage. These people do exist, though, and the problem is not in having so few of them, but in the system being such that they don't want to go in to teaching or don't want to remain if they try.
"With a 100 students each semester I don’t have the time or inclination to find out about their personal struggles."
I completely understand that, and don't blame you but the system. But there is something that can be done about this. It's just that the school system and society as a whole is not doing what needs to be done: to invest much more money in to education, to make acquiring the love of learning and knowledge rather than teaching to the test a priority, to teach how to learn and not just what to learn, and yes, students' emotional needs have to be addressed. The violence we see in schools these days is but one symptom that they are being neglected.
"We are here to learn mathematics. If that is not true of a person then they shouldn’t be taking math classes."
With such a hands-off attitude, it is little wonder that so many students that don't already love mathematics or who aren't self-motivated enough to do the work are dropping out or failing.
"If a student, for whatever reason, can’t devote the required time to a course then they shouldn’t take it. The best teacher in my department, the most inspiring one too, complains about student apathy all the time. Some people just shouldn’t be in college. Many would benefit from waiting to mature and otherwise be prepared."
It would be wonderful if all students were self-motivated and love what they learn. But to leave it up to them to acquire such love and motivation will just result in many of them being left behind. Schools and societies just aren't helpless to have a positive influence on students in this regard, and we as a society would be better off if schools got more involved in fostering better attitudes towards education in their students, even if that means a greater investment of time, money, and effort.
"I can’t magically make someone want to learn."
It's not magic. It's a combination of passion for your subject and a skill of conveying that passion to others. I fully believe both can be taught. But even if they can't, there are people who have them, and there are ways to make the teaching profession more appealing to them.
You say it isn’t magic and seem to imply it’s easier than I think it is. Based on my experience I think this is naive. But maybe I’m jaded. Two students this semester told me I’m the best math teacher they ever had. One told me I’m the worst.
The "cure" is to recognize that you're solving the wrong problem.
Universities originated when there were highly motivated learners, actually interested in the material and taking an active interest in peppering the lecturers with questions.
Today, it's de facto purpose is to get a credential and network with useful people. Learning the material is almost entirely orthogonal to why they're there, so of course they're doing the minimum to pass (or receive a high enough grade).
Trying to get the students interested in the material is just digging the hole deeper. The answer is to stop digging!
Specifically: find a better mechanism by which people can network and signal their abilities. Leave universities to be attended by people who actually care about the material and who actually use it as an interactive experience for which it's best suited.
Then you're going to have fewer truly educated people than you could have if you didn't give up on them. Other societies with much better education systems than the US show that it is possible to bring more people aboard.
It will take a reform of the education system, but not a reform that caters to the lucky few who love to learn, but rather one that encourages the love of learning in more people.
1) Provide valid alternatives to credentialing (e.g. a good trade school path), so they've drained off demand for university-style credential.
2) Strictly limit who can go by a test, so you don't have people wasting their time there.
3) Strictly limit how much they can charge, so they don't compete over providing runaway bloat.
At the beginning of the semester I have around 35 students in the class. When I pass out the problem set I go around helping students with the problems. They typically get into groups of 3 or 4. Since I have a lot of students I can't waste my time on someone who didn't bother to even watch the lecture. It's not fair to those who did watch the lecture and need help.
I've never encountered a situation in which no one watched the lecture. I don't know what my response would be if that happened.
Teachers come in a variety of talents and have a variety of teaching styles. One thing that colleges do poorly is align a student's learning style with a teacher's teaching style. Is a teacher supposed to be a great motivator? I don't know. I do know that I'm not particularly good in the inspiration department. I'm enthusiastic. I think I'm good at explaining stuff.
Students might not do their homework and engage with the subject for all sorts of reasons apart from apathy. They might have depression, be too stressed out, or have a host of other emotional problems that affect their performance and engagement. They might have taken on too large of a course load, or might not be getting enough sleep because of work they're doing outside of school or be preoccupied in taking care of their family.
I was attempting to only reference apathetic students. They are a subset of the students who don't do the work required of them. What you write is certainly true; particularly at community colleges. However, as I tell my students, for each person it requires x amount of hours (x varies from person to person) to master the material. If you don't have the time, inclination, ability, or are otherwise incapable of devoting x hours to the learning the subject then you won't learn it. Nothing will change this.
If a student can't devote 5 hours a week to a 5 credit course in homework then they likely won't do well. The reason for their inability is somewhat irrelevant in the sense that one needs to put in the effort. If you can't you won't learn the material. Nothing I do can change this fact.
What I can do is to try to make x as small as possible for each person. I try.