Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!rutgers!im4u!ut-sally!ut-ngp!mercury From: mercury@ut-ngp.UUCP (Larry E. Baker) Newsgroups: soc.college Subject: Re: (ad infinitum) Accuracy in Academia Message-ID: <4091@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 14:35:35 EDT Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.4091 Posted: Tue Oct 7 14:35:35 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Oct-86 04:08:54 EDT Distribution: na Organization: University of Texas at Austin Lines: 62 [] All this talk about AIA, professors, and the various war stories being used to defend or offend a specific point of view bring to mind an old sunday-morning Doonsbury panel: A teacher is before a class of (what one assumes to be) freshmen, lecturing on some topic, and, as he realizes that *not one* student is thinking about what he's saying, he starts making more and more outrageous claims; eventually, he cries something like "Black is white, red is blue" and thumps his head down on the desk thinking `teaching is dead' as several students comment "Gee, this is great. I never knew any of this before." I don't have the panel handy, and I'm sure it loses a lot in my transcription. The point is that some professors use this technique -- making outrageous claims *hoping* that it will bring back a rebuttal; it excercises the crafts of `debate,' `argument' and `analysis' -- something many of the arguments (and they are indeed arguments) I have seen in this and most other newsgroups are sadly lacking. The idea is to make you *think*, to *analyze for yourself* what he is saying, and to be able to *defend* your point of view with a *valid argument*. How can you form and defend a valid or well-thought-out position on *any* subject without being able to do these things? How can you learn to do thim without practicing? Without being challenged by outrageous counterpoints, and having to re-think and re-defend your position? There's a fine line between propagandizing and teaching in this sense, and it is an unfortunate fact that many professors cannot or will not allow truly dissenting points of view in their classes. I have encountered many people such as these in my (excruciatingly long) college career, and they are among the top ten on my most-despised list. They claim to teach those very ideals I describe above, yet cannot practice them themselves. Or they choose not to. Orginizations like AIA -- or at least, the attitude that causes their formation -- will exist so long as the attitude deplored in the Doonsbury strip exists: the desire to have knowledge, wisdom, et cetera spooned out in a way so as to minimize and avoid that horribly painful excercise, thinking. I distinctly remember a story my step-father told me of one of his experiences at the drop-add table, at a local university where he teaches: A young lady walked up to the table and said, with great force, "I want to drop Dr. Simpson's history course." When the man running the table -- my stepfather, Dr. Simpson -- asked her why, she said, and I quote: "He say we gotta read six books in his class. I ain't takin' no class where I gotta read books." He dropped her without saying another word. The course was German History. Larry -- Larry Baker Net/UUCP: mercury@ut-ngp.{ARPA, UUCP, UTEXAS.EDU} UT Austin ihnp4!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!mercury Computer Science Local: baker@walt.utexas.edu