Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!dykimber From: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Student and Course Integrity Keywords: losers, responsibility, 90%, crap, 98% Message-ID: <5074@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Date: 31 Dec 88 23:00:06 GMT References: <4550@homxc.UUCP> <4847@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2082@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> <9237@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <2910@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Reply-To: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) Followup-To: comp.edu Distribution: na Organization: Princeton University, NJ Lines: 86 In article <2910@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lady@uhccux.UUCP (Lee Lady) writes: >I got a teaching evaluation once that was a classic example of the attitude >of a loser. In his (or her?) evaluation, this student referred to a really >dumb error I'd made on the first day of class, and said "I knew then that >the course was going to be worthless, and the rest of the semester proved >me right." But s/he STAYED IN THE COURSE THE WHOLE SEMESTER, even though he'd >already decided on the first day that he wouldn't get anything out of it. >If this example doesn't make what I'm talking about clear, then nothing will. As long as we're talking about classic examples, we might mention that your comment is a classic example of the ignorance of faculty members about what is actually involved in being a student. Yes, this example makes something clear - it makes clear that students are constantly forced to take courses in which they are not the slightest bit interested, to satisfy the whims of some committee, a committee of people with not the slightest understanding of education in any real sense, but with very strong "philosophies" about what should and shouldn't be taught. I'm taking a course right now for no other reason than to satisfy a requirement. I'm not the least bit interested in the material, I haven't learned anything of substance the entire semester, I knew that this was the case beforehand, and I'm sticking with it, at very little cost because it's taught at such a low level that any moron could pass it with little trouble. Now, according to your little bit of moralizing up there, I should probably drop the course, forfeit my chance at graduating on time, and either give up the idea of a degree or ask my parents to put up the extra pile of money it would take to put me through the same situation again next year. Well, if you feel this is a classic example of the attitude of a loser, that's your business, but to some people it's worth it to put out an extremely small amount of effort for what seems like a worthwhile goal. Now I'm not claiming that your little example case was in the same situation, but if you have even the slightest bit of experience with higher education, then you know that the situation is extremely common. If you're going to whine about how students always complain about faculty/administration and vice-versa, then you should at least take a few seconds to think that it's possible that both groups have a reasonable case. >I want to speak a few other harsh truths. To paraphrase Theodore Sturgeon, >90% of what you learn in college is crap. In fact, my guess would be that >98% of the information you are given in college will be of no value to you >after you graduate. Probably you're going to refuse to believe that, but >accept it as a hypothesis for just one day, and through the filter of that >hypothesis think hard about what it is that is really worthwhile about a >college education. You may decide to drop out, or you may find some real >insight into what universities are really about. Either way, it will no >longer be possible for you to continue as a loser. I agree with you, but not your paraphrasing of Sturgeon. Sure, 98% of the information you are given will be of no value. But if you're claiming that the information you are given is even 25% of what you learn in college, then I take exception. College is a lot more than an information pick-up counter, as you seem to be assuming when you compare Sturgeon's 90% "of what you learn" with your 98% "of the information you are given." Who cares about the information? But if you're claiming that the other stuff is mostly crap too, then you're essentially claiming that life in general is crap, and not worth experiencing. Fine for you, leave the rest of us be. >Another harsh truth: Your professors have no idea in the world what is >or is not useful for you to know (except that certain things are necessary >as prerequisite material for subsequent courses). Faculty choose material >for a course on the basis of what is important *to them*. Just because they choose material as they see fit, it doesn't mean they don't realize it's not useful. Some people have good intuitions about what's useful, some have bad. Are you claiming that professors are exempt, that they all have bad intuitions? >Okay, enough! Here I am spitting into the wind again. You're only spitting into the wind because you've decided from the start that everyone else is ten orders of magnitude less intelligent than you are. You start off by writing about how easy you find it to pigeonhole everyone's arguments (an opinion apparently based on a single message). Then you decide to pigeonholde yourself by throwing insults at loser students. And then you write (using as condescending a tone as possible) that you're going to tell everyone a few harsh truths, which they haven't been willing or able to face in the past, but which you are certain will make everyone realize how stupid they have been. Well, here comes the spit, flying back at you. (and I don't claim that this is any higher quality spit, but it seems to be what you wanted) You're not the only intelligent person left in the world. You're not the only person who thinks that people are less likely to complain about themselves. You're not the only one who's ever heard of Sturgeon's law. You're not the first person to think that maybe not all of what people really learn in college comes from the classroom. And you're definitely not the first person on the net to take a few stock arguments, repackage them with an affectation of great wisdom, and post them to the net. -Dan