A short rant about college lit professors

[clem21]

If I am supposed to nod and say "Poor, baby," then don't read the rest of this. If you are as genuinely pissed as you wrote, probably best to skip the rest, also. If you are interested in other opinions, read on. Sometimes here we will get sympathy and sometimes we get called on our childishness. Note I say "our" because it has happened to me also.

Sometimes your rant will invite other rants. Buckle your seat belt.





Is this the novel where the main character has a friend who used to be a prostitute? Might be a sexual theme indeed, if he is attracted to her but can't pursue it.



"It's just a f#cking crazy person killing people and whining to us about how awful it is for him to have to deal with it!"

This is known as an existential theme. It is a big deal. If the instructor did not explain it properly ahead of time, you might not have appreciated the abyss part, and leapt straight to the despair part. Even if she did, this kind of literature is designed to make you uncomfortable. If you aren't squirming, they didn't do their jobs very well.




I wonder was this the class you were in a few days ago when you posted on the board while you were in class and that you were bored? I almost replied to that one, but held back because folks here like you. But here's what I wanted to say: If you are not engaged in the course, do not attend class, and do not post online while you are in class. It is disrespectful to the instructor, the other students, and most of all, to yourself. You are a part of the academic process, and if you cannot or will not own that, you are better off, and so is everyone else, if you do not play at it half-assed. Clearly, some courses or teachers are boring. But that is their presentation. It is up to you to engage with it and make the learning your own.

This is a fair argument but allow me to answer.

Firstly, the essay assigned was about the main character's internal battle and conflict involving his philosophical beliefs. Yes he did befriend a prostitute who later became an integral part of him, but nowhere in the novel can you find him internally ever even referencing sex. I have found in this class time and time again the professor finding promiscuity where I would never have believed it possible.

This is not the class I post in, I need to concentrate in this class. The one I post in is a Political class on Congress which is fairly basic. This is my major and my specialty and to be blunt I could get an A+ in this course without ever showing up. Ah, so why don't I? Because my professor has an attendance policy that will take you down a full grade if you don't. So that is why I come. As for the academic process bit, permit me to politely disagree with you. I don't know when you attended college but in today's classrooms nearly every student is accompanied by a laptop or electronic device of some sort. I could make an educated guess that 80 percent of the class is either texting or surfing the web at any given time. That's just how it is. Is that disrespectful? Perhaps. But no one including myself makes it at all obvious what they are doing despite jokes I may say to the contrary. There is no disturbance involved.

It's all fine and good to say that learning is important and you should pick up every grain you should, and maybe that's ideal. It is also unrealistic. Almost all students, including myself, see college as a means to an end. So I will not waste my time and energy concentrating on some things that I do not need or already know for the sake of learning. And I will take every advantage I can short of cheating, lying or plagiarizing that will get me a better grade. If that means writing a paper that caters exclusively to what I think a professor believes and not what I do then so be it. If that means chatting to the professor after class because I think he or she enjoys it and likes me better because of it then I'll do that too. If you view that as immature I understand. I'm simply telling you the truth and hoping you respect me for it.

Also please note that your response contained constructive criticism and made me think. I respect that and will answer in kind. I will not do the same for what I believe was blatant showing off.

1. Because almost everyone else is doing something does not mean it is most productive

2. College as a means to an end - interesting way to hold your education. An immature way? Very possibly.

3. Experts in any area will not tell you there is no more for them to learn in that area - you might want read about what "the top of their field" do.

4. You have been around long enough to know what you will probably get from BobJuch - get over it.

Okay, I thought I was done but I'm willing to answer:

1. Doing the most productive thing is not always the most enjoyable. Sometimes I like to enjoy myself if it doesn't mean a large loss of productive time (which is, of course, debatable - see #3)

2.Possibly, but you should know that I'm planning on going to law school within two years. If doing some things that you don't approve of now means that I'll get better grades in other courses and get into a better law school and get a better job and support a family more easily, can you really call that immature? I'll sacrifice learning things in a class that provide me no benefit for other things that do. You cannot change my mind on this.

3. I absolutely agree that there is never an end to learning in a particular field. However we're talking about a specific class that is teaching basic legislative process, something you must understand, that I've been doing for three years now. PoliSci classes tend to overlap and I've taken much more advanced classes for which this basic knowledge was required. I've interned with congressman and helped perform these tasks that I'm learning the basics about now. So yes, I'm willing to say that there's really not much more I can learn from this particular class. Why am I taking it? It's required. Period.

4. I know. I was simply sharing my reasoning with Skoop so she would not automatically assume that I was a schizophrenic hothead who loves to curse and yell.

I may be that, but she should be able to figure it out on her own.

[TheConfessor]

Hi, Ellyn. Thanks for your attempt to defuse any unintended hostility. I've always been much more of a conflict avoider than an instigator, so any hard feelings would almost have to be due to a misunderstanding.

Regarding my original post, you really did inspire what I thought was a creative idea in my mind, to develop a new game show where the contestants would start out with the maximum prize, and as the episode played out, the contestants would battle to hang on to as much of the prize as possible. There have been thousands of game show ideas and proposals, all trying for a new twist on a standard format, such as Jeopardy's whimsical concept of providing the answers and requiring contestants to respond with a question. In that vein, it seemed like it might be a potential new twist to create a game show where contestants could never win additional money, but could only lose money from their initial total. I later realized that this has been done successfully before, so it's not really a new idea. For example, on Weakest Link, each contestant starts out with at least the potential to win a million dollars. If each round is played perfectly, that potential remains. If the contestants screw up, then their potential payout diminishes with each round. To some extent, Deal Or No Deal has that element, where the maximum prize starts at a million dollars, but the contestants' choices usually lower that amount as the show progresses. There are probably other game shows that followed that principle, and some people here might remember them better than I do. I was brainstorming as I posted, and I hoped that others might add their ideas. (My thought about contestants who might be too lazy to get to the studio really wouldn't work for a traditional game show. That would be more appropriate on a reality show like The Real World, where the kids might stay out drinking late and be too hung over to do anything the next day. So that would be a whole different development pitch.)

You are correct that I have a special interest in pointing out errors on the WWTBAM Bored. After all, that's what brought me here many years ago. If I thought the show was always right and shouldn't be questioned, no one here would know me and we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Trust me, I would have much preferred to win without the controversy, but I played the hand that I was dealt and tried to make the best of it. Things eventually worked out for me, but I'd like to prevent any other contestants from having to go through that same experience. So I point out erroneous, ambiguous, or poorly worded questions whenever I notice them, and I enjoy reading the discussions when others do the same. I never asked for this role, but I have been contacted many times by contestants who think they got a bad question on the show. Sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I don't, but I always try to provide whatever helpful advice and guidance I can.

Since you got angry when you thought I was attacking you and your grading philosophy, I'll give you my perspective on that. As a graduate student in the 1970s, I taught some college courses. Overall, I thought I was a pretty easy grader, and I tried to give the students the benefit of the doubt. I think most of my Fluid Mechanics students got an A, which was based more on lab reports than on tests. In my Thermodynamics and Statics & Dynamics classes, the grades were probably more like a normal distribution, with the median close to a B. Back then, those were considered pretty good grades, but I'm guessing there may have been some grade inflation in the ensuing decades. So you and I are not that far apart in grading philosophy. However, I will admit to giving one student a grade that he really did not earn. It was an ethical dilemma for me at the time, with no 100% pure correct option. I had one student in a night course who wasn't keeping up with the assignments, wasn't attending consistently, and did very poorly on exams. By any objective standard, he was almost certain to get an F in the class. One night he stayed around after class and told me about his circumstances. He was a military veteran who was taking the class under the G.I. Bill, which apparently paid for tuition and books, plus some amount of living allowance. He had a job and was trying to support a wife and kids, but was barely getting by. His main reason for enrolling in the class was to get that extra cash each month for being in school. He soon realized that he was in over his head, not having the time or educational background needed to pass the course. However, if he failed the course, the government wouldn't pay for it, and he would have to return any payments he had received (and already spent). So he apologized profusely and was close to tears, but begged me to give him a D for the class, which would be good enough to keep his government payments. It may have been a scam, but he seemed sincere and I chose to believe him. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. He promised not to enroll in any more classes until he could give it an honest effort. I don't know what ever happened to him after that, but he got his D. So I may have saved a family by defrauding the government. I still think I did the right thing. I hope so. In any case, I've given and received enough grades to know that they are a complicated issue.

By the way, your aversion to sarcasm seems admirable but a bit idealistic, since it is inherent in the way most people communicate. How speech or writing is perceived often depends on whether one agrees with it or not. For example, I thought Sarah Palin's speech at the convention was so dripping in sarcasm that I couldn't take her seriously, but for her many admirers, the same words were what made her so appealing. One person's perceived sarcasm is another person's perceived ironic humorous insight. Since you are someone who obviously thinks a lot about such things, I think you might enjoy reading this long article from today's New York Times about the positive role that teasing, sarcasm and similar types of interaction have in facilitating human relationships and group dynamics. I don't know if all of the author's social theories are valid, but when I read it, it seemed that almost every paragraph could be illustrated by some of the familiar dynamics on The Bored.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/magaz ... ing-t.html

Peace and love to all this holiday season.

[Bob78164]

I hope this philosophy will spread to game shows. Everyone would start with a million dollars, and the amount would be reduced only for those too lazy to show up at the studio.

Game shows are competitions. Learning is not a competition, at least not the part I am participating in.

You could have said my method is inferior any number of other ways. This is why I am so opposed to sarcasm. It establishes your superiority in what is ostensibly a clever way. It is cheap and chickenshit.

I'm glad TheConfessor has posted. He confirmed what I surmised -- that he intended his post seriously (albeit somewhat tongue-in-cheek). That was certainly how I read it, though after 'Skoop's post, I could certainly see how it could be understood as sarcasm.

Of course, I've met TheConfessor in person and I'm not sure that 'Skoop has. I always find it easier to tease out the intended meaning from the writing of people I've met in person. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

I hope this philosophy will spread to game shows. Everyone would start with a million dollars, and the amount would be reduced only for those too lazy to show up at the studio.

Game shows are competitions. Learning is not a competition, at least not the part I am participating in.

You could have said my method is inferior any number of other ways. This is why I am so opposed to sarcasm. It establishes your superiority in what is ostensibly a clever way. It is cheap and chickenshit.

I'm glad TheConfessor has posted. He confirmed what I surmised -- that he intended his post seriously (albeit somewhat tongue-in-cheek). That was certainly how I read it, though after 'Skoop's post, I could certainly see how it could be understood as sarcasm.

Of course, I've met TheConfessor in person and I'm not sure that 'Skoop has. I always find it easier to tease out the intended meaning from the writing of people I've met in person. --Bob

I've met all three of you and can't come close to understanding any of you.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Game shows are competitions. Learning is not a competition, at least not the part I am participating in.

You could have said my method is inferior any number of other ways. This is why I am so opposed to sarcasm. It establishes your superiority in what is ostensibly a clever way. It is cheap and chickenshit.

I'm glad TheConfessor has posted. He confirmed what I surmised -- that he intended his post seriously (albeit somewhat tongue-in-cheek). That was certainly how I read it, though after 'Skoop's post, I could certainly see how it could be understood as sarcasm.

Of course, I've met TheConfessor in person and I'm not sure that 'Skoop has. I always find it easier to tease out the intended meaning from the writing of people I've met in person. --Bob

I've met all three of you and can't come close to understanding any of you.

DK? I believe there is a straight line in there somewhere.

[BigDrawMan]

I had to read C&P in high school.We dint explore anything sexual.Dint whatshisname kill an old woman with a knife?That is pretty sexual.
That book hung over me like an acrid haze for months.

[christie1111]

I had to read C&P in high school.We dint explore anything sexual.Dint whatshisname kill an old woman with a knife?That is pretty sexual.
That book hung over me like an acrid haze for months.

Are you sure it was the book?

[peacock2121]

I had to read C&P in high school.We dint explore anything sexual.Dint whatshisname kill an old woman with a knife?That is pretty sexual.
That book hung over me like an acrid haze for months.

Are you sure it was the book?

zing!