Brad: > I had a sort of similar instance. I had a philosophy > teacher who thought I was "puerile". On one assignment -- > the only time I ever tried such a think in > my whole schooling --, I wrote a paper which > I did not believe in at all, but which I thought > the teacher would like. The grad asst gave me a 96. > The teacher, Sterling Professor of Philosophy Paul Weiss, > scratched out the 96 and replaced it with a 97. > > No, I think what was going on with Alexander is that > the teacher didn't have a clue as to what anything > meant, but he was adept at playing the game that had > got him his Professorship. So he could not tell > a serious spoof (not some fraternity prank!) from > something real. To borrow LeCorbusier's words, > he had eyes but saw not and ears but did not hear.
As one who has carefully evaluated a gazillion undergraduate essays, I ask: Why do you suppose a paper can't be any good unless you "believe in it"? It seems to me more likely that the stuff you really believed in at the time WAS puerile, whereas the paper you thought Paul Weiss would like was judged to be very good because Weiss (and his grad student) had a good idea of what decent philosophical writing looked like ... As did you, obviously, except you didn't believe in it. This seems a more likely account of what happened than your account which requires the grad student to be a chump and Paul Weiss a lazy pandering jerk. Stephen Straker Vancouver, B.C. _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
