These two responses to my posting indicate why I believe it is of overriding importance that the student have enough money (or at least the ability to acquire it in a way that is not offensive to him or her...), so that, if the student does not like the way he or she is being treated by the teacher, he or she can do what America always said was good about the Eastern Europeans, and:
vote with his or her feet.
Of course teachers are entitled to their opinions. But those opinions should not be able to do damage to other persons (at least to other persons who do not have equal power to do damage back to them, e.g., their fellow professors).
Never again. (Yes, I know, that's not going to happen,
but, as they say in Philosophy 101:
Is does not imply ought.)In the real world, probably the best would be for students to unionize, and collectively bargain with the universities, and, until the teachers learned how to treat the students are fully human persons rather than as objects of their asymmetricdal judgment, the students should look on and see how they make theirr salaries without their tuition (Meanwhile, in the University President's Office: "Ted, you did good by us by locking us into military and industrial research -- I have to admit it, I didn't see what was coming, but you did. Even if the students strike forever, we'll make our budget from our corporate and government contracts." "Thank you, sir.")
I can honestly say that I did not expect these responses to my posting. I appreciate your honesty. You have given me material to take seriously.
\brad mccormick
Ray Evans Harrell wrote:
Amen from the heathen corner over here.
REH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Straker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] And now for something completely different: A recently deceased emperor's new clothes
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 as 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
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
