Hi Brett I just read your response, but let me speak without forethought...
My initial reaction is that in order to agree with your statement, I must make several assumptions regarding education. First, I must assume that education be defined simply as the transfer/acquisition of knowledge and skills. Second, I must assume that what occurs in the classroom is not necessarily or essential to education. Instead, it is simply a potential aid for those who might need it in order to acquire knowledge. So assuming for the moment that the classroom experience is neither necessary, nor sufficient for the acquisition of knowledge and skills (i.e., education is solely about assessing the possession of knowledge and skills), then I would want to know what the purpose of organized education is. Is it simply a means for certifying people as possessing knowledge? If so, then at the very least, I would want to know that the testing process involves pure measures of knowledge and ability regarding the discipline. Alternatively, if the purpose of organized education is narrowed down to a process of certifying people, then why would anyone bother with certification? Wouldn't it be simpler to simply read and learn at leisure? Why bother with schools at all? Eventually, we could get to the point where people simply apply for jobs without certifications or qualifications, and just see what happens... Just some more late afternoon thoughts... Robert Robert J. Hironimus-Wendt, Ph.D. Sociology and Anthropology Western Illinois University 1 University Circle Macomb, IL 61455-1390 phone: (309) 298-1081 fax: (309) 298-1857 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It doesn't matter how strong your opinions are. If you don't use your power for positive change, you are indeed part of the problem, helping to keep things the way they are." -Coretta Scott King -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Magill Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: TEACHSOC: 6-week absence: Confusing process with learning Why the strong reaction against students who choose not to come to class? I have a few hypotheses that I will withhold. These are college students. They are responsible for their own learning. Why not simply respond, "you may choose to come to class or not, but the standards of evaluation are the same for you as for any other student." If the student can master the material without the benefit of your lectures and participation in the hands-on classroom exercises, then what difference does attendance make? Why make college students jump through hoops? If the student chooses not to attend and fails, that too is their responsibility. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Teaching Sociology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
