Friday,
January 23, 2009 at 1:53am
I
think the most disagreeable part of college is the range in caliber
of teachers you can either enjoy immensely or loathe indefinitely.
Take my Business G300 class. This guy is just another business major
who, by way of pressure from his foreign parents, decided to focus on
managerial economics. He doesn't necessarily need to know anything
more about teaching than what you can read from the book. He isn't
worried about how fast he talks or what he takes for granted as the
previous amount of knowledge the class has. He doesn't realize that
while you can get the bulk of what he's saying, when you so horribly
pronounce a word that you've basically just translated it into your
foreign tongue, it only serves to distract and confuse, which trumps
the smirk you may want to crack. I keep finding examples of people
who are, by all accounts "smart" in the field they are so
affluently projecting, but don't even realize there is something to
be said about the method in which something is taught. This I believe
is true regardless of the subject or nature of the work.
It's one thing to give some equation, which in truth you can understand isn't that hard or confusing, but easy to mess up if you haven't seen it previously. One can always go into the book or even google something that fundamental if you miss a term or something. It's quite another when you hurriedly scribble the equation on the board, pointing to this and that, filling in terms seemingly pulled from nowhere, solving it, replacing values and making arbitrary erases and re-done scribbles, then posing the token question "any questions." All the while reminding us that you got your degree in Turkey. This might come as a shock to some of you, but I don't think myself too retarded of a person. So explain to me why I'm taking a class that would almost assuredly make more sense to me if I had Mr. Bowman teaching me? I don't care that he'd cost more and would want a handy in the bathroom, I just want a B and to get the hell out of this place.
Despite the previous teacher, I also have accounting, which is basically a class I never want to end. The teacher keeps things interesting by alluding to personal stories and tying them into what's on the agenda for the day. Everything is broken down to it's fundamental component before it's used in an example or further story. He even contributes numerous stick figures who live these exciting money grubbing lives on this chalkboard turned canvas. I simply wonder why more teachers can't be like that. It makes more sense to me why home schooled kids are generally smarter. They learn something, then move on. They get to do it in the comfort of their own homes and usually with the enthusiasm of the parent who's taken on the task. Here, we're forced into their schedule, their teaching "styles," and their abhorrently expensive books which have the wondrous caveat coin toss on whether they'll get bought back or not.
What still kills me, and has absolutely been confusing to me since I first started, is the logic behind assigning twenty or thirty pages of reading, saying "you'll be responsible for that" and then quizzing us on the information weeks later. First, maybe this is a key skill I lack, but the second I read something it isn't as if I just download it and store it to be recalled when test time comes around. Second, if your going to make us read it, and then not discuss 80% of it in class, it's who's guess as to what is more important or relevant when the questions roll in. Third, most of the time the assigned reading isn't from a Harry Potter book, meaning, it's foreign material, admittedly hard to understand, or almost incapable of being appreciated without the foreknowledge of how and why your suppose to read something some way. That said, the 30 pages I had to read and take notes on in law, aside from definitional things, I'm not going to have the remotest idea how to deconstruct some case when every other word is legal jargon. And yes, I go back and read, re-read, re-re-read, slowly try to interpret, and still take notes.
The problem isn't that I won't spend hours on something if it's relevant, interesting, and required(shudders), the problem is with the system and teachers that aren't designed or trained on the best methods for getting information encoded within the students. It's some kind of sick irony when my law professor can joke about students who've taken his class, and then worked as his tempts or assistants, who've said "huh, I never remember talking about any of that." This followed by a chuckle from both him and the class. If your not going to remember it, if the person teaching you can laugh at the idea that you didn't retain what THEY "taught," what the hell does that say about all the "learning" going on?
The only other class I have that could possibly be described as "hard" is philosophy of mind. This too has it's problems. I like philosophy, I like the idea of it, most of what I've read of it, and want to know more. What I don't want to do is try and decipher old English and mash it with some conjured, heavily misunderstood notion of what I take the text to be. Why don't I want to do this? Because it's been done, over and again, in many languages, and every question we have about the text, someone has a page devoted to it either online or in another book. It's great to hear about different schools of thought, and the reason some philosopher you at first took be almost too stupid despite his brilliance, now seen in a different light. I think it's utterly frivolous to struggle through and confuse yourself when the answers are already out there. Another tragic irony, my independent study of philosophy brought me to some of the highest points in my life, while my academic pursuit of it makes me want to kill myself.
In truth, I think the teachers, students, questions, and answers should be transparent. Give me the final the first day of class. Tell me the entire paragraphs that will be wholly ignored this semester. Put me on a web cam if you have to to prove that I'm actually doing the work because at that point I would feel inclined to work knowing exactly what it is I'm working towards. They incessantly tell you they want the information to be relevant to you, they want you to be able to use it in the future, it will be helpful for jobs, etc, but at the end of the day, all anybody cares about is passing the tests. I'd say it's a foregone conclusion that you don't really need to have learned anything to merely pass a test. I think you shouldn't be allowed to have a school where one semester I'm taking a class in which the final is made up of previous identical test questions, which were made from quizzes, of which we were shown the answers next class, then onto business law where a mere quiz could be a random sampling of the panoply of information taken in from the reading and lecture.
I don't believe most people that excel in life have that downloadable information memory either. I think they simply know how to find information, implement their ideas, rinse and repeat. I think they know so many people that they are automatically best suited to make better decisions because of those contacts. Things get done, experienced and not just learned, because they are devoted to and excited about the people and subject they're dealing with. If this is all just "practice for the real world" why are pretending like we won't have the resources to get the job done? Why aren't we practicing all the social aspects of a business that can potentially make or break it? Why play like we'll be alone in some field with a book and given an hour to solve some company's salary crisis? Yes, you need a certain amount of knowledge to be in charge of anything, and yes you need specified and refined knowledge in areas to do even remotely well or handle unforeseen problems. You get these skills by practice, not memorization and tests. You learn from people who've took the time to learn how to teach to you instead of taking for granted the whole class is on the same page. Your shown the actual results and how they pertain to your life in particular. I'm going to overwhelmingly prove my theory is correct with Mystik.
It's one thing to give some equation, which in truth you can understand isn't that hard or confusing, but easy to mess up if you haven't seen it previously. One can always go into the book or even google something that fundamental if you miss a term or something. It's quite another when you hurriedly scribble the equation on the board, pointing to this and that, filling in terms seemingly pulled from nowhere, solving it, replacing values and making arbitrary erases and re-done scribbles, then posing the token question "any questions." All the while reminding us that you got your degree in Turkey. This might come as a shock to some of you, but I don't think myself too retarded of a person. So explain to me why I'm taking a class that would almost assuredly make more sense to me if I had Mr. Bowman teaching me? I don't care that he'd cost more and would want a handy in the bathroom, I just want a B and to get the hell out of this place.
Despite the previous teacher, I also have accounting, which is basically a class I never want to end. The teacher keeps things interesting by alluding to personal stories and tying them into what's on the agenda for the day. Everything is broken down to it's fundamental component before it's used in an example or further story. He even contributes numerous stick figures who live these exciting money grubbing lives on this chalkboard turned canvas. I simply wonder why more teachers can't be like that. It makes more sense to me why home schooled kids are generally smarter. They learn something, then move on. They get to do it in the comfort of their own homes and usually with the enthusiasm of the parent who's taken on the task. Here, we're forced into their schedule, their teaching "styles," and their abhorrently expensive books which have the wondrous caveat coin toss on whether they'll get bought back or not.
What still kills me, and has absolutely been confusing to me since I first started, is the logic behind assigning twenty or thirty pages of reading, saying "you'll be responsible for that" and then quizzing us on the information weeks later. First, maybe this is a key skill I lack, but the second I read something it isn't as if I just download it and store it to be recalled when test time comes around. Second, if your going to make us read it, and then not discuss 80% of it in class, it's who's guess as to what is more important or relevant when the questions roll in. Third, most of the time the assigned reading isn't from a Harry Potter book, meaning, it's foreign material, admittedly hard to understand, or almost incapable of being appreciated without the foreknowledge of how and why your suppose to read something some way. That said, the 30 pages I had to read and take notes on in law, aside from definitional things, I'm not going to have the remotest idea how to deconstruct some case when every other word is legal jargon. And yes, I go back and read, re-read, re-re-read, slowly try to interpret, and still take notes.
The problem isn't that I won't spend hours on something if it's relevant, interesting, and required(shudders), the problem is with the system and teachers that aren't designed or trained on the best methods for getting information encoded within the students. It's some kind of sick irony when my law professor can joke about students who've taken his class, and then worked as his tempts or assistants, who've said "huh, I never remember talking about any of that." This followed by a chuckle from both him and the class. If your not going to remember it, if the person teaching you can laugh at the idea that you didn't retain what THEY "taught," what the hell does that say about all the "learning" going on?
The only other class I have that could possibly be described as "hard" is philosophy of mind. This too has it's problems. I like philosophy, I like the idea of it, most of what I've read of it, and want to know more. What I don't want to do is try and decipher old English and mash it with some conjured, heavily misunderstood notion of what I take the text to be. Why don't I want to do this? Because it's been done, over and again, in many languages, and every question we have about the text, someone has a page devoted to it either online or in another book. It's great to hear about different schools of thought, and the reason some philosopher you at first took be almost too stupid despite his brilliance, now seen in a different light. I think it's utterly frivolous to struggle through and confuse yourself when the answers are already out there. Another tragic irony, my independent study of philosophy brought me to some of the highest points in my life, while my academic pursuit of it makes me want to kill myself.
In truth, I think the teachers, students, questions, and answers should be transparent. Give me the final the first day of class. Tell me the entire paragraphs that will be wholly ignored this semester. Put me on a web cam if you have to to prove that I'm actually doing the work because at that point I would feel inclined to work knowing exactly what it is I'm working towards. They incessantly tell you they want the information to be relevant to you, they want you to be able to use it in the future, it will be helpful for jobs, etc, but at the end of the day, all anybody cares about is passing the tests. I'd say it's a foregone conclusion that you don't really need to have learned anything to merely pass a test. I think you shouldn't be allowed to have a school where one semester I'm taking a class in which the final is made up of previous identical test questions, which were made from quizzes, of which we were shown the answers next class, then onto business law where a mere quiz could be a random sampling of the panoply of information taken in from the reading and lecture.
I don't believe most people that excel in life have that downloadable information memory either. I think they simply know how to find information, implement their ideas, rinse and repeat. I think they know so many people that they are automatically best suited to make better decisions because of those contacts. Things get done, experienced and not just learned, because they are devoted to and excited about the people and subject they're dealing with. If this is all just "practice for the real world" why are pretending like we won't have the resources to get the job done? Why aren't we practicing all the social aspects of a business that can potentially make or break it? Why play like we'll be alone in some field with a book and given an hour to solve some company's salary crisis? Yes, you need a certain amount of knowledge to be in charge of anything, and yes you need specified and refined knowledge in areas to do even remotely well or handle unforeseen problems. You get these skills by practice, not memorization and tests. You learn from people who've took the time to learn how to teach to you instead of taking for granted the whole class is on the same page. Your shown the actual results and how they pertain to your life in particular. I'm going to overwhelmingly prove my theory is correct with Mystik.
David
M.L. Jaffe
at 9:35am January 23
You
have Schrimper, don't you? Dude's fucking sweet. And it's probably
the only business class I'll ever find entertaining and informative
at the same time. Sigh...
