Important notice from the GRAMMAR POLICE. Plz read. This means you.

[teebs]

So, the problem of immature speshul snowflakes who are unprepared for college is to be shouldered entirely by the professors?

This is a ridiculous question and hardly worthy of a response. I think it should be obvious from my previous posts that I believe the rearing of children is the responsibility of the parent(s). The root of the entire problem is that parents are more concerned with their own wants and needs, and how supposedly " happy" their children are than to recognize that their main role is not to make sure their children are happy, but to ensure that they mature into quality human beings, i.e. free-thinking individuals with a bit of consideration for and politeness toward others thrown in.

The role of the professor is to educate within their field of expertise. Period.

Despite what you want to argue about their relative maturity, the fact is that college students, in the VAST majority, are legally considered to be adults. Professors are bound by legislation like FOIP or FOIA (depending on the country), which means they have to treat students as adults and their relationship with students is not like that of a school teacher and a pupil.

Thank you for pointing out the completely obvious. Wow... just wow.

Professors are there to teach, not to hand-hold and offer pastoral care. Even if I care deeply about a student (okay, stop laughing all you guys who know how mean I am), it's not appropriate for me to leap in and hand hold. My job is to present the material, to challenge students to think about it and to get them to meet specific learning and technical standards.

Did you actually read anything I previously wrote?

Your idea that stupid jerks who just barely manage to grind out a PhD (omg I can hardly type that without laughing) can get jobs in the current climate is absolutely hilarious.

First, if you actually believe that there aren't fucktards out there that manage to attain a PhD, you're as pig-ignorant as they are. Second, do you honestly think that every school produces the same quality doctorate, or that all of them care about said quality? Silly.

Let me guess, all those professors with whom you built strong relationships gave you the grades you thought you deserved, but the ones who are stupid, and can only teach because they can't do, those ones were particularly thick-headed with regard to recognizing your brilliance.

O' Great Karnak, try again. Everyone recognizes my brilliance. The lowest grade I ever received on anything was ninety-two percent. In fact, that seems to be my magic, non-effort-making test score. My IQ is a documented 162, I was awarded a lifetime membership to the local MENSA chapter, I make an uber-delicious Jameson-based barbecue sauce, and write a mean haiku.

You cannot bait me
I rule, you drool, sugarlips...
but you keep trying

What are they?

The Children of the Damned.

[kewian]

You are still a sheep and a noob. Therefore, you lose.

[teebs]

You are still a sheep and a noob. Therefore, you lose.

Oooooh, your dazzling retort stings. It's like a paper cut, even...

[rohina]

teebs, if your IQ is 162 that puts you in the upper third of MATYzens. Just. And that's only because we have all the barely literate turds in the bottom third to even us out. Mensa membership doesn't even get you considered for a post in the Grammar Police, so good try waving your academic dick, but it is just a little tiddler.

I did read what you wrote, and for me it sounded just like every other undergrad who was doing okay and so assumed he or she knew everything there was to know about academia and being a prof.

I am quite sure there are a few crackpots, cheaters, users and sluts (who sleep with their profs) getting PhDs, but the proportion of actual morons doing so is going to be fairly small. Why? Because actual morons would have trouble writing a dissertation that gets passed by outside examiners. You conveniently glossed over my main point, though, which was that a moron with a PhD, even assuming such an animal exists, is highly unlikely to get a job in the current climate. Because actual bright competent people can't even manage that, a lot of the time. You only have to read the Chronicle of Higher Education or RYS for a couple days to figure that out.

You say "the role of the professor is to educate within their [sic] field of expertise. Period." Which statement you make apparently in an effort to go "case closed, so there," but in order TO educate within my field of expertise, I have to teach a bunch of skills like critical thinking, and analysis. If I don't teach students what to do with the material, how can I teach the material? If I don't give my students an understanding of feminism, how can they read Virginia Woolf? If I don't help them come to grips with modernism and colonialism, how can they read Heart of Darkness?

It's the same in nearly every discipline. There are theories and ideas underlying areas of study that may not be apparent to the average undergrad, and it is the professor's job to at least introduce students to these ideas. Good profs will challenge students' assumptions and make them think rather than spoonfeeding the material needed for the exam.

[Kyna]

The role of the professor is to educate within their field of expertise. Period.

That is a very limiting view of the role of the professor.

I live in a city where there are 3 universities.  The city itself is quite small, so the universities compete quite aggressively each year to attract the interest of students and their parents.  All three of the universities run very similar advertising campaigns - they all advertise that they teach critical thinking and that their graduates are expert problem solvers with employable, transferable skills.

Professors aren't just teaching the subject matter (which is their field of expertise), they're also teaching how to analyse the material, as employers are far more interested in whether a graduate has analytical skills than on whether the graduate is an expert in a very narrow field, such as a thesis on outliers in data mining.

[teebs]

teebs, if your IQ is 162 that puts you in the upper third of MATYzens. Just. And that's only because we have all the barely literate turds in the bottom third to even us out. Mensa membership doesn't even get you considered for a post in the Grammar Police, so good try waving your academic dick, but it is just a little tiddler.

Out of the approximate 6500 members who post, there are over 2150 MATYans who fall into the top 99.99% intellectually? That is quite an achievement. Of course when I said "documented IQ" I didn't mean they received an email from free-iqtest.net.

I am well aware that I am not the most brilliant of the brilliant. I lost a chess match to a nine year old; rather than anger I experienced only awe and joy at witnessing a game played so masterfully. I have no ego to bruise. Try again.

I am quite sure there are a few crackpots, cheaters, users and sluts (who sleep with their profs) getting PhDs, but the proportion of actual morons doing so is going to be fairly small. Why? Because actual morons would have trouble writing a dissertation that gets passed by outside examiners. You conveniently glossed over my main point, though, which was that a moron with a PhD, even assuming such an animal exists, is highly unlikely to get a job in the current climate. Because actual bright competent people can't even manage that, a lot of the time. You only have to read the Chronicle of Higher Education or RYS for a couple days to figure that out.

I didn't gloss over anything. You may be right on that point, and as I already stated;

This isn't to say I believe that of all professors. In fact, I don't believe it to be the case with the majority, based on my own experience.

It doesn't change the fact that there are already morons with PhD's teaching in universities.

You say "the role of the professor is to educate within their [sic] field of expertise. Period." Which statement you make apparently in an effort to go "case closed, so there," but in order TO educate within my field of expertise, I have to teach a bunch of skills like critical thinking, and analysis. If I don't teach students what to do with the material, how can I teach the material? If I don't give my students an understanding of feminism, how can they read Virginia Woolf? If I don't help them come to grips with modernism and colonialism, how can they read Heart of Darkness?

Since critical thinking and analysis, as well as a working knowledge of modernism and colonialism were very likely required for you to attain your degree, wouldn't you say that falls under the purview of your field of expertise? Does this mean you are competent to teach colonial history or critical analysis of modernist art? Further, does it make you an expert on sociopolitical topics? Perhaps you are competent to teach these subjects, but if that is the case, I would argue that it is due to your intellect rather than your degree.

It's the same in nearly every discipline. There are theories and ideas underlying areas of study that may not be apparent to the average undergrad, and it is the professor's job to at least introduce students to these ideas. Good profs will challenge students' assumptions and make them think rather than spoonfeeding the material needed for the exam.

Again I would argue that the underlying theory and idea falls under the scope of the discipline. I agree that good professors should challenge their student's assumptions and make them think, but making them analyze the subject from all sides, whether it parallels one's own beliefs or not, is just as important. It is not the responsibility of the professor to develop a curriculum that insinuates his or her own belief system into the minds of a captive audience.

By the way, I really have no interest in joining the "Grammar Police." It takes up far too much of your time. 9266 posts in not quite four years. You've averaged nearly 7 posts EVERY DAY in that time. Thanks, but I have this thing called a "life" and I prefer to spend my days doing real life "stuff". In a month or so, I'm going to a place called "outside" and because it's a really big place, I'm going to drive my motorcycle all over it for about three months, or maybe six. I haven't decided just how long yet.

While I'm sure that logging on here and posting every single day for four years is not a signifier of a boring and tedious life, I am quite sure my need to do "stuff" and go "outside" in "real life" would seriously impede my performance as an "Officer of Grammatical Rules and Enforcement". So, as devastating as it is to discover that I am too stupid to qualify for such a sought after and vaunted position, I suppose I can and will carry on. It may require sandy beaches, a couple of bikini-clad tarts and a buttload (no, literally a buttload) of tequila, but I'm firm in my position that I will survive...

Professors aren't just teaching the subject matter (which is their field of expertise), they're also teaching how to analyse the material, as employers are far more interested in whether a graduate has analytical skills than on whether the graduate is an expert in a very narrow field, such as a thesis on outliers in data mining.

Point taken Kyna and hopefully addressed above.

[Salomon]

I am well aware that I am not the most brilliant of the brilliant. I lost a chess match to a nine year old; rather than anger I experienced only awe and joy at witnessing a game played so masterfully. I have no ego to bruise. Try again.

I don't get this part, in chess strength is very well defined, and kids can get more easily to a decent level than adults, so, even if you were the most brilliant of the brilliant, an averagely trained 9 6 years old  is going to beat you at your first game, and probably continuously until you get more experience.

Chess ability is not necessarily tied to brilliancy either, see Alan Turing, a genius that developed the first computer algorithm, and hypothetical computation engines (now known as Turing Machines)* and first chess playing algorithm, yet he was really awful at chess.

*Part in italic copy-pasted.

[professorbutters]

Thanks, but I have this thing called a "life"

It's been my experience that when a person new to MATY posts something like this, they almost inevitably turn out to be a tard, probably because anyone who has the time to brag on an online forum about how they have a life does not really have a life. 

One person's balance and showing all sides of an issue is another person's "indoctrination."  This is why there is such strict protection for academic freedom on campus.  I am especially careful not to use my position as a bully pulpit.  I teach in a state school and generally I'm careful not even to reveal my religious or political affiliations.  But even teaching Renaissance literature, I'm bound to step on some toes.  Some people do not want to be exposed to readings in which any homoerotic desire is even possible:  in their view, Antonio suffers all the stuff he does for Bassanio because they are just Real Good Pals. You wouldn't think you could get into trouble by explaining about double predestination, but I've had students (in the nicest possible way) say to me that they were SURE Christians couldn't have believed anything like that in the sixteenth century because THEY were Christians and THEY didn't believe that.  (I pointed them, also in the nicest possible way, towards John Calvin.)

I am sure an angry student could transform that into my pushing a radical anti-Christian homosexual agenda on my students.  There are morons in all walks of life. And some of them run FrontPage.

[teebs]

I don't get this part, in chess strength is very well defined, and kids can get more easily to a decent level than adults, so, even if you were the most brilliant of the brilliant, an averagely trained 9 6 years old  is going to beat you at your first game, and probably continuously until you get more experience.

Chess ability is not necessarily tied to brilliancy either, see Alan Turing, a genius that developed the first computer algorithm, and hypothetical computation engines (now known as Turing Machines)* and first chess playing algorithm, yet he was really awful at chess.

*Part in italic copy-pasted.

I'm rather good at chess. He was far superior. We were not playing in an organized event and had no prior knowledge of one another as players. He is the son of a friend. We have played a number of times and I can count on one hand the times I've won. This is not really the salient point.

Many adults (particularly those with much higher than average IQs) find it difficult to have their intellect put into question by anyone, much less a child. While I admit a certain level of arrogance and therefore felt somewhat humbled, it was a most enjoyable surprise. One can question my intelligence all one wants. I am completely comfortable with who I am.

I disagree with your second statement. While there are types of brilliance not suited to chess, brilliance of some sort is required. Alan Turing was a genius, but in what context? Chess is far more than computation. Among other things chess requires strong spacial ability, planning and efficiency and an ability to quickly and accurately gauge one's opponent. Further, it takes years of commitment to achieve any sort of expertise at chess. It may take a combination of qualities to become a great player, but intellectual brilliance most certainly plays a part.

I'll readily admit that I know little beyond the basics about Alan Turing. Was he a dedicated chess player? Was he a spacial thinker?

Thank you, Basura, as well as everyone else for the stimulating discourse.

[rohina]

teebs, you are hilarious. You have posted more than 7 times today. Does this mean you, too, have no life?

[DrNerd]

teebs, you are hilarious. You have posted more than 7 times today. Does this mean you, too, have no life?

Dammit, rohina, stop trying to indoctrinate the noob to your no-life-having ways.

[teebs]

It's been my experience that when a person new to MATY posts something like this, they almost inevitably turn out to be a tard, probably because anyone who has the time to brag on an online forum about how they have a life does not really have a life.

My ten posts definitely suggest that I spend all of my time online.

One person's balance and showing all sides of an issue is another person's "indoctrination."  This is why there is such strict protection for academic freedom on campus.  I am especially careful not to use my position as a bully pulpit.  I teach in a state school and generally I'm careful not even to reveal my religious or political affiliations.  But even teaching Renaissance literature, I'm bound to step on some toes.  Some people do not want to be exposed to readings in which any homoerotic desire is even possible:  in their view, Antonio suffers all the stuff he does for Bassanio because they are just Real Good Pals. You wouldn't think you could get into trouble by explaining about double predestination, but I've had students (in the nicest possible way) say to me that they were SURE Christians couldn't have believed anything like that in the sixteenth century because THEY were Christians and THEY didn't believe that.  (I pointed them, also in the nicest possible way, towards John Calvin.)

Wait, wait, wait... they weren't just really good pals?

I applaud your efforts. From this and prior posts you seem to be an educated and articulate human being and very likely an excellent teacher. Can you deny that some professors do use their positions as bully pulpits? As to the first sentence of the above quote, to some extent that is true, but there is a limit. I've experienced first hand a tenured professor using her position to further her own sociopolitical agenda. I found it incredibly disturbing to watch her attempt to manipulate her students while the younger ones never batted an eye. Again, I realize professors like her are the exception and not the rule, and though I may not have articulated this fact, I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who dedicates themselves to teaching.

I am sure an angry student could transform that into my pushing a radical anti-Christian homosexual agenda on my students.  There are morons in all walks of life. And some of them run FrontPage.

What does Malaysian television programming have to do with the anything?

teebs, you are hilarious. You have posted more than 7 times today. Does this mean you, too, have no life?

Absolutely. At this very moment I'm in my tighty-whiteys, eating butter pecan frosting straight from the container and listening to Michael Bolton singing "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes". I epic fail.

[lemmiwinks]

I may wish to join this "blue-collar elitist" cult. Where might I find more information about it?

[DrNerd]

I may wish to join this "blue-collar elitist" cult. Where might I find more information about it?

Get in your car, drive away from civilization, and look for a bar with peeling paint and a neon Budweiser logo in the front window.  There will be rusty pickup trucks outside, and at least one of them will have a dog tied up with baling twine in the bed.  There will be guns in the rear window, and probably at least one Confederate flag visible.  When you walk in the bar, it will smell like stale smoke, and there will be a spittoon somewhere.  The jukebox only plays country music.  Everything will be sticky.  The bartender is surly, and your beverage choices will be Budweiser, Miller, PBR, Busch, Jim Beam, and Jack Daniel's.  When you have found a place that meets these requirements, you will have found the blue-collar elitist cult.

[rohina]

I applaud your efforts. From this and prior posts you seem to be an educated and articulate human being and very likely an excellent teacher. Can you deny that some professors do use their positions as bully pulpits? As to the first sentence of the above quote, to some extent that is true, but there is a limit. I've experienced first hand a tenured professor using her position to further her own sociopolitical agenda. I found it incredibly disturbing to watch her attempt to manipulate her students while the younger ones never batted an eye. Again, I realize professors like her are the exception and not the rule, and though I may not have articulated this fact, I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who dedicates themselves to teaching.

I knew this was a case of individual butthurt. I bet she was an evil feminist, too, right?

@prof buttsecks: I once had a student write a paper about how, since people thought Shakespeare's sonnets were written to a male, it must have been his son, and so it was platonic, filial love.

[MuertoElBarto]

I may wish to join this "blue-collar elitist" cult. Where might I find more information about it?

Or you could save youself the trip, and pick up an AutoTrader (there's a meeting posted in the classifieds).

I knew this was a case of individual butthurt. I bet she was an evil feminist, too, right?

Is there any other kind?

BTW, you've reached your 7-post limit for the day, Rohina.  Know when to say when, and all that.

[teebs]

Dammit, rohina, stop trying to indoctrinate the noob to your no-life-having ways.

I'm a nuuuuuuuube.

How do you kill that which has no life?

lemmiwinks, we're currently holding tent revivals at all major truck stops along I80, Piggly Wiggly food stores, and John Deere dealerships. You can also join up in our special prayer meeting this SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY at Hagerstown Speedway, in Hagerstown MD. Don't forget to catch GRAVE DIGGER and the gargantuan destroyer from prehistory: ROBOSAURUS!!!

I'll pm you with the pertinent information.

rohina, keep on trying. I have no problems at all with feminism. In fact I like all kinds of people: feminists, homosexuals, lesbians, rednecks, crackers, politicians, truck drivers, people of all races and political and social backgrounds. Then, I even manage to find tolerance for insufferable prigs.

[kiki]

I applaud your efforts. From this and prior posts you seem to be an educated and articulate human being and very likely an excellent teacher. Can you deny that some professors do use their positions as bully pulpits? As to the first sentence of the above quote, to some extent that is true, but there is a limit. I've experienced first hand a tenured professor using her position to further her own sociopolitical agenda. I found it incredibly disturbing to watch her attempt to manipulate her students while the younger ones never batted an eye. Again, I realize professors like her are the exception and not the rule, and though I may not have articulated this fact, I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who dedicates themselves to teaching.

I knew this was a case of individual butthurt. I bet she was an evil feminist, too, right?

@prof buttsecks: I once had a student write a paper about how, since people thought Shakespeare's sonnets were written to a male, it must have been his son, and so it was platonic, filial love.

Oh God, don't even get me started on this kind of thing. I had someone in my tutorials first year of university that just freaked out completely and could NOT comprehend the idea of Mercrutio having a homoerotic man-crush on Romeo and actually stood up in the tute and shouted "NO! THEY WERE HOMIES! HE WAS INTO CHICKS!".

[DrNerd]

I applaud your efforts. From this and prior posts you seem to be an educated and articulate human being and very likely an excellent teacher. Can you deny that some professors do use their positions as bully pulpits? As to the first sentence of the above quote, to some extent that is true, but there is a limit. I've experienced first hand a tenured professor using her position to further her own sociopolitical agenda. I found it incredibly disturbing to watch her attempt to manipulate her students while the younger ones never batted an eye. Again, I realize professors like her are the exception and not the rule, and though I may not have articulated this fact, I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who dedicates themselves to teaching.

I knew this was a case of individual butthurt. I bet she was an evil feminist, too, right?

@prof buttsecks: I once had a student write a paper about how, since people thought Shakespeare's sonnets were written to a male, it must have been his son, and so it was platonic, filial love.

Oh God, don't even get me started on this kind of thing. I had someone in my tutorials first year of university that just freaked out completely and could NOT comprehend the idea of Mercrutio having a homoerotic man-crush on Romeo and actually stood up in the tute and shouted "NO! THEY WERE HOMIES! HE WAS INTO CHICKS!".

Please.  Mercutio/Tybalt is totally the OTP there.

[teebs]

Kiki, that forced a full on laugh from the gut... priceless.

[kiki]

Kiki, that forced a full on laugh from the gut... priceless.

Do I know you? Do I LIKE you? No? I'm one of the horrid evil Buttists that agree with Rohina. I think you're a self-important douche-nozzle with a chip on your shoulder the size of lake michigan when it comes to female university professors. Go back to your ice-cream and eat your feelings again, tubby. I also found it amusing to see an "I have no ego" comment from someone that lists their email as "bigego69".

[teebs]

Do I CARE? No. Can you offend me. Not likely. I am a self-important douche-nozzle. The chip is only the size of Lake Huron, get your facts straight. It was frosting, not ice cream. Oooooh, you called me "tubby." Ouch. I'm glad you find it amusing, that was the idea.

[rohina]

Please.  Mercutio/Tybalt is totally the OTP there.

I was going to be all "no wai!" but they really are a classic Top and Bottom when you think about it.

[professorbutters]

Oh God, don't even get me started on this kind of thing. I had someone in my tutorials first year of university that just freaked out completely and could NOT comprehend the idea of Mercrutio having a homoerotic man-crush on Romeo and actually stood up in the tute and shouted "NO! THEY WERE HOMIES! HE WAS INTO CHICKS!".

Please.  Mercutio/Tybalt is totally the OTP there.

Well, they are in my Veronaville, anyway.  My school just did a production of it and there were interviews with the actors, in which they revealed their characters' deepest, darkest secret.  The actor playing Tybalt said his character was gay.  The actor playing Mercutio said his character was slowly dying of syphilis and that it had gone to his brain.  But in the play, I think the text does support Mercutio having a one-way mancrush on Romeo.  

Rohina:  which is the top and which is the bottom?  I always figured Tybalt as the top.

[DrNerd]

Mmm, I dunno.  Tybalt's the King of Cats, and cats aren't known for their high activity level, and Bottom strikes me as requiring less physical exertion.