What's wrong with higher education?
-
Sure - the issue is that most people have heard the saying, and you haven't. I don't see why it's a big deal, it's not like this means you've failed at life. But, his meaning was clear to most people here.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
I didn't make any assumptiongs. We are dumping billions of tons of a known green house gas into the atmosphere. That is an easily ascertainable, scientifically measureable fact. Suggesting that we should be concerned about that is not an assumption, it is a suggestion. And pointing out that natural changes in weather patterns in no way excludes the possibility of changes in weather patterns due to man-made changes is also not an assumption. Conservatives badly need to stop dismissing the importance of this issue - and because the left wants to use it to further implement their Marxist agenda is all the more reason to take it seriously. Even the slightest changes in weather will justify draconian leftist "solutions". Conservatives need to take the science seriously and offer our own set of alternative solutions to it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
I didn't make any assumptiongs. We are dumping billions of tons of a known green house gas into the atmosphere. That is an easily ascertainable, scientifically measureable fact.
The assumption is whether or not that matters.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Suggesting that we should be concerned about that is not an assumption, it is a suggestion.
The tone is never that of a "suggestion". It's consistently a fantasy-scenario wherein we all die if we don't transfer vast amounts of power to a centralized state within 3 years.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And pointing out that natural changes in weather patterns in no way excludes the possibility of changes in weather patterns due to man-made changes is also not an assumption.
Nobody disputes the "possibility" of that, but I dispute the "factuality" of that. It's something worth examining, but the science has turned into something resembling a witch trial. There are numerous legitimate scientists that are at odds with the conclusions drawn from the data, but they are actively attacked and their opinions are squashed by the media such that the opinions of the public can be molded out of fear. Global warming is sold to the public via fear-mongering as indisputable "fact" demanding urgent action without any consideration (which always involves excessive taxation and the squeezing of capitalism...primarily in the United States).
Stan Shannon wrote:
Conservatives badly need to stop dismissing the importance of this issue - and because the left wants to use it to further implement their Marxist agenda is all the more reason to take it seriously. Even the slightest changes in weather will justify draconian leftist "solutions". Conservatives need to take the science seriously and offer our own set of alternative solutions to it.
Conservatives are taking the right approach...a level headed one. Liberals are demanding urgent, fear-based action that will collapse entire economies and (as you point out) centralize and nationalize basically the entire world. Liberal nations are drawn to global warming because it brings to fruition their deepest political desires. If global warming turns out to be man-made (something we're not near proving) AND those effects are actually negative (at this point, we don't know if global warming would be
-
First, the professor's seems to be a bad one. Education is not pushing knowledge through the throat of students. “Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn" said Benjamin Franklin. The teacher should have told to the guy to make some work about his hypothesis, present it to the other students, and let discuss! Next, if she tells that climate change is for sure caused by human activities, she's wrong and propagate inaccurate facts.
Zach Burnett wrote:
yes the climate is changing, but that is natural and has occurred for millions of years.
For now, climate specialists tell that the probability you are right is lower than 5%.
It is easier to make war than to make peace. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
First, the professor's seems to be a bad one. Education is not pushing knowledge through the throat of students. “Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn" said Benjamin Franklin. The teacher should have told to the guy to make some work about his hypothesis, present it to the other students, and let discuss!
Your recommended course of action does not follow from the Franklin quote. Discussing the ignorant views of students may be a useful strategy on occasion, but it would be a disaster if carried to excess. There is not an equality between teacher and student, particularly in technical disciplines and particularly in the early years of higher education. There is a vast body of well-established knowledge to be assimilated, and students need to be involved in this process by having them conduct experiments, make calculations, solve problems and so on, not by having them engage in ignorance-fuelled controversy --- or at least not often.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I didn't make any assumptiongs. We are dumping billions of tons of a known green house gas into the atmosphere. That is an easily ascertainable, scientifically measureable fact.
The assumption is whether or not that matters.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Suggesting that we should be concerned about that is not an assumption, it is a suggestion.
The tone is never that of a "suggestion". It's consistently a fantasy-scenario wherein we all die if we don't transfer vast amounts of power to a centralized state within 3 years.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And pointing out that natural changes in weather patterns in no way excludes the possibility of changes in weather patterns due to man-made changes is also not an assumption.
Nobody disputes the "possibility" of that, but I dispute the "factuality" of that. It's something worth examining, but the science has turned into something resembling a witch trial. There are numerous legitimate scientists that are at odds with the conclusions drawn from the data, but they are actively attacked and their opinions are squashed by the media such that the opinions of the public can be molded out of fear. Global warming is sold to the public via fear-mongering as indisputable "fact" demanding urgent action without any consideration (which always involves excessive taxation and the squeezing of capitalism...primarily in the United States).
Stan Shannon wrote:
Conservatives badly need to stop dismissing the importance of this issue - and because the left wants to use it to further implement their Marxist agenda is all the more reason to take it seriously. Even the slightest changes in weather will justify draconian leftist "solutions". Conservatives need to take the science seriously and offer our own set of alternative solutions to it.
Conservatives are taking the right approach...a level headed one. Liberals are demanding urgent, fear-based action that will collapse entire economies and (as you point out) centralize and nationalize basically the entire world. Liberal nations are drawn to global warming because it brings to fruition their deepest political desires. If global warming turns out to be man-made (something we're not near proving) AND those effects are actually negative (at this point, we don't know if global warming would be
Red Stateler wrote:
Conservatives are taking the right approach...a level headed one.
Yeah, pick your "level headed" approach: 1. Don't care; do nothing. If God hadn't wanted the environment polluted, he wouldn't have created smoke. 2. Claim that nothing's happening; or at least nothing that hasn't already happened before. Try to use the current weather as proof. 3. "Hire" several scientists to confuse the issue by disputing the facts or its effects. 4. Talk about the need to address the issue, and then do nothing about it. 5. Claim that this isn't something we should address until its effects are clearly being felt -- it starts cutting into profit margins. Until then, you should be smart and avoid living in coastal cities. 6. Discard the whole thing as yet another subversive plot from the Left.
-
K(arl) wrote:
First, the professor's seems to be a bad one. Education is not pushing knowledge through the throat of students. “Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn" said Benjamin Franklin. The teacher should have told to the guy to make some work about his hypothesis, present it to the other students, and let discuss!
Your recommended course of action does not follow from the Franklin quote. Discussing the ignorant views of students may be a useful strategy on occasion, but it would be a disaster if carried to excess. There is not an equality between teacher and student, particularly in technical disciplines and particularly in the early years of higher education. There is a vast body of well-established knowledge to be assimilated, and students need to be involved in this process by having them conduct experiments, make calculations, solve problems and so on, not by having them engage in ignorance-fuelled controversy --- or at least not often.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Discussing the ignorant views of students may be a useful strategy on occasion, but it would be a disaster if carried to excess.
The goal is not to discuss but to involve the student, to make him participate and discover by himself. IMHO a good teacher doesn't enumerate knowlesge but give the means to learn. Enabling the student to make a study and then discuss it can be a good start to introduce what a scientific approach is, especially if is flawed. That seems more important to me in a science class than learning only about facts.
John Carson wrote:
There is a vast body of well-established knowledge to be assimilated, and students need to be involved in this process by having them conduct experiments, make calculations, solve problems and so on
Absolutely: students have to experiment and discover by themselves.
John Carson wrote:
ignorance-fuelled controversy
Ignorance? AFAIK, the correlation between human activities and global warming is not a demonstrated fact yet.
It is easier to make war than to make peace. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Conservatives are taking the right approach...a level headed one.
Yeah, pick your "level headed" approach: 1. Don't care; do nothing. If God hadn't wanted the environment polluted, he wouldn't have created smoke. 2. Claim that nothing's happening; or at least nothing that hasn't already happened before. Try to use the current weather as proof. 3. "Hire" several scientists to confuse the issue by disputing the facts or its effects. 4. Talk about the need to address the issue, and then do nothing about it. 5. Claim that this isn't something we should address until its effects are clearly being felt -- it starts cutting into profit margins. Until then, you should be smart and avoid living in coastal cities. 6. Discard the whole thing as yet another subversive plot from the Left.
Al Beback wrote:
1. Don't care; do nothing. If God hadn't wanted the environment polluted, he wouldn't have created smoke.
Or, more appropriately, don't fanaticise everything and turn it into a "the sky is falling" approach.
Al Beback wrote:
2. Claim that nothing's happening; or at least nothing that hasn't already happened before. Try to use the current weather as proof.
The fact that the climate changes naturally is very well known, so a small warming is very likely to be natural. That angle, however, is ignored because "the sky is falling".
Al Beback wrote:
3. "Hire" several scientists to confuse the issue by disputing the facts or its effects.
All of the "scientists" that have been "hired" to support global warming were hired by those who want it to be true (i.e. governments). If you want to say that any scientist who received research grants from private companies (and who rightly doubt the claims of the global warming crowd) are immediately discredited for that fact, then the same must be said of pro-global warming scientists. Their funding overwhelmingly comes from government and if they don't endorse global warming, they're suddenly unemployed.
Al Beback wrote:
4. Talk about the need to address the issue, and then do nothing about it.
The "issue" has not been verified. There's nothing wrong with researching our atmosphere, but the left wants to act based on fear rather than science. After all, we're suddenly up against an irreversable deadline of 2010. If we don't accept Marxism, we will al die.
Al Beback wrote:
5. Claim that this isn't something we should address until its effects are clearly being felt -- it starts cutting into profit margins. Until then, you should be smart and avoid living in coastal cities.
No, we shouldn't "address" a "problem" that we don't even know exists, especially when "addressing" that problem involves colapsing economies and enslaving free nations by placing them under Marxist rule. As for your sensational flooding of coastal cities claim, that's just another example of leftist fear-mongering that isn't based in fact.
Al Beback wrote:
6. Discard the whole thing as yet another subversive plot from the Left.
Seeing a
-
We had an engineering professor that was caught giving girls consistently lower grades because he believed girls don't belong in engineering.
_________________________________________________________________ Hey! I don't parallel park big brown Econoline vans on the left side of the road!
-
Do they[^]? ;-P I had a male mathematic professor who gave girls consistently higher grades because they were girls :rolleyes:
Don't hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
I had a male mathematic professor who gave girls consistently higher grades because they were girls
There must be something about maths professors, because I had one like that too.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow Geek Dinner (5th March) * Glasgow: Tell us what you want to see in 2007 My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
My mates son is getting in trouble because he does not agree with the racial model of the school (which is completely BS)
Brad Australian - Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript" A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
-
K(arl) wrote:
I had a male mathematic professor who gave girls consistently higher grades because they were girls
There must be something about maths professors, because I had one like that too.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow Geek Dinner (5th March) * Glasgow: Tell us what you want to see in 2007 My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
I just picked up my girlfriend from her geography class and she informed me that her professor last semester just failed a guy on a test for arguing that he believes that global warming is a natural occurrence. The part that gets me is that he was failed because of her personal belief, not whether he argued his point in geography. She argued about how she shouldn't have failed him on that which set off a 40 minute debate on global warming. She would spout off the CO2 levels, which was countered. The professor argued North Atlantic Current, which set off an ice age debate. yes the climate is changing, but that is natural and has occurred for millions of years. I just find it amazing that the professor is so willing to fail a person for putting up a view that is not her own, even if he has supported his claims with science facts also. I know the climate change is a touchy subject, even here, but it just seems unscientific to not allow differing opinions in a science class.
Zach
Zach Burnett wrote:
I know the climate change is a touchy subject, even here, but it just seems unscientific to not allow differing opinions in a science class.
I hate to say it, but the guy deserved it. Not for disagreeing with the professor - that's a good and honorable thing to do, regardless of the subject. But for being blunt and stupid about it. Two rules:
- Don't make the person assigning you grades feel stupid.
- Don't give the person grading your test an easy way to fail you.
Nothing wrong with debating in class, but always keep in mind that you're there to earn a good grade - learning from it is, at best, a nice bonus. Always show respect to the person teaching, even if she doesn't deserve it. If you can't do that, then drop the class instead of pissing away your time and money. You can always find people to argue with for free...
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
Maybe it is the same one? :-D
Don't hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Did your Maths professor hire a prostitute to act as his date for a christmas party? Then subsequently propose to her... Get married... And have her leave after two weeks?
Upcoming events: * Glasgow Geek Dinner (5th March) * Glasgow: Tell us what you want to see in 2007 My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
Al Beback wrote:
1. Don't care; do nothing. If God hadn't wanted the environment polluted, he wouldn't have created smoke.
Or, more appropriately, don't fanaticise everything and turn it into a "the sky is falling" approach.
Al Beback wrote:
2. Claim that nothing's happening; or at least nothing that hasn't already happened before. Try to use the current weather as proof.
The fact that the climate changes naturally is very well known, so a small warming is very likely to be natural. That angle, however, is ignored because "the sky is falling".
Al Beback wrote:
3. "Hire" several scientists to confuse the issue by disputing the facts or its effects.
All of the "scientists" that have been "hired" to support global warming were hired by those who want it to be true (i.e. governments). If you want to say that any scientist who received research grants from private companies (and who rightly doubt the claims of the global warming crowd) are immediately discredited for that fact, then the same must be said of pro-global warming scientists. Their funding overwhelmingly comes from government and if they don't endorse global warming, they're suddenly unemployed.
Al Beback wrote:
4. Talk about the need to address the issue, and then do nothing about it.
The "issue" has not been verified. There's nothing wrong with researching our atmosphere, but the left wants to act based on fear rather than science. After all, we're suddenly up against an irreversable deadline of 2010. If we don't accept Marxism, we will al die.
Al Beback wrote:
5. Claim that this isn't something we should address until its effects are clearly being felt -- it starts cutting into profit margins. Until then, you should be smart and avoid living in coastal cities.
No, we shouldn't "address" a "problem" that we don't even know exists, especially when "addressing" that problem involves colapsing economies and enslaving free nations by placing them under Marxist rule. As for your sensational flooding of coastal cities claim, that's just another example of leftist fear-mongering that isn't based in fact.
Al Beback wrote:
6. Discard the whole thing as yet another subversive plot from the Left.
Seeing a
If global warming is a plot, what would persuade you otherwise? 1. Perhaps your country's greatest east coast cities and subsequently your nations financial centre being under water as the result of the rise in sea levels. 2. Your country having a catastrophic crop failure that lasts many years.
-
If global warming is a plot, what would persuade you otherwise? 1. Perhaps your country's greatest east coast cities and subsequently your nations financial centre being under water as the result of the rise in sea levels. 2. Your country having a catastrophic crop failure that lasts many years.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
If global warming is a plot, what would persuade you otherwise?
At this point, a revolution in our understanding of our atmosphere. Our understanding is extremely limited, so anybody who says action is needs on global warming is adopting a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
1. Perhaps your country's greatest east coast cities and subsequently your nations financial centre being under water as the result of the rise in sea levels.
More fear-mongering that isn't based in fact or reason.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
2. Your country having a catastrophic crop failure that lasts many years.
More fear-mongering that isn't based in fact or reason. What if our "global warming" is actually holding off an ice age? What if, by stopping it, millions freeze and starve to death?
-
Zach Burnett wrote:
I know the climate change is a touchy subject, even here, but it just seems unscientific to not allow differing opinions in a science class.
I hate to say it, but the guy deserved it. Not for disagreeing with the professor - that's a good and honorable thing to do, regardless of the subject. But for being blunt and stupid about it. Two rules:
- Don't make the person assigning you grades feel stupid.
- Don't give the person grading your test an easy way to fail you.
Nothing wrong with debating in class, but always keep in mind that you're there to earn a good grade - learning from it is, at best, a nice bonus. Always show respect to the person teaching, even if she doesn't deserve it. If you can't do that, then drop the class instead of pissing away your time and money. You can always find people to argue with for free...
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
Shog9 wrote:
Don't make the person assigning you grades feel stupid. Don't give the person grading your test an easy way to fail you.
I know exactly what you mean. I question things presented by my professors, but usually not to the point where I end up making a huge debate on the subject. Now my girlfriend kept the argument going for 30 or 40 minutes, and her professor was getting very angry. I don't know if it was because of the debate or if it was because everything the professor said was countered with another fact so that it stayed an indecisive argument.
Zach
-
Shog9 wrote:
Don't make the person assigning you grades feel stupid. Don't give the person grading your test an easy way to fail you.
I know exactly what you mean. I question things presented by my professors, but usually not to the point where I end up making a huge debate on the subject. Now my girlfriend kept the argument going for 30 or 40 minutes, and her professor was getting very angry. I don't know if it was because of the debate or if it was because everything the professor said was countered with another fact so that it stayed an indecisive argument.
Zach
Zach Burnett wrote:
I don't know if it was because of the debate or if it was because everything the professor said was countered with another fact so that it stayed an indecisive argument.
We could be generous and allow that he might also have wanted to cover other material in that session, and was becoming frustrated. Though i doubt it, and if you want that girlfriend to stay non-ex'd, you're probably best doing so as well... :rolleyes:
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
Zach Burnett wrote:
I don't know if it was because of the debate or if it was because everything the professor said was countered with another fact so that it stayed an indecisive argument.
We could be generous and allow that he might also have wanted to cover other material in that session, and was becoming frustrated. Though i doubt it, and if you want that girlfriend to stay non-ex'd, you're probably best doing so as well... :rolleyes:
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
Actually the professor was getting pissed because she couldn't make any clear points. the debate took up about 40 minutes of them watching the Al Gore movie about global warming :rolleyes::laugh:
Zach
-
Actually the professor was getting pissed because she couldn't make any clear points. the debate took up about 40 minutes of them watching the Al Gore movie about global warming :rolleyes::laugh:
Zach
Zach Burnett wrote:
the debate took up about 40 minutes of them watching the Al Gore movie about global warming
Ah, well, at least it was time well spent then. :)
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
Zach Burnett wrote:
the debate took up about 40 minutes of them watching the Al Gore movie about global warming
Ah, well, at least it was time well spent then. :)
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
They watch a video from discovery or national geographic every time they have class. the professor said it's "Because I probably torture you enough by being so scatterbrained." She will go off on wild tangents for no apparent reason. Another problem is, is that We have watched pretty much every video she's shown in class at home...with exception to the Al Gore one.
Zach
-
I just picked up my girlfriend from her geography class and she informed me that her professor last semester just failed a guy on a test for arguing that he believes that global warming is a natural occurrence. The part that gets me is that he was failed because of her personal belief, not whether he argued his point in geography. She argued about how she shouldn't have failed him on that which set off a 40 minute debate on global warming. She would spout off the CO2 levels, which was countered. The professor argued North Atlantic Current, which set off an ice age debate. yes the climate is changing, but that is natural and has occurred for millions of years. I just find it amazing that the professor is so willing to fail a person for putting up a view that is not her own, even if he has supported his claims with science facts also. I know the climate change is a touchy subject, even here, but it just seems unscientific to not allow differing opinions in a science class.
Zach
