When Anthony Fauci famously anthropomorphized science on Face the Nation, he was swiftly, and correctly, mocked. Fauci’s spiel had a strong flavor of hubris to it, and while he did not explicitly call himself the physical representation of science, he at least implied that he is the projection of it. Then again, in some ways, he is correct. If we ignore the part where he claims that criticizing him is “anti-science” while he laughs like a Bond villain, and instead, consider the cultural aspects of what he is saying, then the man has a point.
It’s worse now. Thirty years ago, high school seniors at least knew facts. Now, all they know are opinions. When we were kids, we had to write essays (however ridiculous that was.) Today, students write nothing but “reflections.” No argument required, just personal thoughts and feelings. How do you mark that wrong? As long as the writer appears sincere, it must be correct. By the same standard, if your “science” was produced for the good of all, who am I to question it?
Blame bad teachers. Lazy, uninspiring, uninterested, and products of rote learning themselves.
A bad teacher teaches rules as were they chains and natural law - a pattern to be memorised and then followed as if the student was the proverbial medieval monk copying a manuscript while being an analphabet.
A good teacher (i.e. me, talk about self-confirmation bias eh?) teaches rules as the two things they are: a common universal protocol which is a tool and the value of said tool being exactly that: a tool, something you are supposed to use consciously but not be bound by - and as something to be played with, toyed with, thought in circles around, and found loopholes and cracks and paradoxes and contradictions in.
"An essay follows this general structure 1,2,3,4,5. First essay is to learn the formal form only. Second essay is to learn to be brief so same subject but half the word count of the first. Third and final essay is open ended in subjct matter, not shorter than the first and no longer than double because I've got to read all thirty of them and I'd like to be done with the marking and grading before Kingdom Come, thank you very much"
That's how we used to do it over here, more or less: a clear distinction between the formal (the tools of the trade) and the creative (skill, instinct, art, experience) and how to use them together - and always making it clear to the students that the limits in scop and length are simply practical, not arbitrary or wanton. It does take some time to mark and grade an essay of 15 A4 pages you know.
Now imagine having 30 of them, and seven days to get it done in on top of regular work load. While getting 8 hurs of sleep and weekend off. Say two hours/essay - ambitious, neh? That's 60 hours work on top of a 45 hour work week.
Which is why we limit students to /this/ many words or pages.
What an excellent, thought provoking essay. Over socialisation particularly interested me as I had never considered it. I just thought I was a bit "weird" in that I have always been prepared to be controversial (and it has got me in trouble over the years LOL!) and to question even the things I believe are correct (i.e. playing devil's advocate). Perhaps this is why some people woke up more quickly than others, they were not over socialised or were resistant to being over socialised?
Loved reading this.
It’s worse now. Thirty years ago, high school seniors at least knew facts. Now, all they know are opinions. When we were kids, we had to write essays (however ridiculous that was.) Today, students write nothing but “reflections.” No argument required, just personal thoughts and feelings. How do you mark that wrong? As long as the writer appears sincere, it must be correct. By the same standard, if your “science” was produced for the good of all, who am I to question it?
A couple years back I had seen some prominent douche bags like Cuomo saying: “Science knows…”. (Like God knows). Appeals to authority work very well.
Blame bad teachers. Lazy, uninspiring, uninterested, and products of rote learning themselves.
A bad teacher teaches rules as were they chains and natural law - a pattern to be memorised and then followed as if the student was the proverbial medieval monk copying a manuscript while being an analphabet.
A good teacher (i.e. me, talk about self-confirmation bias eh?) teaches rules as the two things they are: a common universal protocol which is a tool and the value of said tool being exactly that: a tool, something you are supposed to use consciously but not be bound by - and as something to be played with, toyed with, thought in circles around, and found loopholes and cracks and paradoxes and contradictions in.
"An essay follows this general structure 1,2,3,4,5. First essay is to learn the formal form only. Second essay is to learn to be brief so same subject but half the word count of the first. Third and final essay is open ended in subjct matter, not shorter than the first and no longer than double because I've got to read all thirty of them and I'd like to be done with the marking and grading before Kingdom Come, thank you very much"
That's how we used to do it over here, more or less: a clear distinction between the formal (the tools of the trade) and the creative (skill, instinct, art, experience) and how to use them together - and always making it clear to the students that the limits in scop and length are simply practical, not arbitrary or wanton. It does take some time to mark and grade an essay of 15 A4 pages you know.
Now imagine having 30 of them, and seven days to get it done in on top of regular work load. While getting 8 hurs of sleep and weekend off. Say two hours/essay - ambitious, neh? That's 60 hours work on top of a 45 hour work week.
Which is why we limit students to /this/ many words or pages.
What an excellent, thought provoking essay. Over socialisation particularly interested me as I had never considered it. I just thought I was a bit "weird" in that I have always been prepared to be controversial (and it has got me in trouble over the years LOL!) and to question even the things I believe are correct (i.e. playing devil's advocate). Perhaps this is why some people woke up more quickly than others, they were not over socialised or were resistant to being over socialised?