Grading Hell: Death to the Teachers!!!

[Az]

Yes, Agathon. what makes her arguement wrong?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Agathon
10-12 is my limit. 8 is too small. Anything bigger just looks odd.

I'm sure the gay contingent of Apolyton couldn't agree with you more

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

While nice in theory, I don't think that follows in practice.

The vast majority of essays and exams do not ask you to critique, but rather to show your understanding of a philosopher or philosophy.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


I'm sure the gay contingent of Apolyton couldn't agree with you more

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yes, Agathon. what makes her arguement wrong?

It's facile. People who fail a test will necessarily feel like failures (it's a bad choice of words too, because it is ambiguous). But giving that as your central supporting reason without addressing the function that tests are supposed to have is just silly. A test proponent will happily admit that those who fail the tests might feel like failures, and still maintain that tests are worthwhile.

Logically speaking, it is not sufficient to establish the conclusion without additional argument, and on its own it is really weak since the opponent can admit it at no cost.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I'm sure the gay contingent of Apolyton couldn't agree with you more

I always figured Aggie was a size queen.

[Agathon]

A "Size Queen"?

* Ag's vocabulary increases +1

Yuk.

[Ming]

Let me get this straight... Agathon was grading papers from a class he taught, and he's pissed at how stupid the answers are... well, isn't it his fault. Shouldn't he be doing a better job of teaching them... If the whole class sucks, it's usually the teachers fault

[Agathon]

I'm not the teacher, this is supplementary to my teaching allotment. I am merely a grading peon for this class.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Asher
Does anyone else find it amusing that somebody teaching Philosophy is *****ing about people being stupid?

The problem with formal philosophy is insane syntatic overhead. Arguments needn't be structured so damn formally, and they also shouldn't be forced to be on such inane things such as Philosophy.

The only thing truly useful that is "taught" by philosophy is logic. And as Agathon already pointed out, the people who actually need this tend to be actually good at it...it comes naturally to them.

Asher for the win!

You cant teach logic, common sense, philosophy or argumentory skills... all of these things come to people through experience or they just know how-the BEST you can do is apishly teach someone to immitate them.... poorly.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Actually, most scientists suck at philosophy, because they won't hear anything about non-empirical facts.

There is some advanced logic in philosophy, and it doesn't come naturally. You have to learn it, just like you would study differential calculus.

I'm a CS major and the most argumentative person I know, especially over philosophical issues. The "technical people suck at non technical" stereotypes isnt true at all.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'm not the teacher, this is supplementary to my teaching allotment. I am merely a grading peon for this class.

But still... being one of the teachers in the department, it's your job to teach these kids... they obviously aren't learning squat

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vesayen


Asher for the win!

You cant teach logic, common sense, philosophy or argumentory skills... all of these things come to people through experience or they just know how-the BEST you can do is apishly teach someone to immitate them.... poorly.

"You can;t teach philosophy"? Since when 'can't you"? As for teaching logic, last time I heard, most babies aren't born knowing logic.

So Vesayen, I guess you were born knowing the work of Kant, correct?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vesayen


I'm a CS major and the most argumentative person I know, especially over philosophical issues. The "technical people suck at non technical" stereotypes isnt true at all.

And if you were better versed at logic, you would see how one case is NOT enough of a sample to disprove a generalization.

Also, "being arguementative" is not the same as understanding ethical issues. Anyone can be arguementative. That is a character issue.

[Asher]

He meant the actual applied use of philosophy: the ability to think and argue rationally.

If Philosophy was nothing more than studying past philosophers, it would be a History course.