Grading Hell: Death to the Teachers!!!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ming


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

Well, Ming, you know how the saying goes: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Those who can't teach, teach teachers.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by GePap




"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?

My point is that if you teach someone formalized ways of thinking and reactions off them which are overly mechanic, then that is all they can do-reproduce those mechanic movements. They cannot bring it to any new steps and when things become complex they cannot cope.

My knowledge of Kant is knowledge of his ideas, the knowledge of how to form a coherant argument is NOT something that can be taught, the same extends to most philosophical ideas.

Originally posted by GePap


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.

I did not say that one case was, however, it is still a case. As for when I said argumentative, I mean arguing from a point of understanding.

Originally posted by 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.

Exactly... every philosophy course I've been forced to take is utter trite.... if you teach someone a mechanical way of thinking with NO variation, then they will not be able to expand from it.

[GePap]

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.

Actually, this is wrong. You can not teach intelliegence, which is an innate ability, but the ability to argue coherently is NOT intelligence. Besides, Philosophy is more than Rhetoric, which is the art of arguing. IN fact, Philosophy is NOT about "thinking rationally" It is about studying the character of knowledge. This is something fundamentally different from just being intelliegent, or even being able to coherently debate. Now, if you two paid more attention in philosophy class, maybe you would understand that.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming


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

Wrong again, this isn't even our department. These kids are from a satellite campus.

Anyway, I've graded for the most brilliant teachers before, all it does is lower the proportion of dreck.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by GePap

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.

Actually, this is wrong. You can not teach intelliegence, which is an innate ability, but the ability to argue coherently is NOT intelligence. Besides, Philosophy is more than Rhetoric, which is the art of arguing. IN fact, Philosophy is NOT about "thinking rationally" It is about studying the character of knowledge. This is something fundamentally different from just being intelliegent, or even being able to coherently debate. Now, if you two paid more attention in philosophy class, maybe you would understand that.

Philosophy is entirley about thinking rationally, it is about taking experience and knowledge and extrapolating it into a coherant image. "The character of knowledge", stuying that allows you to... dun da da dun da da.... reproduce the character of knowledge!

"Study" of philosophy is in fact a bad way to phrase it... from my experience one CANNOT learn philosophy and practical argumentative skills through "studying"-only practice, the best way to teach philosophy, so that the student understands it and is able to extrapolate from it, is to debate. The students are eventually able to realize the more effective forms of debate themselves through practice.

Did the ancient Greeks sit around reciting out of their asses "And Phylius Archelus supposates the following" or did they argue with each other over the issues? Who are undeniably amoung the greatest orators, statemens and philosophers of all time?

When someone finds out critical thinking and argumentory methods through their OWN experience, they will be better skilled in those methods, and thus their arguments will be more flexible.

Have you tried to argue about philosophical issues with someone who has had "structured" philosophy or argumentative skills taught to them? Every one I ever have, I've run circles around.

[Agathon]

Back on T.

For the few years before he died my father was employed by the local high schools as a music teacher. He was born during the War and brought up in a single parent family. His mother's illnesses disrupted his schooling and he never finished high school.

Neverthless, when he went to work at the local high schools he was appalled at the amount of ignorance on basic issues of politics, history and culture on the part of the majority of teachers. He simply couldn't believe it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, this is wrong. You can not teach intelliegence, which is an innate ability, but the ability to argue coherently is NOT intelligence. Besides, Philosophy is more than Rhetoric, which is the art of arguing. IN fact, Philosophy is NOT about "thinking rationally" It is about studying the character of knowledge. This is something fundamentally different from just being intelliegent, or even being able to coherently debate. Now, if you two paid more attention in philosophy class, maybe you would understand that.

Maybe I understand it but dismiss it as being ridiculous?

Philosophers argue that Philosophy is Knowledge, or the study of. I find that to be a ridiculous position, one that cannot be maintained (and one that has not been maintained, at least on Apolyton). It's an excuse for a department whose only purpose to serve is to give basic lectures to undergrads and other "morons" and look nice on a transcript.

To my knowledge, any work that "philosophers" at Universities in the past 50 years has been nothing more than busywork and totally useless. Saying that they're persuing knowledge for the sake of persuing knowledge doesn't cut it. I want examples on why public money continually goes into crap that people use as GPA boosters.

As far as I'm concerned Philosophy is for pseudo-intellectuals who couldn't cut it in a real field.

I also reference Agathon in my case. He's never been a very strong debater, nor does he show any real intellect aside from a broad vocabulary of needlessly-complicated Philosophical terms to describe the most mundane concepts.

I also think it to be rather lame to start a thread in which a pretentious instructor laughs at the "stupidity" of his pupils...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
Anyway, I've graded for the most brilliant teachers before, all it does is lower the proportion of dreck.

That's one of the problems today... what good is a brilliant teacher if they can't teach. Too many teachers are forgeting about what their job really is... which is to teach the students. It's sad when you hear teachers whine about how stupid their students are... making fun of them... calling them peons... and whose fault is it? The teachers must be failing at their job if that's the kind of students they are developing and actually graduating. Instead of whining, maybe the teachers should do what they are paid to do...

[Agathon]

This is a rage thread, not a laugh thread. Laughing is the last thing I want to do when confronted with a bunch of bad papers.

And for the record, you got your ass kicked last time we all debated this, so don't give me that crap.

Of course we could all go for your definition of a "strong debater" which is someone who repeats endless variations of the same previously debunked claim and who goes on and on flogging a dead horse.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

That's one of the problems today... what good is a brilliant teacher if they can't teach. Too many teachers are forgeting about what their job really is... which is to teach the students. It's sad when you hear teachers whine about how stupid their students are... making fun of them... calling them peons... and whose fault is it? The teachers must be failing at their job if that's the kind of students they are developing and actually graduating. Instead of whining, maybe the teachers should do what they are paid to do...

Nope. The problem is that standards have slipped owing to the fact that a lot more people now enter tertiary education and because new funding models mean that hard courses get weeded out.

Look, there are plenty of bad teachers. But when I say something 5 times and write it on the blackboard in 12 inch capital letters and say "this will be in the exam!", and some people still get it wrong, I don't know what anyone could do.

PS. I was calling myself the peon.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
And for the record, you got your ass kicked last time we all debated this, so don't give me that crap.

Nonsense, you just rationalized it to yourself so you believe it. No one has ever presented a useful case for the reasoning behind Philosophical research.

Imran & Co discussed how it's useful to lawyers or whatever, which may be the case, though I don't see how it is. Even so, the majority of it is bull**** busywork.

Of course we could all go for your definition of a "strong debater" which is someone who repeats endless variations of the same previously debunked claim and who goes on and on flogging a dead horse.

No, a strong debater adequately debunks claims. Something which you have never managed to do in a computer thread, but you ignore the opposition and "know" you're right. I don't know if you willingly do this or if it's an inate ability of Philosophy instructors worldwide, but whatever it is -- it's really, really stupid.

[GePap]

As far as I'm concerned Philosophy is for pseudo-intellectuals who couldn't cut it in a real field.

You always make the same tried arguement, and it is always equally false.

But arguing with opu on the subject is like arguing with DF, useless. So I lerave you to your faulty assumptions.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nah, I prefer to let him speak his mind trying to answer pertinent questions.

[Agathon]

Yeah, he is like DF.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
And for the record, you got your ass kicked last time we all debated this, so don't give me that crap.

Your record is kind of broken... you have been trashed EVERY time we have debated... you were the only one that didn't think so... so crap...