Grading Hell: Death to the Teachers!!!

[Nubclear]

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...

Sorry Ming, but I have to (sort of) agree with Agathon here....There are some students who just won't learn for one reason or another. Whether they are goofing off or have some sort of disability...who knows?
But that's hardly the fault of the teacher.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
But that's hardly the fault of the teacher.

Yes it is... because these same teacher pass these students on to the next teacher and they become their problem.

I've had people interview for me who can't even read or write worth a damn. And they are college graduates. It's the fault of the institutions for allowing this crap to continue, and teachers should be ashamed of themselves for letting these people pass their classes.

So yes, I can blame the teachers.

[Asher]

Originally posted by 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.

I only continue arguing it because nobody has been able to actually refute it.

Rather than laughing, would it kill you to actually present a reasonable case? It should be easy, unless you can't think of a case...

So far my experience with Philosophers on these boards tells me that seldom do they actually debate the subject at hand. It's quite amazing, really.

[Nubclear]

because these same teacher pass these students on to the next teacher and they become their problem.

It isn't even up to the teacher!!! It's up to the parent whether the child moves on or not.

The teachers get low pay without many benefits, they have to deal with 25-35+ children who don't want to learn, they deal with people bringing guns and knifes to school, they become a secondary counselor to their children, they pay for many of the supplies out of their own pocket, they are constantly underfunded and shortsupplied; in their classrooms they play teacher and police, and then they get blamed when other children begin acting up!
Teachers have a very difficult job, and as such I'm reluctant to blame other childrens stupidity on the teacher. The teacher cannot force children to learn.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ming
Yes it is... because these same teacher pass these students on to the next teacher and they become their problem.

As the son of two teachers and the roommate of a another, I have to disagree. While there is no shortage of incompetent teachers, even the most able of them often has forces to contend against that are insurmountable. Many students have severe behavioral problems that aren't handled well in most urban public school systems, and they can render an entire class a nightmare. Underfunding, lack of support from administrators and parents, too many students and a lack of critical supplies--these all undermine teachers. My roommate Caroline has to spend most of her day just maintaining control over her kids, and she teaches 2nd grade. About every other day for her is emotionally havoc-wreaking. I've frequently had to help Dan convince her to go back to school the next day. And she is consistently praised by the school as one of their best teachers.

And, lest it be forgotten, some students are just hopelessly stupid and unmotivateable. Why so many found their way into Agathon's class, I don't know...maybe it's something like what draws cats to people with the worst allergies.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ming
I've had people interview for me who can't even read or write worth a damn. And they are college graduates. It's the fault of the institutions for allowing this crap to continue, and teachers should be ashamed of themselves for letting these people pass their classes.

Well, I don't know about all systems, but in most public school systems in major cities, this is not up to the teacher. It's very difficult to hold back kids in a public school. Think of it as akin to how hard it is to fire a federal worker.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

I only continue arguing it because nobody has been able to actually refute it.

Rather than laughing, would it kill you to actually present a reasonable case? It should be easy, unless you can't think of a case...

So far my experience with Philosophers on these boards tells me that seldom do they actually debate the subject at hand. It's quite amazing, really.

You are an idiot anyway, and you dismiss Agathon's arguments because you can't even understand them. Agathon is one of the best debater of this board.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You are an idiot anyway, and you dismiss Agathon's arguments because you can't even understand them. Agathon is one of the best debater of this board.

What good is an argument if it is incomprehensible and doesn't follow? Is this how Philosophers determine the best debaters?

Perhaps he is just better than you are at it. He puts more effort into it, rather than just "You are an idiot, you don't understand!".

You aren't helping your case of Philosophers being intelligent or useful.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Vesayen
"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.

Of course you can learn philosophy. When it comes to philosophy, the best 'practice' is to actually learn the doctrines of the greatest philosophers.

Besides, writing and debating are wholly different things. Many brilliant persons make poor debaters because they are not witty or eloquent.

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?

Plato followed Socrates for many years before having a philosophy of his own. Aristotle had been a Platonician for twenty years before writing something original. Almost no philosopher has ever written something influential before their thirties- even their forties.
Notable exceptions are Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, but those were uber-geniuses.

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.

I partly agree with you. Someone with a natural skill for debating, who on top of this has a philosophical training, will crush about anyone in a bar. Both are complementary.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

What good is an argument if it is incomprehensible and doesn't follow? Is this how Philosophers determine the best debaters?

That is because you can't accept that philosophy is also a science, with its own vocabulary and methodology. I've not seem him using complex words uselessly- they always make sense within the debate.

Perhaps he is just better than you are at it. He puts more effort into it, rather than just "You are an idiot, you don't understand!".

Well, he's a teacher and I'm a student, so he better be better than me.

You aren't helping your case of Philosophers being intelligent or useful.

That'll leave you more time to defend Bill Gates and his usefullness to society.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Asher
What good is an argument if it is incomprehensible and doesn't follow? Is this how Philosophers determine the best debaters?

Perhaps he is just better than you are at it. He puts more effort into it, rather than just "You are an idiot, you don't understand!".

You aren't helping your case of Philosophers being intelligent or useful.

This brings me to another problem I have with philosophers: pretentiousness. Exhibit A: The original post in this thread. Exhibit B: the post that Oncle Boris made that I responded to in the quoted post.

They tend to use overly-complex language, riddled with Philosopher-specific jargon, and then attack people on semantics in a debate rather than the content. Exhibit C: Boris vs. Agathon and Agathon assuming "utilitarian = Utilitarian", and basing an argument on the semantics of how one defines "Utilitarianism".

They are not open to the possiblility that perhaps they're out of their league and making an ass out of themsevles. Exhibit D: Agathon's unrelenting denial that Fitts' law is a mathematical law.

It's no wonder that philosophers can think the world of themselves and other philosophers, and most other people think so lowly of them as foppish frauds.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
That is because you can't accept that philosophy is also a science, with its own vocabulary and methodology. I've not seem him using complex words uselessly- they always make sense within the debate.

Philosophy is NOT a Science. That's why you don't get a B.Sc in Philosophy...

You clearly don't understand "using complex words needlessly", of course they can make sense -- the idea here is that smaller, more universally understandable words work as well.

Well, he's a teacher and I'm a student, so he better be better than me.

Is this an example of your logic? Teachers are not always better than students, just (usually) older and more learned. Not the same thing as better.

That'll leave you more time to defend Bill Gates and his usefullness to society.

You would have a hard time arguing that what Bill Gates has done has been useless to society.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
They tend to use overly-complex language, riddled with Philosopher-specific jargon, and then attack people on semantics in a debate rather than the content. Exhibit C: Boris vs. Agathon and Agathon assuming "utilitarian = Utilitarian", and basing an argument on the semantics of how one defines "Utilitarianism".

They are not open to the possiblility that perhaps they're out of their league and making an ass out of themsevles. Exhibit D: Agathon's unrelenting denial that Fitts' law is a mathematical law.

I am sorry, but I never understood this line of arguement. Its like saying you can't write X^2, but instead must spell it out as "X times X" becuase some people might not understand....

There is a reason you differentiate between rain and drizzle, and shower, and downpours- each different word has a specific meaning, and the more specific you get, the better you can pass on the specific meaning of what you are trying to say. Lets take you Ahser and threads about omputers- the fact is you are a techie, and when it comes to technical matters you use a lot of jargon. Why? Becuase you fell the need to show you know the jargon and confuse others? or is it simply that the jargon is a) what you use to describe these things and b) the accurate and correct words to use, since they convey the exact meaings you seek to pass on?

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
I am sorry, but I never understood this line of arguement. Its like saying you can't write X^2, but instead must spell it out as "X times X" becuase some people might not understand....

There is a reason you differentiate between rain and drizzle, and shower, and downpours- each different word has a specific meaning, and the more specific you get, the better you can pass on the specific meaning of what you are trying to say. Lets take you Ahser and threads about omputers- the fact is you are a techie, and when it comes to technical matters you use a lot of jargon. Why? Becuase you fell the need to show you know the jargon and confuse others? or is it simply that the jargon is a) what you use to describe these things and b) the accurate and correct words to use, since they convey the exact meaings you seek to pass on?

I anticipated this would come up.

When I'm not arguing with a techie, I do try to translate this into layman's terms. For example, when I posted the thread about buffer underrun technology being prevented in hardware, I explained it rather than assuming everyone knew what it was.

When I posted the thread about Windows running on PowerPC 970FX processors, I instead called it the "Apple G5" to confuse less people.

I do go out of my way to simplify my language when talking to people outside of my field, yet Agathon repeatedly assumes everyone would know the formal philosophical definition of "Utilitarian" and uses it as such, then argues with people who use it differently.

For example, this means jack-**** to non-philosophers:

Utilitarianism proper rounds out to three things.

1) An account of the good.

2) An acceptance of consequentialism.

3) A principle of aggregation, whereby more of the good is better and less is worse.

Deontological ethics denies 2 and 3 (wrongly in my view).

[Nubclear]

Asher; I'm usually on your side but could you please take your anti-Agathon troll elsewhere?
Create an anti-philosophy thread or something.