- This topic has 3 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
I don't know if anyone posted a link to this article yet, but here it is:The Classroom without ReasonThe article is written by a veteran who has had to deal with some - how shall I say - intellectually "hostile" students in his day as a student and professor. I thought the article was fake at first when I received it in e-mail form, but now it seems pretty real.
I will have time to read the article tomorrow when I have 24 hour Staff Duty. However, your description of the article sounds similar to stuff I have experienced. More to follow…
Interesting material. Years ago (waaaaaay more than the 15 years that passed from class to article) a very wise Prof at that same institution, when asked to compare CSUC* with the major Universities he'd visited on sabbatical replied, “You can get a pretty good education if you can wade through the bullsh*t.”[rant]*California State University-Chico; at the time I quizzed my ol' history prof, we were just changing to that monicker from Chico State College. The reality was, is, and always will be the school was originally a Normal School... intending to train teachers. Sadly the name change was also the beginning of the decline IMHO... went from teaching people to help people learn to teaching people to teach people what to think. Interesting too that the ol' history prof had no formal degree (challenged the BA, except for a math and a health class) and got the MA for a Pulitzer Prize nomination (deserved!); in another book, that he edited, he finished the intro with these words, "... con razon." With reason indeed, that must have left when the ol' prof died.[/rant]
[rant]*California State University-Chico; at the time I quizzed my ol' history prof, we were just changing to that monicker from Chico State College. The reality was, is, and always will be the school was originally a Normal School… intending to train teachers. Sadly the name change was also the beginning of the decline IMHO… went from teaching people to help people learn to teaching people to teach people what to think. Interesting too that the ol' history prof had no formal degree (challenged the BA, except for a math and a health class) and got the MA for a Pulitzer Prize nomination (deserved!); in another book, that he edited, he finished the intro with these words, “… con razon.” With reason indeed, that must have left when the ol' prof died.[/rant]
That does sound totally old school, in both senses of the word. Once in a while you hear about people from the past who held positions that you now need advanced degrees or a structured program for. I'm all for academics and everything but I don't think it's the only way to get an education, and sometimes (as the article suggests) it can even be a detriment to that education.
Right as rain; the ol' prof made sure we knew he was teaching us how to think… not what. In fact he liked the idea of reasoned discussion. When people got too emotional in the old west they ended up scalped usually.
Here is my more lengthy and thought out response.The problem he is alluding to, that emotion is at least as valid if not more so than reason, is a societal and not just an academic problem. I agree with the author that this attitude damages the academy and society as a whole. As I was reading this piece I was reminded of an incident that happened to me several years ago when I was a Drill Sergeant. This was before 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I was a Drill sergeant from 2000-2001 training cavalry scouts at Fort Knox. During one of my cycles while negotiating the fire-and-movement course that teaches privates how to move when under fire, I was going off on a private who could not keeps his head down. (Think Full Metal Jacket style chewing out here). The private completed the course after several tries and then got my attention and proceeded to tell me how all the Drill Sergeants could do better if they did not destroy private?s self-esteem and instead helped them to feel better. For once on the Trail, I was almost speechless. Then I proceeded to tell him that I did not care how he felt about himself as long he was competent at his job, that the enemy did not care about how high his self-esteem was. He could feel as good about himself as he wanted but if he could not shoot straight or follow instructions he was likely to end up dead on the battlefield. I further explained, in a loud manner, that self-esteem is a natural outgrowth of competence. If you know you are good at something, you can be justifiably proud of that fact. An interesting note for this story is that about 3 years later, I got an email from this private who was then deployed to Iraq in which he thanked me for being so hard on him and that he was sure some of my and my fellow Drill sergeants lesson?s had contributed to his survival in combat.The type of thinking demonstrated by that private is an infection that pervades society. I call it the entitlement disease, as though someone is entitled to something by the very fact of their existence. It infects western society and is a signature of post-modern thought. It is also a symbol for what is wrong with America. People do not value things like hard work and accomplishment anymore and why should they? The system is now geared to showing them that they can have whatever they want with little to know effort, especially if they play the victim. Can you imagine an Israel today if the Jewish people had played the victim after the holocaust? The problem is not victimization; it is the glorification of the status of being a victim whether in academia or the wider world. The result is the same.Hanson has pointed out that what is needed in academia is not equality of result but rather equality of opportunity. Everyone should have the opportunity to achieve something, but they should not have oit handed to them because of some perceived status while it is denied to others who are the perceived benefactors of historical inequality.
Interesting story about the private. I agree with your comments about the elevation of victimhood status in society. Looking at it even more broadly, I think that this problem reflects a larger philosophical disposition in modernity which places subjectivity over objectivity. It is the root of the entitlement mentality, and in other ways of thinking. Taking a different issue - when I argue with people on other boards against gay marriage, the reason for it that they tell me is that they want "equality". I tell them that from a societal perspective, such relationships are objectively less valuable than hetero relationships because they have no potential for natural procreation. I also tell them that they already have "equality" and what they want is really something additional....state sanctioning of something that they "want". They can't really argue very well against this and so they eventually resort back to their equality line. Their argument is rooted in a vision which places the subjective (me, me, me) over the objective (a rational view of society as a whole).We can also see this in a variety of other issues....all variations on the same thing.
Taking a different issue – when I argue with people on other boards against gay marriage, the reason for it that they tell me is that they want “equality”. I tell them that from a societal perspective, such relationships are objectively less valuable than hetero relationships because they have no potential for natural procreation. I also tell them that they already have “equality” and what they want is really something additional….state sanctioning of something that they “want”. They can't really argue very well against this and so they eventually resort back to their equality line. Their argument is rooted in a vision which places the subjective (me, me, me) over the objective (a rational view of society as a whole).
On this issue, I have always thought that the gay marriage lobby is disingenouas at best, they dont want equality. Or at least not the legal equality that they originally claimed, they have that with civil unions and I am even prepared to concede them legal equality regardless of my personal distaste for their lifestyle choice. What they want with marriage is actually an attack against heterosexuals and a simultaneous demand for affirmation. If they are ggranted the right to marry then they get an implicit affirmation that what they do is both morally and ethically right and the homosexual lifestyle is equally as valid as traditional marriage. 🙁The entitlement disease, social and moral narcissism, and hedonism of the post moderns is because that they are unable to see outside of themselves except in very narrow terms. I particularly object to their great social causes and insistence that they not get but deserve handpouts from productive parts of society. It is one with the health-care debate, we are mean if we dont want to give our tax dollars to uninsured people. I am waiting for more cries of how it is for the children. Ultimately the post-moderns want power just like any other interest group. the difference is the means whereby they are attempting to achieve it.
