Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Not necessarily an easy read, but some good info. My only complaint is that it obviously is a good 30 page essay crammed into a 300 page book!
This argument takes me back a few years. Does anyone here remember reading David Hackett Fischer's “Historian's Fallacies”?In his rather pedantic classic, Fischer addresses this very issue (or should I say "these issues"), and argues a good case. Like him or not, Fischer's work was, for many of us, a stalwort in our history programs.
He gets a pretty mediocre rating at Ratemyprofessor: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1184612The end of course survey comes out from Dr. McCluskey - the Provost - but don't be misled. The survey is run by an outside organization that provides consolidated feedback, thus keeping student identity separate. My opinion, nothing will get better, and mediocre professors will continue to teach unless we (as students) tell it like it is -- that doesn't mean escalating petty issues, but if you don't fee that your professor is putting effort into the course or not taking it seriously, run him/her up the flagpole. These aren't tenure track professors, so they need to step up to the plate or get canned.I happen to know that there are some changes coming about with some AMU professors - a low level of tolerance for those who don't take their obligations to the students seriously. Not to say that they're cleaning house, but they do have a progressive engagement system and those that don't measure up are put on a corrective action plan or canned.
One – it is a pretty serious breach of security at the White House.Two - this couple is, uh, scum. They are frauds, owe tons of money, don't pay their bills, take advantage of people for "good causes", etc. Locally, they owe people thousands of dollars for support at their "charity" events. They lie, they cheat, they steal, and they need to be brought down a notch (and jail sounds like a good option to me -- not for the White House thing, but for their business dealings).
Okay – forgive me for bringing up an old thread, but I wanted to drop a couple of cents in the discussion.I think that what really drove Europe into a World War in 1914 rather than just another localized Balkan war, was the coflict between the old and the new in Europe. Primarily, military growth and modernization greatly outpaced the growth and modernization of European diplomacy. Since the unification of Germany in the Franco-Prussian war, the European powers all sought to modernize their militaries in the model of the Prussians. Advanced staff colleges were created and professional general staffs were formed (or re-formed) in the model of the Prussian Great General Staff. Senior staff officers were trained and promoted largely on merit (no so much with field commanders, but that is a different discussion). Staff college classes worked classroom problems with real world scenarios - developing war plans, mobilization tables, and logistical support frameworks. On the diplomatic side, there was no corresponding professionalization of the diplomatic corps. Appointments were done largely on family connections or political favors. Diplomacy was learned through mentoring, and diplomatic dealings were generally a slow paced, social affair. When the crisis of July 1914 erupted, diplomatic communications were still delivered by courrier or in person by the diplomat - not by telegraph or cable.From 1870 to 1914, military staffs were focused on winning the next war when, not if, conflict came. All military maneuvering within the governments was to assure military advantage in a crisis. Tempo of operations and mobilization were key elements of military strategy. Diplomatic strategy in the same time period was little changed from the period 50 years before - the goal was to avoid war at almost all costs. The result was that the diplomats were largely steamrollered by the events of July and August 1914.I believe that many in that time believed that a large scale war in Europe was inevitable (especially after Bismarck was dismissed), but I don't think any envisioned the scale and destruction that inevitably came with it. Huge amounts of national capital was being spent on weapons, arms, and armaments. Conflict was inevitable but not necessarily as an outgrowth of what was called "The Third Balkan War" in 1914.
Hey Scout – what class are you currently in? I'm in an AMU class right now working on a very similar paper.
I'd say approach any of your AMU professors. I know Brian Blodgett personally, and I'm sure he'd respond well and try to help you out.
No doubt this was a government funded study!Just to be clear, 1000 years ago (roughly 1000 to 1010 AD)- Leif Ericson discovered "Vinland"- The Chinese invented gunpowder- World population was estimated at 200 million people- The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was burned by Muslims under Caliph Hakim of Egypt- England was divided, part ruled by (in my opinion the greatest name for a king ever) Ethelred The Unready and another significant portion under the Vikings.- Central and Eastern Africa was ruled largely by the Bantu- In North America, the Mississippian transformation was taking place (the shift of native American tribes from fishing and collecting largely to agriculture).- The "Medieval Optimum" was recorded by scientists of the time - the phenomenon that the sun was brighter and it is believed that temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees higher globally than they are today.Based on this, how exactly is he reliably estimating surface temperatures of the tropical Atlantic?
I read an interesting article over the weekend from a “townie” who became a Harvard graduate and later Harvard professor. His position was that this wasn't a racial issue – although that is what the media and most of America sees. His interpretation was that this was a “class” issue — that there is a great deal of animosity between the “elite” faculty in Cambridge and the “townies” – afterall, a tenured Harvard professor is superior to all comers, especially the unwashed, uneducated masses that make up the locals… or words to that effect. So, in the case of “Skip” Gates, he was/is an elitist (along with the rest of his Harvard peers) who happens to also have a racial chip on his shoulders (since postulating on the chip is the focus of his teaching and thus his “elite” status).Don't know how accurate that is, but thought it an interesting commentary on the subject.
I read something recently where the next generation will be measured in how quickly they can learn something, master it, then unlearn it and proceed to the next topic. The argument for this was focused primarily on technology — that technology changes so quickly that those who will excel and be successful will be those who can pick up and master new concepts quickly, and then just as quickly abandon them to take on the next “latest thing”. While I can see applicability in certain technological fields, I can't see this being a universal indicator of success.I also remember reading an article recently about the economic "recovery" that referenced the "April Jobs Report". The point that struck me was that roughly 29% of Americans age 22 and over have a college degree. Of course, the article went on to point out that unemployment for college graduates was much, much less than for those without a college degree, and also highlighted that the more formal education you have, the more you get paid (duh?!).Here's some food for thought though. My son is getting ready to enter his last year of high school. A year and a half ago, after being very frustrated with his high school experience (and we live in one of the top school districts in the state), we started looking in to private schools. He elected to enroll in a military style prep school that 1) doesn't allow iPods, cell phones, CD players, video games, or unfetter Internet access, - or girls, for that matter, and 2) teaches by total immersion -- that is, for five hours a day, for seven weeks, they study one subject. That would be Biology for seven weeks, take the exam. Then Algebra II / Trig for seven weeks, take the exam. U.S. History for seven weeks, take the exam. Retention for these kids is phenominal, and test scores are significantly better than the public schools. Class sizes are small (approximately 10 students per instructor) and study time is monitored. Some argue that students in this program lose time management skills, but that's where the military side of the school steps in -- room and personnel inspections, close order drill, parades, marching to chow, etc. Of course, there is chapel too. Guidance counselors begin with "when you go to college..." instead of the standard public school line "what are you thinking about after graduation?"So, here's a point for discussion... would the single subject total immersion program work in public secondary schools?Students wouldn't have to lug around 50 pounds of text books every day. Student teacher ratios would greatly improve -- although there would probably still be 25 - 30 kids per class, that would be all the teacher deals with for seven weeks -- as opposed to the 75 to 100 students that they deal with every day or every other day (if using block scheduling).Whadda ya tink?
I completed my certificate before enrolling in the master's – so yes, I have earned and will keep my certificate.Generally, you can earn a certificate along with the degree, provided the certificate is not embedded in your major - but generally that means more classes - or that they take up elective credit. For me, only three classes transferred in for credit
Hey Scout – congrats on getting closer to being done.I finished my graduate certificate in WWII studies back in the spring, took some time off, transferred the credits from the certificate into an MA in Military History, and will start my next class on Monday.Enjoy your time in Europe and keep your helmet buckled when you deploy - stay safe.
