On 10/27/2010 9:23 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...
On 10/27/2010 8:18 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:51:18 -0400, wrote:
On 10/27/2010 7:13 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:45:47 -0400, "Paul@BYC"
wrote:
Sure, I'm progressive. I believe in progress, in moving forward, in
extending rights, in scientific development, in opening doors, in making
sure the "play" is fair. I don't believe in scapegoating, in blaming one
ethnic group or another for our society's failures, or in trying to get
ahead by scaring large blocks of nervous people.
Now you've done it - sit back and watch the fur fly.
Are you a sociology professor studying internet behavior?
That's pretty funny!
If I were, some posters here would make for an interesting study group,
I'd bet.
My underpinnings and teachings are more classical, and less
trade-schoolish, not that there is anything wrong with learning a trade.
In my classes, you might learn what some great thinkers thought, why
they thought that, how those thoughts evolved, how they influence us
today. You'd also be required to write many long papers.
Must the papers be of a certain 'bent' to recieve a good grade?
Of course not. What we like to see is evidence the writer properly
prepared himself by reading and assimilating pertinent works, and spent
significant time thinking and writing so as to present a logical,
coherent paper. In class discussions, any ideas are welcome, but the
presenter has to be able to defend them. We try to teach our students to
think logically and to develop and use their wits.
Yes, "must be able to defend them". Against who? A professor with a
liberal bent that might not challenge one side as vigorously as the
other... Especially if that professor doesn't feel one side needs
defending at all... Watched three kids come through the system, and my
mom was a school administrator for almost 50 years, I know how it
works...
You appear unfamiliar with the process of "defending" one's papers,
thoughts, presentations as it is done at the college/university level. I
say that because you are injecting partisan politics into a process that
has nothing to do with partisan politics. The exercise is intellectual,
not political.
No offense, but you seem eager to point fingers and make accusations,
even on subjects about which you know little or nothing.
The challenges to the presenters come not from me, but from fellow
students chosen at random and given a copy of the paper a few days
before the class discussion. The object of the exercise is to develop
logical thinking processes, not to insult the presenters or the
challengers. My role is that of sometime moderator, to keep the
discussions on track and within the time limitations.