You didn’t even read his post, did you?
…and then you proceed to quote from a dictionary in which the second and third definitions are exactly what was said.
Wow, so brilliant you can’t even read text you quote.
Funny that you should say that when there are people here who have actually demonstrated that they either aren’t reading or lack the ability to understand what they read (which surely cannot be true based upon their education).
Thanks for proving the point of my post so directly and immediately.
Nope. Only people who actually demonstrate a lack of understanding in the arguments that they make.
Oh, yeah, i’m firmly entrenched alright.
I currently work as an adjunct instructor. I have no tenure, no guarantee of classes in any given semester, and i’m in a discipline where there are something like 200-300 highly qualified candidates for every advertised permanent position. I’m currently contemplating a different career precisely because the profession is in such dire straits, and because the I-pay-so-you-should-teach-the-class-how-I-want crowd seems to be winning the battle in American higher education.
That’s me, firmly entrenched. I’m living off the fat of the land, i tell ya!
You’ve got a hell of a chip on your shoulder right now, don’t you? Plus you’re an idiot.
BigT said “people who think of themselves more highly than the evidence allows.” In other words, people who think they’re smarter than they are. The dictionary definition says nothing about that. You can be elitist/arrogant and yet be exactly as smart as you think you are.
And thanks for utterly ignoring anyone who disagrees with you. I hope you like living in the isolated hole you have dug for yourself.
Whatever. You don’t know anything about what I did or did not know in my classes other than what I told you, and you decided to dismiss that all already. Your opinion isn’t based upon anything other than an arrogant assumption.
Yes, there are hoops to jump through in life. But if the point of a university is to produce educated students the education is what is supposed to be important, not the hoops. When push comes to shove you support the concept of red tape and following demands over actually understanding the topic. That’s what’s wrong with universities, and a number of other institutions.
The whole point of the phrase “jumping through hoops” is that it describes trained animals doing what the master wants and not thinking human beings.
That is ridiculous, and it’s good that you see that. There are a lot of people who end up having to go to college and often going into to debt for reasons that aren’t valid ones.
But that’s not the sole problem. It’s not that college is failing people who shouldn’t arguably be there in the first place, it is also failing the individuals who are most interested in the goals and aspirations the universities are supposed to encourage: learning, personal advancement and the advancement of knowledge.
Some people, certainly in the world in general and in this thread, insist that only students who went through this process of hoops know and understand any particular topic to a meaningful degree. People who were genuinely interested in the topic and take the time to learn outside a classroom environment just make it more difficult to progress through the system, as they still have to go back to the level of all the people who don’t want to learn anything. Those who research or think things through and discover something that goes against what a professor wants to believe are told they don’t know what they are talking about because all the people who didn’t really think about it and repeated back the same things say differently.
You are presenting this as a choice to pick or choose to follow a contract, yet there is no alternate option allowed. What you are saying to potential students is simply: either do it this certain way or accept that you won’t ever get the knowledge… and or if you refuse to accept that and do learn the topic on your own (whether beforehand or after) you obviously haven’t really done so because that’s either “incredibly rare” or impossible. You insist it’s a choice while at the same time denying any real choices exist.
All this boils down to, again, is a circular argument. You are right because you say you are right, and if anyone else wants to be right also they need to do what you say, and if anyone says they are right without having done what you demand they can’t possibly be right.
That’s not a celebration of knowledge or its advancement, that’s self-perpetuating ignorance, pure and simple.
Some people in the world may say these things, but no one on this thread has.
The choice is whether to attend a university or not. The fact that people make a choice between those two options has nothing to do with the question whether one can educate oneself as effectively alone as one can in a University setting.
Read Mhendo’s post. You seem to think, if I’m reading you correctly, that you ought to be able to just take an exam and “test out” of her History class. But she’s explained that what she’s teaching isn’t a set of facts or a way of writing or anything like that. She’s teaching how to undertake a certain kind of dialogue with texts and with others reading those texts. You tell me how you think she could teach this without requiring students to participate.
ETA: It’s as though I signed up for a PE class in basketball, and then insisted the prof ought to pass me since I can pass a detailed exam on the rules of basketball. How am I misunderstanding you, though?
I have attended four community colleges and two state universities at this point in my life (for long and complicated reasons). I absolutely prefer courses with participation and seek them out. I have heard from the other students in almost every soft science/social science/humanity class that it was stupid to disagree with the professor’s position and just to write papers that agree with his politics or personal/professional views. I have never taken that advice and I my grades have never suffered for it. I have received an A on a paper in a class on mythology for in which I tore apart the primary text of the course as garbage (Campbelll’s Hero with a Thousand Faces, if anyone cares). I have argued both in person and in writing with the head of the psychology department about the efficacy of anti-depressants. He gave me an A.
Have I just been lucky and gotten all the good professors? I doubt it, because people in the same class I was in made the same arguments about professors just wanting you to mindless parrot them that I see in this thread. I guess I must just have some sort of super power. It couldn’t be that they were wrong or taking the easy way.
Here’s a thought: It is far easier to regurgitate the professor’s arguments than come up with your own that stand up. But is also probably a very boring paper to grade.
The irony, it burns. **BT **already neatly mopped up this mess you spewed out, so I’ll just leave you with a quote of his post:
Bingo. That’s exactly how I run my classrooms. My assignments and requirements are so damn particular that even if a kid found a paper that discussed the same article, it would still likely fail for being off topic.
Instructors are just begging for plagiarism when they assign wide-open papers like, “which 20th century musicians were culturally important and why?” Fools.
I also strongly agree about being able to id sentence complexity and vocabulary.
Thankyou both for your support. One minor point of order, though:
I’m a he. 
And though I’m an interested participant in the conversation, I do want to register that I swear on my life up and down all over my mother’s grave etc. that I have never, not once, had a teacher in a humanity’s course who I suspected simply wanted me to tell them back what they had expressed as their own views in the course, or anything to that effect.
Not a single time.
And I’ve had a lot of humanities teachers.
The closest I could say I’ve ever come to this was in a Creative Writing (Short Fiction) course where I disagreed fairly strongly with the professor’s views about realism. He thought all stories should be totally realistic in every way. I thought there was room for the fantastic or bizarre in quality fiction. He warned us explicitly that we shouldn’t try it–that he knew himself well enough to know he probably wouldn’t recognize a counterexample to his view even if presented with one.
And in that class, I broke his rule–I wrote a story in which the two protagonists had an entire relationship, from opening flirts to living together to the final breakup years later, without ever speaking a single word to each other.
I got an A and he nominated the story for some contest or other (I didn’t win).
Other students in the course (every student read every other student’s every story) brought up the realism thing in class discussion, offering it as a serious criticism of my story, and the professor defended the story, to be honest somewhat incoherently in my opinion at the time!, and much to the other students’ bewilderment!
So even then, when I was afraid I was finally meeting up with that teacher everyone always talks about (the kind Dan describes in this thread), and the teacher even described himself in those terms (albeit somewhat jokingly and as a kind of show of self-aware humility), even then the teacher showed no real urge to have his own ideas chanted back at him.
(God I wish I could still write fiction. What happened?! 
)
And now for an opposing viewpoint: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Shadow-Scholar/125329/
That article is one of the great masterpieces in the art of self pity teamed with self exoneration.
I’ve been following the discussion of this over on the Chronicle fora. Apparently, the Shadow Scholar is using some socks for some of the comments. The whole thing is very funny.
Link to the thread in question. I just started reading, but it seems to just be an assertion that he’s using socks, with no actual examples or proof. Too bad–I hope it gets more specific later in the thread.
ETA: And there’s going to be a live chat with him at noon today.
Ahaha, the accusations of sockery are happening in the comments themselves. Classic.
Turnitin.com is not a foolproof system. For one thing it flags EVERYTHING you have copied or even paraphrased. even if its properly cited. 56% is very suspicious but there’s a chance it may have been correct after all of course since you actually did the footwark yourself I’ll leave it to your judgement as to wether it was plagiarized or not. You won’t by any means get a 0% pliagiarized paper, it just won’t happen. I’d be careful about immediately grilling papers that come up 40-60% pliagiarized.