Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And [supposedly] he had difficulty with the most basic of tasks (i.e., tying his shoes), which means he would have been the quintessetial college prof--scattered, but brilliant--which happens to be the type that students tend to complain about the most.
There seems to be a lack of appreciation for brillaint people (but not their brilliant ideas), especially when they're brilliance makes them different. Einstein also was [supposedly] deemed "insubordinate" and "disrespectful" by his teachers, which was why he ended up working as a patent clerk.
As I said, people seem to be able to tolerate brilliant ideas but not the people that come with them.
I can relate to this. I am a very direct person and I will literally walk away from people who have no idea what they are talking about or begin to debate when I know I am right and I feel the battle is worth it. (I've debated teachers and even was able to work at getting one let go.) People get really annoyed that "I'm always right." I'm not but when it appears that way, they get really annoyed. When you look at Gallup's talent strengths, Deliberative was my number one strength, which meant that I took serious care in making decisions and choices, that I anticipated the obstacles. I could see possible obstacles that other could not and it made very good at making the right choice. At work, that translated to me being the go to person for a different perspective and for fixing issues by my leaders.
The problem that led to with my peer group was that I was some how favored. It also led me to see issues with employees that my leaders could not, which I could give them a heads up on, which could go one way or the other....such as with a young woman who has something wrong in her head and was a constant liar and manipulator. I knew something was up with her and my red flags flew up when she figured that out and tried to go as far as complain about the personal life everyone else felt bad about to me (she had avoided me as I wasn't the gossipy type she prefered) and even tried to hug me as I came to work each day. I knew something was not right but I didn't have any proof. I just could tell. The little things all added up, but when I pointed them out one at a time, they seemed fivolous.
I continued not to trust her, openly so with my superiors, even while they promoted her and a few months later, they were forced to move her to where they could keep a better eye on her and demote her. But until that happened, they thought I had a very negative attitude about her and were open in telling ME that I had something wrong with ME. It wasn't like we were having angry conversations or anything. I'd known my bosses for years and got along well with them so it was open and honest conversation from both sides but it still only wasted their money and time that wouldn't have if they had trusted me.
There are other instants like this. DH use to be very hesitant will some my my bizarre solutions to things. After awhile, its now to the point I can just say, "I don't know why...but I really feel we should do this." I save that for only really important things and he trusts me while most probably would not. It is rare that I wrong about it.
First of all, I don't agree with you. Those who teach (in this case we're just talking college level) do have extensive training and have studied different viewpoints and approaches. Some of this is a matter of time; you can't devote your life to everything, and no single person can be a master of everything. That's not a failure of the education, just a reflection of the fact that people have a limited lifespan, not to mention that everyone's approach is a little different, and while it's possible to read and understand other viewpoints, and to teach them (that's standard at the university level) you'd be missing out on a lot if you restricted yourself to only one or two wonderful teachers. Those different viewpoints are also part of the reason that in many fields those who pursue a PhD and plan a career in academia are not encouraged to do their undergraduate and graduate work at the same university. Working with different people with different interests and strengths is recognized as part of the educational process. That doesn't reflect negatively in any way on the educational system.
And second, while you (as are we all) are certainly entitled to your opinion as to the strengths or weakness of the current educational system, but because, as you yourself note, you've spent little time in a university setting; can you really give it a fair evalution? A quality education is not limiting, and in fact encourages the very sorts of expansive and creative thinking that you in various posts say you appreciate. I don't know you, and don't know your situation, but my impression from various threads is that you've had some bad educational experiences, but are making the assumption that everyone has had those same experiences. Not everyone needs to go to college, and not everyone is well suited for college, but when done right (and when a student actively takes advantage and learns, not just sits in class for the sake of a degree) a university education can be a wonderful thing. (and, sort of off-topic, but lots of students don't have huge debt loads; not everyone pays full sticker price, and not everyone gets in over their heads with loans.)
If you are not passionate enough about a subject, no number of viewpoints is going to make you become passionate. If you are passionate about a subject, you will do everything you can to learn about that subject. With as much access to information as we have now, there is no reason a person can not get as many viewpoints as they want. I do not see the point in having to pay to see various instructors to hear them preach on the viewpoint they've chosen as if it is gospel. Let us now look at Ardi for an example. Everything we "knew" about primate evolution has now changed. Now the newest theory is that we evolved side by side with Chimps and their ancestors from an even earlier relative that was somewhere before apes altogether.
What teachers need to be teaching is how to acess all these different viewpoints, allow their students to work with different ways of getting to the same conclusion (the only way to get pure hydrogen is not just from water) and to stop treaching theories as facts. The only facts about theories are the facts that XYZ person thought it up and it is indeed a theory. By teaching them as facts, we have very close minded individuals who might otherwise have some new ground breaking theory.
How can I actually relate to this: In junior high - high school I was great in Algebra. I worked for three semesters getting straight A's with one teacher. I was allowed to finish half my work in my head without having to prove every answer by writting it out on paper. I was allowed to use methods that were not taught in the books that I discovered in my head to get to my answer more quickly. I was allowed to spend my free time doing other work for other classes, leave to work on various school projects, ect. I also helped some of the students in the class who were stuggling to learn my method if it meant they could graps it better. Then for Algebra III I did not want to give up choir to be with one of the few teachers I actually respected so I chose one that I had avoided to that point. Then I was required to write out all my work. No problem. I was not allowed to spend my free time productively. Which sucked. And she started marked all my work wrong to start the semester off, regardless of the fact the answers were correct, for not using the method SHE taught, then later for not writting the numbers on the paper the way she liked to see them (You know, there are two ways to write the number 2 and unless my sevens had a third little line on it (this 7 would be wrong), it was a 1 to her, ect) and claiming she could not read them, though it was not a problem for other students. She also berated me in front of my classmates, refused to call on me to demonstrate anything, had a mission to point out that I did not know everything, and overall was domineering. Half us failed while we watched her devot all her time with a lost cause student and we were irate as we listened to her spell out how to get to the answer, including the answer itself. All from a preacher's wife.
The thing about college professors is that they usually are passionate about their subject. In most cases they have a PhD in their subject, and you don't put in years of additional higher education if you don't have a burning interest in the topic, especially in the fields that don't come with huge salaries. Some professors can make quite a good living, but the road towards a job as a professor is long and tough. I think we disagree on whether or not most teachers at the k-12 level are good or not, but putting that aside the qualifications, roles, and purposes of a university professor are also very different from a junior high Algebra teacher. Some things are the same (they both teach students), but for the most part they're very different. Maybe the same as like the pilot of the commercial jet is the same as the driver of a city bus. Both are important, both transport people and have responsibilities to get people from here to there safely, but their training, specific jobs, and many other things are not that similar.
And again, most professors don't preach on one viewpoint like it's the gospel. And students aren't paying just to hear someone read a book to you in class; they're paying to get exposure to information, research, and opinions (and to be encouraged and provoked) in a way that would otherwise be inaccessible, or at least for most practical purposes, to most of us otherwise.
I agree that those the best teachers are passionate, and do try to incorporate many different ways of approaching a subject.
Motivation, I think, counts for more than education or stupidity combined.
IQ/Education are both worthless measures of a persons worth.
I LOVED going to school. I love learning. I have self taught myself a lot of things, but was very glad to have been force taught philosophy and English, geology, geography, history, technology. Everything but math.
I think people should get into what they love and we should have vocational programs in high schools and put them on a "track" and not always send them off to college.
The problem is having an economy to support everyone, once they are done with training or schooling.
I always suggest a "community college" first; to test the waters. Then you can transfer your last year to a bigger school and get your fancy degree without spending as much money.
I don't think a degree makes you any smarter than a person who only finished high school and never went to college.
While the degree doesn't make you smarter, statistically speaking, smarter people go to college. Hence the association of a college degree meaning you're smart. While anyone can get a college degree if they put their mind to it, generally, the higher the degree, the smarter the person.
I'm sorry but I didn't experience all that good stuff and I went to top tier colleges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist
The thing about college professors is that they usually are passionate about their subject. In most cases they have a PhD in their subject, and you don't put in years of additional higher education if you don't have a burning interest in the topic, especially in the fields that don't come with huge salaries. Some professors can make quite a good living, but the road towards a job as a professor is long and tough. I think we disagree on whether or not most teachers at the k-12 level are good or not, but putting that aside the qualifications, roles, and purposes of a university professor are also very different from a junior high Algebra teacher. Some things are the same (they both teach students), but for the most part they're very different. Maybe the same as like the pilot of the commercial jet is the same as the driver of a city bus. Both are important, both transport people and have responsibilities to get people from here to there safely, but their training, specific jobs, and many other things are not that similar.
And again, most professors don't preach on one viewpoint like it's the gospel. And students aren't paying just to hear someone read a book to you in class; they're paying to get exposure to information, research, and opinions (and to be encouraged and provoked) in a way that would otherwise be inaccessible, or at least for most practical purposes, to most of us otherwise.
I agree that those the best teachers are passionate, and do try to incorporate many different ways of approaching a subject.
I'm sorry but I didn't experience all that good stuff and I went to top tier colleges.
How much time did you spend discussing things with professors and your classmates?
I spent a lot of time outside of class with my professors getting questions answered and just having philosophical discussions. About half of my classmates hung out in the student union where we would get into debates. I don't know where the other half were but I suspect they would say they didn't get as much out of their educations.
College is what you make it. No one hands you the education you want. You have to go after it.
Some people hang around after class to discuss things and others high tail it off of campus and head home alone or hit the local bars as fast as they can. Some students listen to lectures and participate and others play games on their cell phones. Which ones do you think get the better education? You'll get out of college what you put in.
To me it is the ability to retain and apply knowledge. In this case a college degree, or no degree, would make no difference. And obviously, some are better/smarter than others in this regard.
On the other hand, if college gives someone a leg up on their ability to retain/apply knowledge, by introducing new study habits, new way's of thinking etc, then maybe college can make you smarter.
Why do people think that having a college degree makes you smart?
People think think that because they are dumb.
Maybe they are dumb because they don't have a college degree.
If they had a college degree they might not think that.
Then they would be smart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She also berated me in front of my classmates, refused to call on me to demonstrate anything, had a mission to point out that I did not know everything, and overall was domineering. Half us failed while we watched her devot all her time with a lost cause student and we were irate as we listened to her spell out how to get to the answer, including the answer itself. All from a preacher's wife.
Why do people think that having a college degree makes you smart?
