|
On January 13 2012 02:26 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 00:05 Boonbag wrote:
English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum.
Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around. Just because it's a different system than you're used to doesn't mean it's as dumb and pointless as you're implying. If all university is about is listening to your profs jabber on about their subjects and then parroting what they say back at them in your papers, then we may as well just make university an extension of high school. Many of the world's top schools (e.g. in the USA, top research universities and especially liberal arts colleges) use this sort of Socratic method in the classroom even in subjects like mathematics to encourage discussion amongst the students -- and guess where many of the professors of such institutions come from? Yeah, from other top research universities and liberal arts colleges. It's not just about teaching students to be sponges, though that's part of it; it's also about training another generation of scholars to think for themselves. Of course, you have an issue when one side doesn't want to talk -- which is the case here -- or if your prof handles the class badly and just lets anyone speak, but otherwise, it works decently well if your classmates are doing their readings.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You pick a method that works out at a very high degree of studying / research, mostly when debating theorics and think it's a good idea to apply it all over. Dialectic isn't a teaching method, it's a methodology to explore a given topic. Besides that, what you're talking about isn't even dialectic. It's english pedagogy you're talking about, wich I think produces retarded students. Every country on the planet in any system is able to produce brilliant scholars however.
edit : dialectic was taught in ancient greece, but wasn't a mean to educate one, but a debate technique. As far as we know, students in greece weren't allowed to even speak while class was going on and not even allowed to speak about what they studied outside the lyceum.
|
On January 13 2012 00:05 Boonbag wrote:
English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum.
Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around.
That's actually not the class at all.
P.S: This is a French and English-speaking province.
|
Smart people can take what is complex and make it simple. Anyone can do the opposite.
|
On January 12 2012 20:58 bITt.mAN wrote:All I can contribute is to recommend fluffing up on effective social communication. I'd never really cared or bothered 'till I realized how lacking I was, in my own encounters. Read books on 'being an effective communicator' , the only one I've read so far is "How to talk to Anyone" by Leil Lowdnes, and though it's mainly big-cat business oriented, it's still good. [tpb is your fraieund, get moar on teh cheapuuuu] The thought of being a 'professional communicator' or a 'communication counselor' never really dawned on me as important or significant enough for a career 'till my older brother summed up his Business School applications by describing himself as one (he does the press releases for ~the~ company, English/Chinese). I realized effective, higher-order communication is just so essential between humans, and we take it for granted, but most of us REALLY aren't that good communicators. So I recommend we both get better (:
A far more overarching point I've got though today's blog section was: fundamental distance from and dissatisfaction with your current life situation. 'Failing at becoming a pro CS player' and the regret that entailed, or 'I've failed big time and can't get a job, halp?', again being quite unhappy with how he ~passed~ his college life, and now you, with the anecdote on the bus and feeling that sort of engagement isn't truly satisfying. Fuck, I'm a college student, I've got exams in 5 days and I haven't started revising, I've procrastinated this whole week. Now it's certainly not as bad as other people's situations, but I'd much rather have this sort of identity crisis sooner rather than later, cause the recovery process is really empowering. Heavy stuff, but really good, about being surrounded by university students who feel they're entitled to ANYTHING just because their parents have paid for them their whole lives (and they themselves haven't really toiled yet). May I be very naughty and voice some of my own concerns of < Well what's the point of being in University anyways? > You get in, you go though ( I was also reading today about people paying for others to do their homework), and what do you get out of it? I'm no judge or well-based observer, but it seems like the intellectual and academic mental-masturbation of your social situations is surfacing, and you're [finally?] seeing how superficial and empty that is. I don't have an answer, I'd be in much the same situation if I decided to prescribe to that sub-society. Talks and conversations you're meant to have [it's the social norm] which everyone condones and ~appreciates~, but are ultimately unsatisfying. The only thing I can propose is reach out and search, find something you DO find fulfilling and truly worth your time, and get friends who you can relate to about that. I'm still in the process, but I feel that's got to be a good way to be driven and passionate about what you're doing. The worrying thing is if/when you realize that vocation doesn't coincide with your life's current tract. Shoutout to StarStruck for his good and though-provoking posting, u too Torte, good  EffOrt.
That's really interesting, I'm going to look into that. How did your brother get into a job like that? In small groups (like 5, not 15) and where we are just discussing, I do fine and I actually sound a lot better. But maybe when the pressure is on and I feel squeezed, I elevate my choice of words to compensate for my lack of confidence in my actual arguments.
Could be something to consider.
|
On January 13 2012 03:12 Mothra wrote:
Smart people can take what is complex and make it simple. Anyone can do the opposite.
Yes, it's been said in several ways already.
|
On January 13 2012 02:45 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 02:26 babylon wrote:On January 13 2012 00:05 Boonbag wrote:
English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum.
Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around. Just because it's a different system than you're used to doesn't mean it's as dumb and pointless as you're implying. If all university is about is listening to your profs jabber on about their subjects and then parroting what they say back at them in your papers, then we may as well just make university an extension of high school. Many of the world's top schools (e.g. in the USA, top research universities and especially liberal arts colleges) use this sort of Socratic method in the classroom even in subjects like mathematics to encourage discussion amongst the students -- and guess where many of the professors of such institutions come from? Yeah, from other top research universities and liberal arts colleges. It's not just about teaching students to be sponges, though that's part of it; it's also about training another generation of scholars to think for themselves. Of course, you have an issue when one side doesn't want to talk -- which is the case here -- or if your prof handles the class badly and just lets anyone speak, but otherwise, it works decently well if your classmates are doing their readings. That's exactly what I'm talking about. You pick a method that works out at a very high degree of studying / research, mostly when debating theorics and think it's a good idea to apply it all over. Dialectic isn't a teaching method, it's a methodology to explore a given topic. Besides that, what you're talking about isn't even dialectic. It's english pedagogy you're talking about, wich I think produces retarded students. Every country on the planet in any system is able to produce brilliant scholars however. edit : dialectic was taught in ancient greece, but wasn't a mean to educate one, but a debate technique. As far as we know, students in greece weren't allowed to even speak while class was going on and not even allowed to speak about what they studied outside the lyceum.
Then it's a difference of opinion. You think university is meant to educate students. I don't; that's what all the schooling before university is for. IMO, university is about active learning where you can take advantage of your environment and in particular your academic peers, their experiences, and their knowledge and use that to enrich your own understanding (or lack thereof) of the subject material. Otherwise why go to university? We can find all we need in the library, go to trade school, get a job, and get on with our lives. I mean, do you really think that debate can't impart valuable skills/lessons onto students? So long as the moderator does his/her job (i.e. corrects anything that may be wrong and keeps the discussion on track, makes sure that all topics that are supposed to be covered are covered within the available amount of time), then how could encouraging classroom debate possibly be negative?
|
On January 13 2012 02:45 Boonbag wrote:
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You pick a method that works out at a very high degree of studying / research, mostly when debating theorics and think it's a good idea to apply it all over. Dialectic isn't a teaching method, it's a methodology to explore a given topic. Besides that, what you're talking about isn't even dialectic. It's english pedagogy you're talking about, wich I think produces retarded students. Every country on the planet in any system is able to produce brilliant scholars however.
I went to a very highly regarded undergraduate college where almost every class was based around the conference model. The system has its own problems but overall I feel it's very superior to the "sit listen and stfu" or whatever it was you were proposing as the ideal.
That being said, Torte, it sounds like you are an underclassman (?) and you aren't in a class with other majors. In this case, there's no point in using big words because neither you nor the other students knows what the words really mean or how to use them. The jargon words exist for a reason (contrary to what some previous posters have asserted, you CANT simplify all ideas into easy language. Jargon words are what experts use to talk to each other because it takes longer to express it simply).
Don't use big words as a defense mechanism, use them when you can't use other words. Make an effort to speak more slowly. Ask questions. State smaller points each time you open your mouth.
Good luck. You sound like me as a freshman.
|
Everyone in my class are Sociology majors, this is a specialized subject class. The jargon [if I was using any, which I'm not, well I am, but it's in words everyone knows and understands (legitimate power and violence, etc.)] should be understood. Especially since the terms are from since CEGEP.
Anyways, it's not the issue. The issue is is that I'm overusing needlessly larger words (not large or big or fancy, just larger than a typical discussion) to convey a point that is fine as an argument, but lost to the crowds because its so stupidly convoluted.
|
On January 13 2012 03:53 Torte de Lini wrote:
Everyone in my class are Sociology majors, this is a specialized subject class. The jargon [if I was using any, which I'm not, well I am, but it's in words everyone knows and understands (legitimate power and violence, etc.)] should be understood. Especially since the terms are from since CEGEP.
Anyways, it's not the issue. The issue is is that I'm overusing needlessly larger words (not large or big or fancy, just larger than a typical discussion) to convey a point that is fine as an argument, but lost to the crowds because its so stupidly convoluted.
Hahaha, thinking about it, I don't know which is worse: your situation or my situation. I can't speak well at all; even when I'm just speaking casually with people, I lose track of what I'm saying halfway through and need to stop to think about what to say next, because I actually cannot think while I'm talking. I just babble and repeat myself. ^^;
I imagine your situation is more frustrating. For me, I just feel like a completely idiot. 
|
On January 13 2012 03:58 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 03:53 Torte de Lini wrote:
Everyone in my class are Sociology majors, this is a specialized subject class. The jargon [if I was using any, which I'm not, well I am, but it's in words everyone knows and understands (legitimate power and violence, etc.)] should be understood. Especially since the terms are from since CEGEP.
Anyways, it's not the issue. The issue is is that I'm overusing needlessly larger words (not large or big or fancy, just larger than a typical discussion) to convey a point that is fine as an argument, but lost to the crowds because its so stupidly convoluted. Hahaha, thinking about it, I don't know which is worse: your situation or my situation. I can't speak well at all; even when I'm just speaking casually with people, I lose track of what I'm saying halfway through and need to stop to think about what to say next, because I actually cannot think while I'm talking. I just babble and repeat myself. ^^; I imagine your situation is more frustrating. For me, I just feel like a completely idiot.
Yours because it's easier to go up than down I feel.
I'm going to my next class soon. I'm going to try with this class to speak a bit more coherently (if we're talking at all, but this is more of a take-notes class).
I imagine your situation is more frustrating. For me, I just feel like a completely idiot
It's frustrating and discouraging because I want to be a part of the conversation without always objecting (yet, I never agree with what they say because I view it as bad)
|
Holy 11 pages of responses! I guess I'll keep my response short then.
Basically tehnicaly and acedemic intelligence are very separate things from emotional intelligence. Often referred to as EQ, it really refers to the ability to sense social situations and evalutate people's attitudes are respond accordingly. It's a skill that often times people who are more technical do not possess. It's a skill like any other and can be improved through practice.
I actually have quite the opposite problem from you, I'm great at public speaking and arguing an issue in front of an entire class (no doubt several years of University student government really helped me practice these skills) but find myself having problems in one on one situations. Probably because for the most part I don't really care about most people's lives or ignorant opinions on things, and most of the my interests are completely different from most people. Having to fake interest always feels like bashing my head against a wall.
In conclusion, being social is overrated. Rather spend the time playing my copy of DA: Origins that just came from Amazon
|
sam!zdat,
It's a fourth year class.
Toast you should never fake interests. Sounds like you're trying too hard to find acceptance in those one-on-one interactions. Wrong peers to connect with outside of work and your studies. Look for others with similar interests. Really isn't hard to find those people on campus considering there are shitloads of clubs and extra-curricular activities going on all the time.
There's a lot of politics in University; however, you got to find ways of keeping yourself honest.
|
Wow so many responses to this blog, I read everything lol. The thread started to go a little downhill after page 7. Did you get what you wanted Torti? I like the summary of the good advice you put up on the updated OP. Did my advice help at all? =D
|
This reminds me of a funny quote I read in a funny book a while ago:
"Between what I think
What I want to say
What I think I said
What I say
What you want to hear
What your hear
And what you understand
There are ten (? I counted seven) possibilities that we might have difficulties communicating. But let's try anyway!"
I had a classmate who is kind of like you, Torte. It was very hard to judge his ideas, simply because he was... so damn slow and so damn unclear! We would talk about a certain subject in class, then he would raise his hand, and then... he would simply start to think out loud. I never knew if he had an idea of what he was saying, or if he was really just thinking and rambling at the same time.
It would go kind of like this: "I think that the question lies... in the essence of what the author thought as his... I mean... he had the will to send a strong... he had a strong will and... according to Bachelard's works on dreams and water, could this be an aquatic dream sent to the viewer as... as the sense of contigency contained in here is flushed away by the stream of his thoughts..."
And he'd go on and on and on and even though you could perceive in the distance an interesting point coming, it simply came too slow, and you would eventually stop listening because, well, I listen to people talking, not to people thinking!
Another thing he'd do regularly, is that he would let his mind wander in places the debate had left earlier, or things no one really wanted to discuss at the moment, not completely off-topic but still as if he had just heard what we were talking about and didn't listen to the course of the conversation.
Ideas have no to little value, what counts in the eyes of everyone are actions. Expressing your ideas is far more important than simply having them in your head, because only their confrontation with the world make them grow! But I see that this point has been brought forward earlier.
Edit: oh and also you're taking this way too seriously, it is likely that your pride makes you aggressive and blind to the other's points.
|
2. Speaking up only to disagree + fancy words makes you look like a douchebag. Somehow that didn't click for me...
After reading that you edited the OP I went back and looked at it for the 2nd time after all these 11 pages. kept going from my last post and reading on lol.
So, the reason that it comes out making you look like a douchebag is that well.... heres an example.
Imagine that you are in 6th grade. Your English teacher introduces to you your first couple of big words and says that they are used by adults. That they are basically longer, more official sounding, versions of the tiny words you learned in grade school. Ok, that sounds easy enough. But then the unthinkable happened....
The one kid you don't know very well at all raises his hand. Little did you know that when your teacher called on him he would ruin your experience in the 6th grade forever. He asks "What is your reasoning for this redundant introduction to single words throughout the educational school year, is it that you consider your objective as a teacher to unnaturally insist on causing melancholy through the entirety of this community that is forced to come to this educational institute and learn things they themselves would never dream of asking to learn?"
Then you end up with the exact same reaction described in the post this was originally mentioned as well as the reaction the kid(you) gets. If you are unlucky, the teacher will try to encourage this. If you are lucky, then the teacher will probably try to set you on the right foot and tell you that at school in front of other kids just learning this now it is not the right time to use advanced words. In papers, yes. But in front of other kids that can't understand it you end up adding nothing to the discussion but "can anyone translate that  "
|
On January 13 2012 04:58 StarStruck wrote:
sam!zdat,
It's a fourth year class.
Well crap, reading fail I guess. In that case, I say throw the fucking dictionary at them.
|
On January 13 2012 00:05 Boonbag wrote:
English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum.
Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around.
A lot of classes have participation and discussion as part of the grade.
|
On January 13 2012 11:34 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 00:05 Boonbag wrote:
English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum.
Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around. A lot of classes have participation and discussion as part of the grade.
As I understand he's getting at being Sophmores, sophos moros , philosophical fools. College students who think they're the intellectual shizz, worthy of consultation and worship, when they're just caught up in eachother's haughty drabble.
I for one can't stand people who come off as taking themselves too seriously; unnecessarily expensive words and clothes do help form that image. Communication communication Torte (I'm surprised this hasn't been raised more). One thing I find that helps is getting the idea you want to communicate, and really working through it[in yo noggin!], getting all the reasoning behind it laid out and DOWN. Then, once you've drafted a few versions and cut away at everything but the core ideas, you can express it in a concise and comprehensible manner. Fuck I'm tired but I'll still dig through to find an example of your dear misunderstood statements and how to dissect them so that other people can understand.
|
Come on guys, give him a break. There IS a chance that this guy may be so unbelievably smart that no one understands what he says. you know, one of those misunderstood geniuses that we heard so much about.
If I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet on it though
|
On January 12 2012 08:54 Torte de Lini wrote:
The issue is, the conversation is all rudimentary, it feels all poorly articulated and thought out. They usually resolve and revolve around anecdotal and personal stories to depict or validate a theory the teacher proposes. Sometimes they'll blur words together (as if they're synonyms) such as confidence (with arrogance) and associate it needlessly with aggression (instead of assertiveness) and it'll devolve from there into even more overly-drawn out stories about how someone doesn't cry when they die (and everyone in the class believes that culturally you should cry, when in reality, it's a culture belief that you grieve [her story was that she doesn't cry, but get angry, which is another form of grieving, but I didn't interject or correct for the sake of the discussion]).
Regardless of how you express your arguments, that sounds like a bad class lacking in rigour. Individual anecdotes don't validate theories, and blurring words just throws the discussion out the window in favour of rhetoric.
You may enjoy analytic philosophy courses more—not because it's obtuse, but because it's essential to state definitions and arguments precisely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
