crazietalk.net

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:Well, quite honestly, as an engineer, I'll disagree with you. The º belongs to the 9. The unit of measure, well, that could be F, C, K, maybe even latitude or longitude. It could even stand alone as 9º. Although "6º of separation" wouldn't fly in my book.

Oops. Didn't really mean to group the F, C and K like that, but it's pretty funny in retrospect.

I'm an engineer, dammit, not an English major.

There's no degree sign with K. That's just the way it is - think it's something about Kelvin being an absolute temperature scale. (I also counted off for that. ;) ) The degree symbol is part of the temperature units rather than being part of the number. Maybe it's a chemistry thing. As I said, it was beaten into me enough as an undergrad and grad student that it carried forward into my brief career in academia. Oh, and if you're writing the temperature without the scale (ºC or ºF), then it is appropriate formatting to put the symbol with the number.

Oh, and wilson, I also counted off on grammatical errors in lab reports. It drove students mad. Most people emphasize the scientific part and forget about the fact that it's difficult to publish, get grants, write repots, etc. if you can't write coherently. Scientific writing is a bit bizarre (3rd person passive voice iirc), which is the type of writing that the English department tries to beat out of people. It's important to get writing practice outside of science classes (i.e. in English and history classes), but I would contend that it's equally important to get as much experience as possible in scientific writing. Or maybe this is just the liberal arts college alumna coming out in me.

Oops - back on topic now... :oops:

ArkieDukie wrote:Oh, and wilson, I also counted off on grammatical errors in lab reports. It drove students mad. Most people emphasize the scientific part and forget about the fact that it's difficult to publish, get grants, write repots, etc. if you can't write coherently.

Believe it or not, this makes history students crazy, too..."This is history class, not English class!" Well, history is first and foremost a written discipline; there is no such thing as "good history" that is not also well-written.
Oh, and you misspelled "reports. ;)

wilson wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:Oh, and wilson, I also counted off on grammatical errors in lab reports. It drove students mad. Most people emphasize the scientific part and forget about the fact that it's difficult to publish, get grants, write repots, etc. if you can't write coherently.

Believe it or not, this makes history students crazy, too..."This is history class, not English class!" Well, history is first and foremost a written discipline; there is no such thing as "good history" that is not also well-written.
Oh, and you misspelled "reports. ;)

Dang typos! That's what I get for not proofreading. (-1/2) :oops: :lol:

ITA. One of the biggest problems in the educational system is the overall attitude that material learned in one course (or discipline) is specific to said discipline. Pigeonholing only hurts; it doesn't help. Guess what, folks: general chemistry still applies in organic chemistry, and you still use organic chemistry I when you take organic chemistry II, and so on and so forth. Hydrogen bonding is the same whether you're talking about it in biology class or in chemistry class. I'm sure the same thing applies in history courses. Back in my days in academia I had disagreements with faculty in economics because they thought our chemistry major was too structured. They bragged that their courses were not interdependent and ours shouldn't be either. I would argue that lack of relationship between their courses made their major weaker rather than stronger. Additionally, if they're not tying their material in to other relevant disciplines they're doing their students a great disservice. (Stepping down from soapbox...) :ugeek:

The Shakespeare course that I took as an undergrad was particularly fun because it was composed of history, economics, art, music, biology, and chemistry majors in addition to the English majors. The history majors always had a lot to contribute to discussions relating to cultural issues at the time when the plays were written. Art and music majors could also jump in with what was going on in their disciplines at the time. Just goes to show you that the whole history vs English thing goes both ways. I think that being able to put literature in a historical context adds to the understanding of the text. YMMV

Hey, moderator, should we move this into its own thread? We're going WAY off-topic, but this is fun.

wilson wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:Oh, and wilson, I also counted off on grammatical errors in lab reports. It drove students mad. Most people emphasize the scientific part and forget about the fact that it's difficult to publish, get grants, write repots, etc. if you can't write coherently.

Believe it or not, this makes history students crazy, too..."This is history class, not English class!" Well, history is first and foremost a written discipline; there is no such thing as "good history" that is not also well-written.
Oh, and you misspelled "reports. ;)

And unpaired quotation marks.

This science major was always pissed off when classmates would whine and moan about having to write things grammatically correct. I also hated it when they groveled for grades.

DukeUsul wrote:This science major was always pissed off when classmates would whine and moan about having to write things grammatically correct. I also hated it when they groveled for grades.

My favorite is when students show up at office hours the week before the final, having done squat all semester, and tell me something like, "I really need to get a B in this class."
Well, then, you really need to have not failed the first half dozen assignments and waited until the final week of the semester to say word one to me.

wilson wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:Oh, and wilson, I also counted off on grammatical errors in lab reports. It drove students mad. Most people emphasize the scientific part and forget about the fact that it's difficult to publish, get grants, write repots, etc. if you can't write coherently.

Believe it or not, this makes history students crazy, too..."This is history class, not English class!" Well, history is first and foremost a written discipline; there is no such thing as "good history" that is not also well-written.
Oh, and you misspelled "reports. ;)

Emory used to have (I hope they still do) a great spring workshop on teaching writing intensive courses. They made it so that faculty from across the university (no two from the same department) would all benefit from intense discussion. I hope they have something like that for the grad students.

I am still amazed at the frequent kvetch that grading is so subjective in writing assignments. When I grade, I can show them how many of each writing issue they had, and then show them quantitatively how they did. It usually cuts down that argument.

When I started out teaching, I DID get the "This is not an English class" argument, and "what makes you qualified to grade my English?" I suggested the student visit my department chair, who ALSO didn't have an English degree, and also taught a course that had writing.

DukeUsul wrote:This science major was always pissed off when classmates would whine and moan about having to write things grammatically correct. I also hated it when they groveled for grades.

I've had much less grade groveling once I moved away from Tier 1 research institutes.

Lavabe wrote:

DukeUsul wrote:This science major was always pissed off when classmates would whine and moan about having to write things grammatically correct. I also hated it when they groveled for grades.

I've had much less grade groveling once I moved away from Tier 1 research institutes.

Duke students were the worst. I was just embarrassed for them sometimes.

wilson wrote:

DukeUsul wrote:This science major was always pissed off when classmates would whine and moan about having to write things grammatically correct. I also hated it when they groveled for grades.

My favorite is when students show up at office hours the week before the final, having done squat all semester, and tell me something like, "I really need to get a B in this class."
Well, then, you really need to have not failed the first half dozen assignments and waited until the final week of the semester to say word one to me.

Here's a classic from my first semester as an assistant professor. I was in the midst of getting settled in my office when one of my organic students stopped in to welcome me and let me know that he got A's in all of his science classes. He showed up again after the first exam, on which he made a C, to tell me that obviously something was wrong with my exam because he made A's in all of his science classes. This continued throughout the semester. Right before the last exam, I was giving another student advice on how to study for my class (work problems, which is also what I told them the first day of class), Mr. I Make A's in All of My Science Classes advised this other student that he re-copied his lecture notes rather than working problems because "working problems is a waste of time." Okay, for all of you who have taken a chemistry class, how well would you have done on your exams if all you did for studying was re-copying lecture notes?

ArkieDukie wrote:

wilson wrote:

DukeUsul wrote:This science major was always pissed off when classmates would whine and moan about having to write things grammatically correct. I also hated it when they groveled for grades.

My favorite is when students show up at office hours the week before the final, having done squat all semester, and tell me something like, "I really need to get a B in this class."
Well, then, you really need to have not failed the first half dozen assignments and waited until the final week of the semester to say word one to me.

Here's a classic from my first semester as an assistant professor. I was in the midst of getting settled in my office when one of my organic students stopped in to welcome me and let me know that he got A's in all of his science classes. He showed up again after the first exam, on which he made a C, to tell me that obviously something was wrong with my exam because he made A's in all of his science classes. This continued throughout the semester. Right before the last exam, I was giving another student advice on how to study for my class (work problems, which is also what I told them the first day of class), Mr. I Make A's in All of My Science Classes advised this other student that he re-copied his lecture notes rather than working problems because "working problems is a waste of time." Okay, for all of you who have taken a chemistry class, how well would you have done on your exams if all you did for studying was re-copying lecture notes?

The deeper question, is how terrible were these other "science" classes he was getting A's in without working problems?

DukeUsul wrote:

Lavabe wrote:

DukeUsul wrote:This science major was always pissed off when classmates would whine and moan about having to write things grammatically correct. I also hated it when they groveled for grades.

I've had much less grade groveling once I moved away from Tier 1 research institutes.

Duke students were the worst. I was just embarrassed for them sometimes.

Another true story: when I was TAing at Duke, one of our not-so-stellar students actually told the organic professor, "I pay $20K/year to go to this school; you should at least give me a C in this class." The professor's response was, "If I paid $20K/yr to go to school here, I'd sure as heck study to make sure I got better than a D."

"I shouldn't have to work so hard in a gen ed science course. This is anthropology, not BIOLOGY."

Oh yeah, ways NOT to improve your grade.

ArkieDukie wrote: The Shakespeare course that I took as an undergrad was particularly fun because it was composed of history, economics, art, music, biology, and chemistry majors in addition to the English majors. The history majors always had a lot to contribute to discussions relating to cultural issues at the time when the plays were written. Art and music majors could also jump in with what was going on in their disciplines at the time. Just goes to show you that the whole history vs English thing goes both ways. I think that being able to put literature in a historical context adds to the understanding of the text. YMMV

I took English 1 at Duke. I never darkened the door of the department after first semester freshman year again (even though I had a deferred AP credit if I took another course).

DukeUsul wrote:Duke students were the worst. I was just embarrassed for them sometimes.

I do NOT agree with this statement. I do, however, think something is wrong with the training and expectations of a significant portion.

Lavabe wrote:

DukeUsul wrote:Duke students were the worst. I was just embarrassed for them sometimes.

I do NOT agree with this statement. I do, however, think something is wrong with the training and expectations of a significant portion.

I speak from very limited experience.

DukeUsul wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:Here's a classic from my first semester as an assistant professor. I was in the midst of getting settled in my office when one of my organic students stopped in to welcome me and let me know that he got A's in all of his science classes. He showed up again after the first exam, on which he made a C, to tell me that obviously something was wrong with my exam because he made A's in all of his science classes. This continued throughout the semester. Right before the last exam, I was giving another student advice on how to study for my class (work problems, which is also what I told them the first day of class), Mr. I Make A's in All of My Science Classes advised this other student that he re-copied his lecture notes rather than working problems because "working problems is a waste of time." Okay, for all of you who have taken a chemistry class, how well would you have done on your exams if all you did for studying was re-copying lecture notes?

The deeper question, is how terrible were these other "science" classes he was getting A's in without working problems?

The faculty member who was giving them this particular piece of study advice was the pre-med advisor, who was a biologist. He taught the biology courses that most of the pre-meds were taking along with my organic class, and this particular study advice did work for his class. He actually tried to make me change my course grades to reflect the ones he was giving in his courses. There were people making C's in my class that were making A's in his. He made my life VERY difficult after I refused to do so. There's a whole other story here that I won't go in to. Let's just say that I have a very low regard for people who abuse positions of authority.

Lavabe wrote:"I shouldn't have to work so hard in a gen ed science course. This is anthropology, not BIOLOGY."

Oh yeah, ways NOT to improve your grade.

If you didn't go off on them, you have my complete and total respect. Few things make me angry, but a statement like this would've made me go off completely.

A semi-related story: the school where I started my academic career had an honor code. I turned in a couple of organic students because one of the students blatantly copied from the other one on a 5 pt post-lab assignment. The father of the copier (who, I might add, was a star basketball player) called to rail on me for turning in his son and threated to sue me if he was kicked out of school because "it was only a 5 pt assignment." He also told me that he told his son that he should've changed the words around instead of just copying the assignment. Yeah, that's a great attitude. It's okay to cheat, but you should do it so that you don't get caught. Oh, and by the way, that's also a pretty good way to make your son's professors VERY skeptical about any assignments that they turn in.

Lavabe wrote:

DukeUsul wrote:This science major was always pissed off when classmates would whine and moan about having to write things grammatically correct. I also hated it when they groveled for grades.

I've had much less grade groveling once I moved away from Tier 1 research institutes.

That's an interesting (and sad) commentary, isn't it? As an anthropologist, why do you think this is the case? Is it the atmosphere of the institution itself, or is it an inherent trait in the people who end up at the Tier 1 research institutes?

ArkieDukie wrote:Is it the atmosphere of the institution itself, or is it an inherent trait in the people who end up at the Tier 1 research institutes?

I think it's mostly the latter...a preponderance of hyper-driven type A's, but then, that begets the former in part.