Sensitivity fascists

[*Nately120*]

I misread the thread title as "Sensitivity Facesits" and boy am I disappointed.

[*PhilHos*]

Everything's been pretty much said, but let me just add that the speech was NOT mandatory for students to attend.

[GMDino]

(03-08-2016, 02:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I misread the thread title as "Sensitivity Facesits" and boy am I disappointed.

[*Nately120*]

(03-08-2016, 02:15 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Disappointment fading.....

[Belsnickel]

A couple of things, the program known in many schools as Safe Zone is about members of the LGBT community knowing who on campus they can turn to when faced with discrimination. Yes, discrimination does happen. Yes, physical violence occurs against them and they have been discriminated against by faculty at times as well.

The other thing I want to bring up is probably not going to sit well with people as a response to this, but this is why a liberal arts education is an important thing. A well rounded, LA education is supposed to include things to make the students think critically about their world, to face opposing viewpoints, to weigh what they are being presented with objectively. When a student doesn't have to do anything outside of their comfort zone classes they often aren't facing anything that will challenge their preconceived notions about the world.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-08-2016, 01:33 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If you attended you could just get up and leave.   Or I guess act like a fool and riot

if you attended is past tense and means you actually attended. Previously, you stated if you didn't agree you wouldn't attend. 

So which isn't young feller?  If you disagreed with what you heard then you attended. If you didn't attend then you couldn't disagree with what you didn't hear because you didn't attend. 

You can't get up and leave a speech if you didn't go to the speech.

Understand?

[JustWinBaby]

(03-08-2016, 02:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A well rounded, LA education is supposed to include things to make the students think critically about their world, to face opposing viewpoints, to weigh what they are being presented with objectively. 

The "well-rounded' liberal arts education is such a load of bunk.  Technically my program was liberal arts, or a liberal art foundation, and most of those classes were useless and forgettable.  You don't need to be mandated to take a class to "enrich" yourself when you can get pretty much the same thing for reading the book on your own.  

What you want to advocate is not actual classes or majors in liberal arts, but to incorporate that "worldly" perspective and critical thinking into all courses.  Many opportunities to cover largely the same material/concepts in a class focused on functional learning like econ, business, marketing, law, management, even engineering.  It's even better because it's a real world application of that learning rather than some soft philosophical BS. 

But why give all that to you in one class when the college can charge you for 2 or 3?

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2016, 02:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The "well-rounded' liberal arts education is such a load of bunk.  Technically my program was liberal arts, or a liberal art foundation, and most of those classes were useless and forgettable.  You don't need to be mandated to take a class to "enrich" yourself when you can get pretty much the same thing for reading the book on your own.  

What you want to advocate is not actual classes or majors in liberal arts, but to incorporate that "worldly" perspective and critical thinking into all courses.  Many opportunities to cover largely the same material/concepts in a class focused on functional learning like econ, business, marketing, law, management, even engineering.  It's even better because it's a real world application of that learning rather than some soft philosophical BS. 

But why give all that to you in one class when the college can charge you for 2 or 3?

The problem is that the professors of those classes that are considered to be more "practical" aren't willing to include these things in their classes. I've seen discussions like this play out time and time again where the professors aren't willing to take the time in their course to go over that sort of material.

Though I will say this, if the ratio of time spent working in the field vs. time in academia is more favorable tot the time spent in the field for a professor, they are more likely to want to include these things in their class as it is the real world. The problem is that professors in those courses of study that were successful in their field prior to academia are few and far between because they get paid peanuts in academia in comparison to what they can make in the field. We see it primarily in business and nursing faculty right now.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2016, 02:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The "well-rounded' liberal arts education is such a load of bunk.  Technically my program was liberal arts, or a liberal art foundation, and most of those classes were useless and forgettable.  You don't need to be mandated to take a class to "enrich" yourself when you can get pretty much the same thing for reading the book on your own.  

What you want to advocate is not actual classes or majors in liberal arts, but to incorporate that "worldly" perspective and critical thinking into all courses.  Many opportunities to cover largely the same material/concepts in a class focused on functional learning like econ, business, marketing, law, management, even engineering.  It's even better because it's a real world application of that learning rather than some soft philosophical BS. 

But why give all that to you in one class when the college can charge you for 2 or 3?

If you bring up liberal arts questions in engineering class you are just derailing the main message.

I actually agree with you on a certain level, buut a well rounded education is definitely not "a load of bunk".  A big part of cost control in education should be cutting back on the what is required to get a degree, but I don't agree with requiring teachers from other fields to somehow teach multiple courses at one time.

Obviously marketing and business classes require at least some knowledge in sociology, history, and psychology.  You have to understand the world to be successful in the world.  But that does not mean business and marketing professors should be trying to explain complex sociological theories.  When marketing professors need to use history in their classes they need to know that the students all have a knowledge of history.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2016, 03:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you bring up liberal arts questions in engineering class you are just derailing the main message.

I actually agree with you on a certain level, buut a well rounded education is definitely not "a load of bunk".  A big part of cost control in education should be cutting back on the what is required to get a degree, but I don't agree with requiring teachers from other fields to somehow teach multiple courses at one time.

Obviously marketing and business classes require at least some knowledge in sociology, history, and psychology.  You have to understand the world to be successful in the world.  But that does not mean business and marketing professors should be trying to explain complex sociological theories.  When marketing professors need to use history in their classes they need to know that the students all have a knowledge of history.

Indeed. Ideally, you would have classes laying the foundations for these things before the students start taking their majors. Then, when the student is in their marketing class and there is something related to a sociological principle the professor knows that they should have that foundation.

[Benton]

I've never understood why people fault the colleges or classes when college kids act like elementary school kids. Problem starts at home. If you raise a spoiled, self-centered kid who can't handle adversity, he's going into the world a spoiled, self-centered adult who can't handle adversity.

Colleges — much like public education — have nothing to do with that.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2016, 03:50 PM)Benton Wrote: I've never understood why people fault the colleges or classes when college kids act like elementary school kids. Problem starts at home. If you raise a spoiled, self-centered kid who can't handle adversity, he's going into the world a spoiled, self-centered adult who can't handle adversity.

Colleges — much like public education — have nothing to do with that.

There is that, too. Every time I deal with a student and I wonder how in the hell they can act like that I end up with a parent, oftentimes that student's, that reminds me where they get it from.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2016, 03:50 PM)Benton Wrote: I've never understood why people fault the colleges or classes when college kids act like elementary school kids. Problem starts at home. If you raise a spoiled, self-centered kid who can't handle adversity, he's going into the world a spoiled, self-centered adult who can't handle adversity.

Colleges — much like public education — have nothing to do with that.

Exactly right.

When they never face adversity growing up because you have relied on an adult to remove anyone who makes you feel uncomfortable. It just spells disaster and the creation of weak adults.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-08-2016, 03:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But that does not mean business and marketing professors should be trying to explain complex sociological theories.  

It can be incorporated where relevant and will be far more impactful and effective.

The problem is what you don't continue to practice and explore is forgotten, that's why the liberal arts stuff is bunk.  I went to a pretty good college, and the liberal arts classes were junk compared to my business and econ as far as critical thought (much less practical application).

I don't think it's necessary to spend thousands of dollars on a course that gives you about as much out of it as a book club would.

Sorry, but "liberal arts" at most universities means a cursory exploratory survery of a broad range of topics, essentially discussing a book on the geography of rocks or white rappers or what have you...in other words, wholly useless and you should have saved your money and just borrowed the book from the library. 

[JustWinBaby]

(03-08-2016, 03:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Indeed. Ideally, you would have classes laying the foundations for these things before the students start taking their majors. Then, when the student is in their marketing class and there is something related to a sociological principle the professor knows that they should have that foundation.

Great, in theory.

But I remember my junior or senior year my finance prof asked "and how do we find the slope of the curve"?  Crickets.  Calculus was a requirement for all freshmen.

So that's an example of how well your liberal arts classes sink-in and pay off - and Calc is a very rigid, structured course with actual correct answers.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2016, 04:29 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Great, in theory.

But I remember my junior or senior year my finance prof asked "and how do we find the slope of the curve"?  Crickets.  Calculus was a requirement for all freshmen.

So that's an example of how well your liberal arts classes sink-in and pay off - and Calc is a very rigid, structured course with actual correct answers.

But even though it wasn't an immediate recall, with a little refresher it should have come back easier. Whereas with no foundation of that knowledge there would have had to been more time spent on that. At least that is how I have seen that sort of thing play out.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-08-2016, 03:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that the professors of those classes that are considered to be more "practical" aren't willing to include these things in their classes. I've seen discussions like this play out time and time again where the professors aren't willing to take the time in their course to go over that sort of material.

That's where supplemental materials come in.  Not a lot of time needs to be spent on explaining, say, branding or marketing with respect to cultural differences.

It's easier and more efficient to be done than people realize, those professors are just being lazy.  My best professors didn't teach the text - you were expected to read and know it.  A lot of what we are talking here is reference material, and it's a matter of finding texts or supplemental materials that incorporate that address the relevant background info.  Essentially the Harvard case method which, by the way, can be adapted to almost any course.

Take a business ethics class and you can't avoid some discussing some of the background material.  Even at a liberal arts school, one person took Woman Studies while another took African American studies, and that doesn't make them particular more learned with respect to most topics than the student who took neither course.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-08-2016, 04:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But even though it wasn't an immediate recall, with a little refresher it should have come back easier. Whereas with no foundation of that knowledge there would have had to been more time spent on that. At least that is how I have seen that sort of thing play out.

Perhaps.  But they don't use it and probably never will.  I have never used calculus in business.  I've used other stats classes, quite regularly.  But Calc was the core req.

And we're not talking "little refresher". Not only did they forget a basic Calc application, they didn't even remember that Calc was the solution. That's an abject failure if you can't even remember where to turn for the anser.

Useless.  You have to major in math to get into the courses that really start to develop a framework for logic and analysis. The idea that taking Calc as a foundation course has real value is complete bunk.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2016, 04:38 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's where supplemental materials come in.  Not a lot of time needs to be spent on explaining, say, branding or marketing with respect to cultural differences.

It's easier and more efficient to be done than people realize, those professors are just being lazy.  My best professors didn't teach the text - you were expected to read and know it.  A lot of what we are talking here is reference material, and it's a matter of finding texts or supplemental materials that incorporate that address the relevant background info.  Essentially the Harvard case method which, by the way, can be adapted to almost any course.

I don't disagree here at all. Courses where I have learned the most are the ones where you don't need your textbook for class. Just a notebook and a good pen.

I have heard arguments for and against liberal arts educations from people smarter than you or I, and there are times where my position softens either way. One of the fun parts of being on so many listservs for higher ed. In truth, I prefer the European model to education where all of the well-roundedness is gotten out of the way while you figure out if you're meant for academia, professional school, or trade school.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2016, 04:44 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Perhaps.  But they don't use it and probably never will.  I have never used calculus in business.  I've used other stats classes, quite regularly.  But Calc was the core req.

And we're not talking "little refresher". Not only did they forget a basic Calc application, they didn't even remember that Calc was the solution. That's an abject failure if you can't even remember where to turn for the anser.

Useless.  You have to major in math to get into the courses that really start to develop a framework for logic and analysis. The idea that taking Calc as a foundation course has real value is complete bunk.

See, calc was never required for me. Stats, yes, but not calc. Both for my business degree and the public admin degree currently in progress.

But seriously, didn't know calculus was the solution? I don't know if that's a failure on teaching, liberal arts education, or just basic knowledge.