What is a "bad professor" to you?

[Hoplite]

i don't see what the problem is with that
why should a professor be bound to teach only what is in the text if he is able and willing to expand the course material outside of what is found within the text?

The job of a teacher isnt to just throw textbooks and tests at you and call it a day. They are supposed to review the material, ensure that you know it (as best they can), and then test your competence.

 

[justabubba]

The job of a teacher isnt to just throw textbooks and tests at you and call it a day. They are supposed to review the material, ensure that you know it (as best they can), and then test your competence.

sounds more like the expectations of a nanny than a professor

attend the classes, read the material, ask your questions ... reasonable expectations of the student
present the subject in class, assign the material for individual study, answer any student questions ... reasonable expectations of the professor

there is no obligation on the professor to see that you 'got' the subject, attended the classes, read the material or asked the questions

it appears you are one of the many who imposes the 'learning' expectation on the professor instead of the student. obviously, we disagree

 

[hiswoman]

I had one nursing professor who liked to yell at you in front of patients and other medical professionals.

 

[CompSciGuy]

My worst was a programming teacher who stopped his lecture about halfway through the 3rd or 4th class and then said,"Well, that's all I have to say on the subject. See you guys later." The same teacher also dropped me from the class for non-attendance in a previous quarter despite my 94% score on the midterm and the fact that the class was ONLINE ONLY!!! I ended up transferring.

 

[Harshaw]

I had a prof (who was actually the dean acting as a prof) who assigned me to write a position paper and then threatened to fail me in the class because he disagreed with it.

 

[cpwill]

my HS biology/chemistry teacher. he taught us all about "portaplasm" and we spent the entire year in chemistry talking about the freakin periodic table. We jokingly referred to him as the "father of science"

I also hate those gay ass liberal arts profs in college that make you read some stupid ass poetry and then write an essay on what it means...then fail you because what you think it means isn't exactly what they think it means. I got very tired of having to figure out what those brain dead tards wanted to hear

ah, that's because you went at it backwards. the trick to having fun in those classes is to make a habit of defending the most abusive or non-politically correct stance you can wring out of the document.

"here mark twain is demonstrating the fundamental idiocy of the modern democratic voter" etc.

 

[cpwill]

I had a prof (who was actually the dean acting as a prof) who assigned me to write a position paper and then threatened to fail me in the class because he disagreed with it.

i had teachers that ran that way; one forced us to write papers defending Global Warming theory (for example) in a historical research seminar. :roll:

which is why i and a pack of my fellow-minded-fellows made a habit of publicly embarrassing them every chance i got. our school would run "teach-ins" or "cultural events" that invariably featured professors or their guests standing up and telling us all how America was evil, capitalism didn't work, socialism was just grand, etc. and so forth. so i would come with all kinds of interesting questions, research, etc.... they were expecting sheepents (not students), and eventually shifted (while i was there, anywho) to letting guests run the gamut rather than taking it themselves.


:devil: i made a former ambassador cry, once; security told me i would have to leave so the event could continue.

 

[Fiddytree]

i had teachers that ran that way; one forced us to write papers defending Global Warming theory (for example) in a historical research seminar. :roll:

Yeah, that is brilliant. Now, I could understand research on the theory historically, if say the subject were covered recently (just about enough time has passed). But automatic defense is rather weird.

which is why i and a pack of my fellow-minded-fellows made a habit of publicly embarrassing them every chance i got. our school would run "teach-ins" or "cultural events" that invariably featured professors or their guests standing up and telling us all how America was evil, capitalism didn't work, socialism was just grand, etc. and so forth. so i would come with all kinds of interesting questions, research, etc.... they were expecting sheepents (not students), and eventually shifted (while i was there, anywho) to letting guests run the gamut rather than taking it themselves.

I absolutely love teach-ins. Most of the time, they are completely idiotic and nothing more than intellectual grandstanding.

 

[justabubba]

i had teachers that ran that way; one forced us to write papers defending Global Warming theory (for example) in a historical research seminar. :roll:

i don't see your problem with that
in HS debate class (60's era) we were required to write papers defending each side of a topic
seemed to be a good technique to understand your opponent's perspective and to refute their arguments when assigned to the opposing team

if you (wrongly) believe global warming is a false concept, would that assignment not give you a better understanding of the positions those who do not share your opinion hold?
possibly, we have different views about what 'education' entails

which is why i and a pack of my fellow-minded-fellows made a habit of publicly embarrassing them every chance i got.

i have to call bull **** on this. from reading your posts i don't see the presence of adequate firepower to accomplish this. since i have not seen their posts, all i can say is that maybe your fellow students were better armed if they were able to achieve this degree of public embarrassment

our school would run "teach-ins" or "cultural events" that invariably featured professors or their guests standing up and telling us all how America was evil, capitalism didn't work, socialism was just grand, etc. and so forth. so i would come with all kinds of interesting questions, research, etc.... they were expecting sheepents (not students), and eventually shifted (while i was there, anywho) to letting guests run the gamut rather than taking it themselves.

offer us a video or a school newsletter account or it didn't happen ... again, i'm calling BS

:devil: i made a former ambassador cry, once; security told me i would have to leave so the event could continue.

color me impressed ... not

 

[Fiddytree]

i don't see your problem with that
in HS debate class (60's era) we were required to write papers defending each side of a topic
seemed to be a good technique to understand your opponent's perspective and to refute their arguments when assigned to the opposing team

Historical research seminars are not even remotely like high school debate classes. I would like more clarification on his paper, but I find this comparison incredibly strange.

 

[justabubba]

Historical research seminars are not even remotely like high school debate classes. I would like more clarification on his paper, but I find this comparison incredibly strange.

ok. tell us how the written report assignments would differ

 

[Fiddytree]

While there is a thesis, an argument, the argument is not on the same plane. For instance, historical research on the theory of Global Warming would likely entail the intellectual development and scientific synopsis...or perhaps would examine the people behind the theory. It would be out of the ordinary for the historical researcher to make an argument on the current merits or demerits of the theory itself (as it is very much in play, and very much out of reach for the vast majority of historical researchers of the time period). The debate course would perhaps make an argument in favor of a constructive approach to ideology or policy, whereas the historian's historical work would not be interested in making a constructive prognosis on action or inaction, as such would be the work of the scientist or the political scientist.

 

[justabubba]

While there is a thesis, an argument, the argument is not on the same plane. For instance, historical research on the theory of Global Warming would likely entail the intellectual development and scientific synopsis...or perhaps would examine the people behind the theory. It would be out of the ordinary for the historical researcher to make an argument on the current merits or demerits of the theory itself (as it is very much in play, and very much out of reach for the vast majority of historical researchers of the time period). The debate course would perhaps make an argument in favor of a constructive approach to ideology or policy, whereas the historian's historical work would not be interested in making a constructive prognosis on action or inaction, as such would be the work of the scientist or the political scientist.

i don't believe you have been able to make an adequate distinction between a historic research assignment about DEFENDING (to use his expression) global warming theory and a debate class assignment DEFENDING global warming theory
the point being, that the defense of some theory would be present in each instance, where one would normally anticipate a historical assignment to be one where an objective standard was expected rather than a defensive position

so, now that you understand why i find your explanation without merit, you are welcome to try again

 

[Fiddytree]

Aside from the fact that someone such as yourself (who clearly is not involved in historical research at all) is nevertheless acting like a pretentious snot, I shall "try again."

In historical research, there is such a thing as a timeline. Enough time has to pass before any discussion of merit or demerit can take place. Depending upon when said course took place, you could approach the question in a limited manner. More than likely, since it started roughly in the late 1970s, not enough time has passed. Furthermore, the debate is very much a matter of current events, rather than history. Furthermore, most historians, suffice it to say, are not well-versed in science to make a defense. This is likewise a problem for a historical student to become an expert in theoretical science and expected to approach it from either way. This is why, for instance, historians interested in the Environmental Movement (which was bourgeoning in the 1970s) tend to shy away from analysis of the relative merits and demerits of any of the science being discussed at the time. They focus on the people instead.

Now, a debate course is going to focus on practical action or inaction on a current event-basis rather than from a historical basis. The historical basis can tend to be a bit more distanced and shall we say..immediately distressed as someone in a debate course. We aren't be-all-and-end-all interested in costs and negatives of one political theory or action or scientific action or development...we typically want to see how the story is told, how our models of historical analysis hold up (Marx, Toynbee, Hegel, etc.).

We simply have differing concerns. I also had to speed up my description, because I have family in town. If you still find this beyond redemption, perhaps cpwill can help out. I'm quite sure he could maybe get through to you that they are completely different academic disciplines.

 

[justabubba]

Aside from the fact that someone such as yourself (who clearly is not involved in historical research at all) is nevertheless acting like a pretentious snot, I shall "try again."

In historical research, there is such a thing as a timeline. Enough time has to pass before any discussion of merit or demerit can take place. Depending upon when said course took place, you could approach the question in a limited manner. More than likely, since it started roughly in the late 1970s, not enough time has passed. Furthermore, the debate is very much a matter of current events, rather than history. Furthermore, most historians, suffice it to say, are not well-versed in science to make a defense. This is likewise a problem for a historical student to become an expert in theoretical science and expected to approach it from either way. This is why, for instance, historians interested in the Environmental Movement (which was bourgeoning in the 1970s) tend to shy away from analysis of the relative merits and demerits of any of the science being discussed at the time. They focus on the people instead.

Now, a debate course is going to focus on practical action or inaction on a current event-basis rather than from a historical basis. The historical basis can tend to be a bit more distanced and shall we say..immediately distressed as someone in a debate course. We aren't be-all-and-end-all interested in costs and negatives of one political theory or action or scientific action or development...we typically want to see how the story is told, how our models of historical analysis hold up (Marx, Toynbee, Hegel, etc.).

We simply have differing concerns. I also had to speed up my description, because I have family in town. If you still find this beyond redemption, perhaps cpwill can help out. I'm quite sure he could maybe get through to you that they are completely different academic disciplines.

not surprising, the point of my question was lost on you
to help you out, i have used bold font to illustrate your words speak to an objective historical assessment of some event. in this instance, the global warming theory. i will type this slowly, so keep up ... notice that cpwill will identified his historical paper assignment to be one in the - and this is an important word, do not miss it - DEFENSE of the global warming theory

my point is there is no difference between his "history" assignment and the debate assignments i referenced because in each instance a non-neutral position was expected to be established by the writer. his assignment, to DEFEND the global warming theory could not have been, could NOT have been a neutral/objective examination of the facts

third time is the charm; have another go at it. and no hurry, you are welcome to wait until your guests depart

 

[Josie]

Most of my college professors were EXCELLENT. However, one lady gave quizzes everyday, but the quiz questions along with the answers were on the website for the textbook. So all you had to do was memorize the letters of the answers or the first few words of the answer and you'd do fine. No learning at all, just memorizing. Horrible.

I had another professor that had surgery immediately after our semester with him ended. He was VERY grouchy and sometimes just mean. During our time to evaluate him (which usually takes about 10 minutes while he's out of the room) took almost an HOUR because people were writing a LOT and we had a class discussion about it too. He should've taken that semester off before his surgery. Others who had taken him at another time said he was great.

The worst high school teacher I had "taught" for maybe 15 minutes of the class and then let us roam the halls doing whatever we wanted. When he "taught" he was SO boring and he would glance at the TV from time to time (The Weather Channel). He was just awful and should've been fired. But ya know how that goes.... (see Chris Christie thread).

 

[Fiddytree]

I'm just going to depart with the words: No, you are the one who just doesn't get it. That is not the goal of historical writing, period. I'm not going to waste any more time with someone like yourself.

 

[Bodi]

I'm just going to depart with the words: No, you are the one who just doesn't get it. That is not the goal of historical writing, period. I'm not going to waste any more time with someone like yourself.

Good call... and by your picture on your avatar, you don't have much time left either...

 

[cpwill]

Yeah, that is brilliant. Now, I could understand research on the theory historically, if say the subject were covered recently (just about enough time has passed). But automatic defense is rather weird.

yeah; i could see it's use as an exercise in critical thinking, perhaps; but to have your thesis assigned was irritating. I got the impression that that was what the professor was interested in, and she perhaps lacked the broad scope to grade a variety of subjects.

I absolutely love teach-ins. Most of the time, they are completely idiotic and nothing more than intellectual grandstanding.

that was definitely true

 

[cpwill]

not surprising, the point of my question was lost on you
to help you out, i have used bold font to illustrate your words speak to an objective historical assessment of some event. in this instance, the global warming theory. i will type this slowly, so keep up ... notice that cpwill will identified his historical paper assignment to be one in the - and this is an important word, do not miss it - DEFENSE of the global warming theory

that was my point; it wasn't a historical paper assignment. it was, at best, a quasi-science paper. i've been through historical writing seminars: two at the undergraduate and now one at the graduate level. that class was the 'graduate' level one; and was utterly useless.

my point is there is no difference between his "history" assignment and the debate assignments i referenced because in each instance a non-neutral position was expected to be established by the writer

actually the writer of a historical paper is expected to be neutral. the debate paper author comes in with an objective and a pre-conditioned response. a historical paper is supposed to honestly review all competing sources, note the relative strengths and weaknesses of each, and then highlight a portion of the debate that is either yet unnoticed or perhaps getting less attention than it deserves. for example, i just wrote a very small (as in, 10 pages, it was sort of embarrasing, but that's what the professor wanted) research paper in which I argued that the discussion of centralization of state power during the Civil Rights era has overfocused on the shift from the state to federal level; when properly speaking it was a shift within the federal government to the unitary actors - and within that discussion discussion has tended to overemphasize the executive; the branch that gained the most power was the judiciary. that's the kind of thesis that you are more likely to find in the world of historical research.

his assignment, to DEFEND the global warming theory could not have been, could NOT have been a neutral/objective examination of the facts

exactly. that's part of what made it a stupid assignment; which is why i brought it up in a discussion of bad professors.