Students at High Academic School's

fenwaysouth posted:

Matt13 posted:

Ripken Fan posted:

I'll conclude with a text I received from son, during the second week of class this semester:

"Today my International Challenges professor blamed climate change for the Rise of Al Qaeda..so that's that."

He's not wrong.

FWIW....So this statement (above) just reminded me of a quote one of my freshmen history professors made in the first week of college nearly 35+ years ago.  He also taught at a nearby Ivy and clearly had some interesting ideas.  He hosted some of the best & outrageous off-campus parties I ever went to.  I remember his initial statement to the class like it was yesterday.  Frankly, the most shocking part was that I was awake AND remember it.

"The Bible was written by a bunch of bear-assed Jews, hallucinating in the desert".  So, after that statement, he defended it and sighted examples.  I was blown away.  What does a first-week freshmen say to that.

So that quote has stuck with me for a while.  It has not swayed me one bit on my views of religion, or history but did set in motion the idea that there are some people out there with much different outlooks on history & life and some of these people are in a position of power....they can give me an A or fail me.  Big wake up call from my quaint suburban high school.    Since this professor was 100% lecture, I had better back up any future statements I make verbally or on paper with cold hard facts.   I took him for other history classes, and I learned a lot.  His teaching style forced you to challenge him, and backup your thoughts.  I'll never forget him.

Mormonism was born in the 19th century. Given its proximity to current day there are people who believe Joseph Smith was high on mushrooms when he saw the angel Moroni. In turn I've asked people who discredit the Mormon Church how do they know Moses didn't smoke the burning bush. 

It didn't take forty years. But I wandered the streets looking for pizza shops after encountering the burning  bush.

ClevelandDad posted:

Somewhat to Fenway's point, you need to find out what the political biases of your professors are and learn to answer questions in a politically correct manner so as to receive proper credit for the class. 

For instance, if some knucklehead asserted that climate change caused Al-Qaeda and knowing that was baloney, I would still answer the question the professor's way if it appeared on an exam.  It shouldn't be that way but many of our colleges are taught by left-wing radicals and you better answer things according to their distorted beliefs or suffer the consequences.   

Freshman year in American Politics 101 the professor announced if anyone tries to blame the ills of the world on Reagan you will flunk.

One of the first assignments was to right a paper on the Occupy movement. My son made the time to go to the camp and ask questions. In his paper he criticized the movement. He wrote about motivation, work ethic and sitting on your tail in a camp is not the way to change the world.

He was shocked when he got a D on the paper. He called me. He had never written a D paper in his life. I asked him if there's ever a 5'7" 130 pound guy with a pony tail and John Lennon glasses in the back of the room. I pointed out that's the TA that graded the paper. He took his paper to the professor, complained and got an A. The professor said it was a well thought out, well constructed argument. 

First, I would not ask the student his preference in being taught. It's much much easier to regurgitate than analyze, so most would choose the former.

Second, while today's students know a lot, most don't know more then their professors; students so professing aren't looking to learn, since they already know more than the PhD.

I have discussed virtually every exam both kids had in college. Their complaints were almost identical the first year: I studied the lectures and reading but the test didn't cover that! (In other words, regurgitation was a failed approach.) After that, they both got the hang of comprehending in depth the material so novel questions wouldn't throw them. At no time, did they blame sub-par exam results on giving analysis that didn't back up a professors perceived positions.  They blamed the poor results on lack of study, calculation errors, or far more likely, "gosh, that was the hardest test I ever took."

Third, if a kid can back up his position that original sin caused it, citing studies, research, and other academically recognized methods, and weaves a logical and well-reasoned argument, and gets a poor grade, show me that test result. 

I don't know RJM.  Maybe something about the religion lasting for 5,000 + years, not having demonstrably false claims, providing a consistent and satisfying explanation for the existence of mankind and its being affirmed by Jesus of Nazareth, whom any credible scholar with affirm lived, and did remarkable things that helped established an enormous following for him, who was undeniably crucified under a historical Roman procurator and whose followers were willing to suffer severe persecutions even death in support of their claim of having personally witnessed his resurrected body and the fact that the world has never been the same since the man's life and death might tip us off that the only thing smoking was Mt. Sinai.

Teaching Elder,

That is exactly my point with my freshmen professor noted above.  Those people who challenged him in lecture and backed it up got A's.  It took me a while...I figured out his teaching method, and I took him in two other classes.  Attendance was optional, but you did not want to miss his lecture if you knew what was good for you.   I still like History to this day.  Yes, he had some outrageous ideas but he wanted you to challenge him on his statements.  To do so, you had to do the required reading and then some.  He was one of the best professors I ever had, but make no mistake he was out there, and extremely liberal.  I didn't have a problem with his politics or lifestyle (he was gay) but he was a fanstastic educator.

RJM posted:

ClevelandDad posted:

Somewhat to Fenway's point, you need to find out what the political biases of your professors are and learn to answer questions in a politically correct manner so as to receive proper credit for the class. 

For instance, if some knucklehead asserted that climate change caused Al-Qaeda and knowing that was baloney, I would still answer the question the professor's way if it appeared on an exam.  It shouldn't be that way but many of our colleges are taught by left-wing radicals and you better answer things according to their distorted beliefs or suffer the consequences.   

Freshman year in American Politics 101 the professor announced if anyone tries to blame the ills of the world on Reagan you will flunk.

One of the first assignments was to right a paper on the Occupy movement. My son made the time to go to the camp and ask questions. In his paper he criticized the movement. He wrote about motivation, work ethic and sitting on your tail in a camp is not the way to change the world.

He was shocked when he got a D on the paper. He called me. He had never written a D paper in his life. I asked him if there's ever a 5'7" 130 pound guy with a pony tail and John Lennon glasses in the back of the room. I pointed out that's the TA that graded the paper. He took his paper to the professor, complained and got an A. The professor said it was a well thought out, well constructed argument. 

If I understand, you are saying he wrote a paper criticizing the Occupy movement after doing some research. The TA crushed him; the prof gave him an A. You proved the point that a kid can write a paper not parroting the view of his teacher and still get an A.

It's interesting where this thread has evolved. In the recent presidential campaign I disliked both candidates. I refused to vote for either. I have Facebook friends on both sides of the political aisle. By not having a major candidate to support I did a lot of debunking on Facebook. I was a little ahead of the curve. I was discussing fake news before it was a headline. Even post election I've decided people would rather hear what they would like to be the truth rather than what actually is the truth. Dealing with the truth means you might have to admit to others, and worse yourself you were wrong.

i have a friend (real and on Facebook) where I have disproved many articles she has posted. She talks about uninformed voters. Yet she's still posting the same BS from the same sites I've proven either lie or grossly embellish the facts.

TE. Very very thin ground with the religion stuff.  The thread and cite will blow up if we travel this path.

Teaching Elder posted:

It may be the professor's job to awaken the inner intellectual, but that is not the job the many of them are doing.   Ask students in colleges today.  They will tell you that you've better regurgitate their information right back to them.   Try arguing against Mr. "Global warming caused Al-Quaeda" and telling him that hatred for those who are different from you does not arise from a negligible change in temperature, rather it comes from original sin.      Check out your grade. 

Apparently you have met this instructor too?  Anyway, kids today are very fortunate in that they can use Google and find a dozens of articles on the subject, read them, and form their own conclusions about whether or not drought caused by global climate change is a driver behind radicalism.   You could too, if you were as interested in other's opinions as you are in shoring up your own.  My non-expert opinion is that, while there is correlation, I don't think there is causation, but 50-100 years down the road could be very scary indeed.  As for this strawman professor of yours, I'm going to agree with him. If you use theology to justify your answers on an economics test, then you'll get an F. 

I've got a question - in the grand scheme of things, are ethanol subsidies, in support of ethanol gas additive, a good thing or a bad thing.  Your answer must address at least 15 significant impacts these subsidies help create/support, with at least 5 of those points being adverse to your argument.

With all this brain power coming to the surface, thought now would be a good time to ask.

I agree Goosegg.   We've been venturing far off of the original topic for quite a while now.  I have no real desire to talk religion on here.  I've ignored two attempted trolls from JCG, but RJM's simply forced me to respond...this time.

The real subject is what is it like at a high-academic school?   Do professors really expect students to show up once a week at their offices.  Do kids sacrifice real learning for the sake of getting a grade? And, Oh, yeah, that Political Correctness question.

There have been some very good answers to the questions, by the way. 

JCG posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

It may be the professor's job to awaken the inner intellectual, but that is not the job the many of them are doing.   Ask students in colleges today.  They will tell you that you've better regurgitate their information right back to them.   Try arguing against Mr. "Global warming caused Al-Quaeda" and telling him that hatred for those who are different from you does not arise from a negligible change in temperature, rather it comes from original sin.      Check out your grade. 

Apparently you have met this instructor too?  Anyway, kids today are very fortunate in that they can use Google and find a dozens of articles on the subject, read them, and form their own conclusions about whether or not drought caused by global climate change is a driver behind radicalism.   You could too, if you were as interested in other's opinions as you are in shoring up your own.  My non-expert opinion is that, while there is correlation, I don't think there is causation, but 50-100 years down the road could be very scary indeed.  As for this strawman professor of yours, I'm going to agree with him. If you use theology to justify your answers on an economics test, then you'll get an F. 

You talk about straw man professors, while putting forth the false dichotomy of "You could too, if you were as interested in other's opinions as you are in shoring up you own."  (Eye rolls.)   And then you have the ignorance to put forth a fallacy of definition by arbitrarily and unjustifiably stating, "If you use theology to justify your answers on an economics test,then you'll get an F."  

ClevelandDad posted:

JAC - you appear to be the smart guy in the room here.  The assertion was that climate change caused Al-Qaeda.  Exactly how does climate change cause terrorism? 

Sure, backhanded ad hominem, whatever.

Easy to access cheap middle east oil → foreign dependence on said oil → long history of meddling in middle east government affairs to ensure access to said oil → resentment of such meddling by local governments/strong men.  

Massive reliance on cheap oil → use out of proportion to negative economic externalities → increased effects on climate change → increased migration/emigration from areas connected to the middle east → increased internal conflict in the middle east.

Income inequalities fostered by the massive oil wealth contributes → internal and external conflict increases → substantial underclass looking for people to blame.

Excess wealth combined with agitated and agitating forces gives people with an agenda the means to pursue it.

Or just, http://www.pri.org/stories/201...lping-al-qaeda-video

I could probably do it more justice if I was a history major and/or had a couple of weeks to do the required reading/research.

Note, that I'm not suggesting I'm necessarily right (or that the professor was), but all I claimed before was that it wouldn't be hard to make the connection/argument.  Dismissing the argument as a "Ha-ha, what a socialist libtard," moment, is to avoid the idea of critical thinking almost for its own sake.

TE, regarding your last reply, sorry, I'm honestly not following you, though I'm picking up some decidedly un-Christian hostility sprinkled with downright nastiness. Go figure.

As for attempted trolls?  Hardly. If I was going to troll you TE, it would go like this:  TE you have said that your son may be discriminated against and vilified at liberal PC schools, and you have stated that Richmond, in particular, has chosen a path that has prompted  you to exclude it from consideration. Wondering what could be so wrong about such a good school, I looked at their website and noted that there is prominent material about diversity and about tolerance for LGTB students.  I do hope that is not the cause for your concern. But if it is, it would be richly ironic, as in too many cases the complaint against Political Correctness is really about people wanting to have the freedom to call a spade a spade, and a fag a fag, without condemnation.  IOW, some folks want their intolerance to be tolerated.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I've got a question - in the grand scheme of things, are ethanol subsidies, in support of ethanol gas additive, a good thing or a bad thing.  Your answer must address at least 15 significant impacts these subsidies help create/support, with at least 5 of those points being adverse to your argument.

With all this brain power coming to the surface, thought now would be a good time to ask.

They were really bad for my outboard engines.

Teaching Elder posted:

The real subject is what is it like at a high-academic school?   Do professors really expect students to show up once a week at their offices.  Do kids sacrifice real learning for the sake of getting a grade? And, Oh, yeah, that Political Correctness question.

There have been some very good answers to the questions, by the way. 

Expect them to show up, maybe not.   Accommodate and encourage, probably.

No, if you're sacrificing learning, you're probably not getting the grade anyway.

Political correctness is a boogeyman/myth/excuse to avoid engaging with the issue at hand. There are smart people of every cultural persuasion, and there are similarly people of every persuasion who dismiss them out of hand. You'll learn more from those among the former with whom you disagree vehemently, than you will from those among the latter who think exactly like you.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I've got a question - in the grand scheme of things, are ethanol subsidies, in support of ethanol gas additive, a good thing or a bad thing.  Your answer must address at least 15 significant impacts these subsidies help create/support, with at least 5 of those points being adverse to your argument.

With all this brain power coming to the surface, thought now would be a good time to ask.

I don't have time for 15 detailed points, but subsidies that don't lead to a sustainable new equilibrium or that ignore negative externalities are generally going to head down a bad road. Ethanol misses pretty badly on both of those points.

FourBases posted:

 

....

4- on the topic of political correctness... Who cares!...These kids are with thousands of others that have different beliefs, whether political, religious or other. The important thing is that they learn to coexist with others. One thing that I learn from my father is that you never argue about three things, one is religion, two is politics, and three is with the other person that wants to pay for dinner (let them pay if it makes them happy).  

Wow!...this tread is like a runaway train...with lots of comments and experiences by parents and students (that play baseball)...and made me think again of something I posted in this very same post (highlighted above). Although the discussions are not arguments, they sure have some good fire in them.

Professors, students, and parents may have particular beliefs in what they think is good in politics (their party) and good in religion (of course their own) and there is no way in hell (no pun intended) that they will reverse from that thinking, that is just the way we humans are. And when talking about these two topics, we walk a thin line not because of the topic, but because we are so hardheaded in our own ways in our way is 'the best' that nothing will be obtained in terms of right or wrong. I'm sure that reading all these posts can in turn cause anger in some when they read the responses and IMHO is sort of shows.

In baseball there are no political parties and no religion. If a guy hits a HR, he can thank whoever he wants, for that matter even the planet Pluto (?), but if he strikes out, does he also blame Pluto? The 'mind' is the one that messes with you in your hitting, nobody else. Every player has his own beliefs and usually do not transcend onto the field (albeit some few exceptions as we know). I just say to my son to be his own man, (if he needs to) to believe in what he thinks is best (religion), to participate in the group he thinks best matches his moral objectives and that of what he thinks is good for the community (politics); and boy, is he at a school where all this boils big time. At the end, it is about learning, getting stronger and faster, hitting that darn ball coming at you 90+ and playing baseball.

And as a proof of my hardheadedness, I believe this statement made is the best:

“The only real game, I think, in the world is baseball.”
The Babe, George Herman Ruth Jr.

JCG posted:

TE, regarding your last reply, sorry, I'm honestly not following you, though I'm picking up some decidedly un-Christian hostility sprinkled with downright nastiness. Go figure.

As for attempted trolls?  Hardly. If I was going to troll you TE, it would go like this:  TE you have said that your son may be discriminated against and vilified at liberal PC schools, and you have stated that Richmond, in particular, has chosen a path that has prompted  you to exclude it from consideration. Wondering what could be so wrong about such a good school, I looked at their website and noted that there is prominent material about diversity and about tolerance for LGTB students.  I do hope that is not the cause for your concern. But if it is, it would be richly ironic, as in too many cases the complaint against Political Correctness is really about people wanting to have the freedom to call a spade a spade, and a fag a fag, without condemnation.  IOW, some folks want their intolerance to be tolerated.

Dear Lord.  Please forgive me for pointing out that JCG is a troll.  Amen.

Back to the original questions and one asked later in the thread about what qualifies as "high academic."

First of all, I believe there should be 4 categories:  1) takes anyone who can fog a mirror, 2) Accepts between 50 and 75% of applicants, 3) high academic, and 4) elite academic.  I believe there are some Power 5 high academic schools who will take kids far from the middle 50% of applicants if they are stud players in any sport.  Elite academics accept very few outside of the of the usual accepted student and most of the time those athletes play the sport which matters most to that school.  I also believe that students at true elite academic schools are less likely to be told what they can and cannot major in.  Most of the time people think of elite academic schools they think of the obvious D1 schools, but there are several D3 schools in that conversation as well.  My son attends one of those D3s, and his qualifications are very similar to other students.

He and his classmates do not sacrifice true learning for grades because they cannot afford to.  Math and science build with each class and mastery is critical to move on.  

He has access to his professors and many of his classes have recitations weekly that provide him with the ability to ask questions of the Graduate Student who lead the recitation.  On another topic discussed in this thread, his humanities class is very clear who will be grading the essays that are written.  

As most young people do, he loves the diversity of his teammates and his classmates.  

Wait........I'm confused.

Are we talking about "Students at High Academic Schools?"

or

"students at HIGH academic schools?"

#1 Assistant Coach posted:

Wait........I'm confused.

Are we talking about "Students at High Academic Schools?"

or

"students at HIGH academic schools?"

I think you mean HIGH students at academic schools...

How 'bout them Cubbies?

smokeminside posted:

How 'bout them Cubbies?

Thanks for asking  Smoke,  doing well in the off season and hopefully they'll finish on a high.

TE, if you are serious about the political environment at colleges, read the book "Choosing the Right College" by ISI Guide. The book looks at colleges from a conservative point of view, and gives every college a "green", "yellow', or "red" rating. Don't look at the rating only though; it's important to read the fine print on the rating. Some schools are leaning left, but they give conservatives a chance to voice different opinions. As I said before, I'd like to avoid extremes on both sides, and stay in the "yellow" zone.  Fortunately most Ivies and high academics are yellow. (Princeton is green, freely debate all political ideas, just as Goosegg described. MIT is green too, as is most technical colleges since engineers are mostly apolitical.)

I used to get ISI stuff all the time.  Had a subscription to Modern Age.  I like the Yellow designation.  Sounds like a pretty good medium.

Go44dad posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I've got a question - in the grand scheme of things, are ethanol subsidies, in support of ethanol gas additive, a good thing or a bad thing.  Your answer must address at least 15 significant impacts these subsidies help create/support, with at least 5 of those points being adverse to your argument.

With all this brain power coming to the surface, thought now would be a good time to ask.

They were really bad for my outboard engines.

Haha.  Really bad for snowmobile engines too.  Really anything high compression and two stroke.  They just don't seem to like it.

I've always been bothered by the idea of a continuum for labeling people and beliefs. Left/Right..Conservative/Liberal.  Just labels.  College is a good place for a young person to be exposed to the world and other beliefs.

This thread has been enjoyable to read, and glad it has mostly remained civil.

9and7dad posted:

Go44dad posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I've got a question - in the grand scheme of things, are ethanol subsidies, in support of ethanol gas additive, a good thing or a bad thing.  Your answer must address at least 15 significant impacts these subsidies help create/support, with at least 5 of those points being adverse to your argument.

With all this brain power coming to the surface, thought now would be a good time to ask.

They were really bad for my outboard engines.

Haha.  Really bad for snowmobile engines too.  Really anything high compression and two stroke.  They just don't seem to like it.

Do you have access to non-blended gasoline in your city?  I thought I remembered having an independent station down the road that sold "pure" gas, but headed there a while back and must have been mistaken.  Does octane booster work?

Have really enjoyed reading about 2/3'rds of the posts - the other 1/3rd were a little too personally directed to get much out of.  My son has some wild ideas about the world and will often come home as provide his insight - usually backs it up with "they say...".  Try to nail down who "they" are each time.  Working hard on having him think logically and thoughtfully through all statements of presumed fact before parroting them to others.  

JACJACATK - I'll forgive you for not bothering with the 15 various points and will ask your permission to use your reply when the topic comes up during the Christmas party this weekend (I'll probably have to bring the subject up myself).

2017LHPscrewball posted:

JACJACATK - I'll forgive you for not bothering with the 15 various points and will ask your permission to use your reply when the topic comes up during the Christmas party this weekend (I'll probably have to bring the subject up myself).

I don't know how anyone not directly involved in the ethanol industry could make a reasonable argument in favor of ethanol subsidies, but, hey, if my two cents is actually worth a nickel, go for it.

For fun, point out that the money spent/lost on Solyndra was actually better invested than anything spent on ethanol...

Setting aside my hatred of ethanol for a moment (how the heck did we get there?????), this thread has sort of evolved into a discussion of campus political atmospheres.  Attached is a link to an op-ed piece that recently appeared in the NYT on this very subject.  I found it well reasoned and well written - you may or may not agree:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...=collection&_r=1

9and7dad posted:

Setting aside my hatred of ethanol for a moment (how the heck did we get there?????), this thread has sort of evolved into a discussion of campus political atmospheres.  Attached is a link to an op-ed piece that recently appeared in the NYT on this very subject.  I found it well reasoned and well written - you may or may not agree:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...=collection&_r=1

Excellent article.  Thanks for posting. 

I have to applaud the writer.  All a I can ask for is a respectful listener.  I'll give them the same.  Don't have to agree, but we can share our opinions.

Thanks for sharing, 9and7.

9and7dad posted:

Setting aside my hatred of ethanol for a moment (how the heck did we get there?????), this thread has sort of evolved into a discussion of campus political atmospheres.  Attached is a link to an op-ed piece that recently appeared in the NYT on this very subject.  I found it well reasoned and well written - you may or may not agree:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...=collection&_r=1

Not a terrible article, but I think it engages in a little too much "Both Sides Are Bad".  IME (as a liberal from a conservative family, living in an ultra-conservative area), there's a difference between the conservative and liberal bubbles.  And since I teach MS and live a meme-filled life, I think it's best summed up by this meme...

Or for a comedic take on the difference, pertinent bit at about 2:40 (don't watch the whole thing if you're offended by poking fun at religion or Google Tim Minchin to prepare yourself).