Those helpful souls at AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon don't want to see you bothered by those troublesome passwords any more, so now they'll take care of all that for you.
When it comes to lifelong attitudes, K-12 probably has more impact on someone than four years of college.
Absolutely. That's why in higher ed, especially at elite schools, putting them through the meatgrinder or tempering their steel is just not something you want professors to do. They've already made it this far, which means in most cases, they've already proven their mettle. Occasionally, you will get a legacy admit who inherited his money from his real estate developer father, and he'll make shit up to get special treatment and try to skate through on bluster, but you'd be surprised how easy they are to suss out on the first day of class.
I wasn't training java programmers who would go on to work in a cubicle. My goal was to train people who would make an impact on the world, not become Dilbert characters.
Whether or not it's difficult is irrelevant. Is it in the best interests of the student to do so?
The question is not "easy vs difficult", it's "difficult vs impossible".
Some of our most brilliant authors, scientists, mathematicians, etc were people who were lazy...
Lazy is not the problem.
If making someone read a sheet of paper in front of 30 other people crushes their soul, they're not going to amount to much anyway....
In higher education, presenting before a group of peers has nothing at all to do with, "reading a sheet of paper in front of 30 other people". Maybe it was different where you went to school, but in real universities, presenting means giving your thesis extemporaneously, and then defending it against hostile questioning.
I think I'm starting to get the idea of how this discussion went off the rails. We have a bunch of low-achieving community college types who believe they overcame adversity passing judgement on the absolute top tier of students.
Being able, as a human, to speak to other humans should be a required skill to graduate from public school. I don't think that's at all unreasonable.
Speaking to other humans and public speaking can be two very different things.
I love all these supposedly-educated people coming here with, "I had to get over my discomfort speaking in front of the class, so students with serious anxiety disorders need to do so too".
Didn't anyone in school every explain the difference between anecdote and evidence?
But laziness is not why people feel reluctant to present, it's anxiety. A lot of people (myself very much included) just need that push to actually do the presentation, and then figure out that it's not quite as horrible an experience as anticipated; but if given the option we'd just as soon not do it in the first place. Of course everyone is different, but it seems to me this is not about recognising difference as much as it is about helping people to overcome their fears and gain skills that will be really beneficial to them in life.
Don't mistake normal anxiety with the kind suffered by students with a real anxiety disorder. It's not hard to tell the difference. After a few years, it was easy to determine. After a few decades, it was second nature.
What if those great thinkers became the great thinkers they were because they were pushed into uncomfortable situations constantly from a young age?
The operative part of this is "from a young age". It's not really that hard to figure out who's for real and who's bullshitting. I mean, the first time a student's grandma dies, it's one thing. By the third or fourth time, there's something else going on.
You'd be surprised how much can be learned just by observing and simply speaking to a student. After all, it's not just the students that are there to learn.
Part of the work of a teacher is turning some (not all, some) of the lazy people into hardworking ones
That work should have already been done in K-12. If you come to university and you're lazy, it's best if you go try to become a YouTube star and let the rest of us get on with it.
I know it really upsets you anti-SJW people, but the truth is it's not that hard to make accommodations for students who are made up a little differently from the rest of us. Some of our most brilliant authors, scientists, mathematicians, etc were people who had crushing social anxiety and it would be a damn shame to penalize them so early in the game because of it.
Yes, there will be lazy-ass bonespur children who just use this as an excuse to get out of a difficult assignment, but chances are they're not going to amount to much anyway unless they inherit some money, so I'd rather see ten of them skate than to lose one really talented student.
I'm coming at this from the point of view of a lifelong teacher in higher education (and elsewhere). It's your job to help out the students, not to crush their souls under your Jordan Peterson-esque boot heel.
Thanks Ratzo! I used to have a slashdot account way back in the old days.
Yeah, that's what they all say. It generally means they either A) never had an account, or B) burned out their account so badly that all their posts started at -1, and now they want to farm mod points to down-vote the libs.
Which are you? If you had an account in the "old days", you could have recovered the password, you know.
I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: A corporation is a legal fiction created by a government granting a charter. Their purpose is to minimize liability for the owners and to create a tax benefit for aggregated capital. Period. That's all they are. That's all they do. No corporation has ever developed anything but shareholder value. Certainly, no corporation has ever developed a drug.
And who's going to develop new drugs once you decommercialize medicine?
The same people who have always developed new drugs: Scientists, working in labs, trying to do good work. Corporations do not develop drugs. Those scientists would be just as happy working in a well-funded lab at a university.
You mean like the conviction he got? From the link:
"Victor Garcia Bebek pleaded guilty to voter fraud in April for voting three times between 2012 and 2014.
So, in his own state, with all the records at his disposal because he was in charge of running the elections, as Secretary of State, he came up with one case of voter fraud? Kobach finally found a single immigrant he could convict of a voting-related crime? Hold the applause, please. Now let's see you get to the "three million" that Trump claims cost him the popular vote.
"Another 34 were identified by the Sedgwick County Election Office when staff attended naturalization ceremonies to register new citizens and discovered some were already registered."
If you read your link, you will notice that Kris Kobach, who is anything but a neutral observer, offers ZERO EVIDENCE that these things happened, but assures us that they did. Let's see...can we think of any other instances where Kobach lied or whether he had an incentive to do so?
Here's even more recent news about Kris Kobach lying in order to enrich himself at the expense of a bunch of small towns by selling them on a non-existent "immigrant crisis".
Good, then it should be easy for you to reference such a debunking for the part I quoted.
I already did, elsewhere in this thread.
"In 2015, one Kansas county began offering voter registration at naturalization ceremonies, as Hans A. von Spakovsky and I reported in January at Fox News. Election officials soon discovered about a dozen new Americans who were already registered -- and who had voted as non-citizens in multiple elections."
You'll notice that he doesn't offer any citation or evidence for this anecdote. Just that it happened.
t. Of course, that doesn't mean voter fraud doesn't exist. We know [nationalreview.com] it does:
That National Review op-ed you linked to has been debunked many times over. It doesn't point to a single actual case of voter fraud that doesn't involve a Trump supporter trying to vote twice in 2016.
It points to the fact that there are registered voters who either a) don't vote, b) have died, or c) have moved. I can say that I'm a member of group "C", because I've moved across the country in the past three years and in every single place I was registered to vote. When I move to a new state, I register again. I'm probably showing up registered in four different places from Connecticut to California, but I only vote in one place. That's the "evidence" that this National Review op-ed writer believes is solid proof of voter fraud.
If there was voter fraud, commissions by George W. Bush and Donald Motherfucking Trump would have uncovered maybe a few cases, don't you think? And most important (pay attention), why didn't Trump's commission uncover any voter fraud in the states that did cooperate?
The voter fraud myth is just an excuse the GOP uses to try to commit election fraud.
Like Jill Stein's investigation that found more blue votes than there were voters.
That's total bullshit and you're a goddamn liar. The story has been debunked over and over.
"So the discrepancy, while newsworthy, had nothing to do with the number of votes tallied exceeding the number of registered voters (an impossibility in a fair election), but rather the number of voters recorded by poll workers exceeding the number of voters recorded by voting machines (a circumstance that suggested errors on the part of machines and/or human workers rather than fraud)."
Further, this has been an ongoing trope all throughout the Fox News era. They try to sling that bullshit every time a Democrat gets more votes than the Republican, and fact checkers have to shoot it down again and again.
Is anyone here old enough to remember Trump's big "voter fraud" commission? It was going to uncover the millions of illegal aliens that voted in the last election, giving Hillary the popular vote.
Slashdot Mirror
Those helpful souls at AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon don't want to see you bothered by those troublesome passwords any more, so now they'll take care of all that for you.
Aren't they nice?
Absolutely. That's why in higher ed, especially at elite schools, putting them through the meatgrinder or tempering their steel is just not something you want professors to do. They've already made it this far, which means in most cases, they've already proven their mettle. Occasionally, you will get a legacy admit who inherited his money from his real estate developer father, and he'll make shit up to get special treatment and try to skate through on bluster, but you'd be surprised how easy they are to suss out on the first day of class.
I wasn't training java programmers who would go on to work in a cubicle. My goal was to train people who would make an impact on the world, not become Dilbert characters.
The question is not "easy vs difficult", it's "difficult vs impossible".
Lazy is not the problem.
In higher education, presenting before a group of peers has nothing at all to do with, "reading a sheet of paper in front of 30 other people". Maybe it was different where you went to school, but in real universities, presenting means giving your thesis extemporaneously, and then defending it against hostile questioning.
I think I'm starting to get the idea of how this discussion went off the rails. We have a bunch of low-achieving community college types who believe they overcame adversity passing judgement on the absolute top tier of students.
Clearly.
Your parents did a shitty job.
You can never go wrong with a little Yogi wisdom.
Speaking to other humans and public speaking can be two very different things.
I love all these supposedly-educated people coming here with, "I had to get over my discomfort speaking in front of the class, so students with serious anxiety disorders need to do so too".
Didn't anyone in school every explain the difference between anecdote and evidence?
Maybe you should go read a little bit about John Nash, and the accommodations that were made for him.
That's all I'm saying here, and I'm being excoriated for it.
Not at the higher-ed level. You see it in K-12, but not so much above that.
Don't mistake normal anxiety with the kind suffered by students with a real anxiety disorder. It's not hard to tell the difference. After a few years, it was easy to determine. After a few decades, it was second nature.
If you had me as your teacher, maybe you'd also be really good at language, and maybe you wouldn't be such an "asshole".
The operative part of this is "from a young age". It's not really that hard to figure out who's for real and who's bullshitting. I mean, the first time a student's grandma dies, it's one thing. By the third or fourth time, there's something else going on.
You'd be surprised how much can be learned just by observing and simply speaking to a student. After all, it's not just the students that are there to learn.
That work should have already been done in K-12. If you come to university and you're lazy, it's best if you go try to become a YouTube star and let the rest of us get on with it.
I know it really upsets you anti-SJW people, but the truth is it's not that hard to make accommodations for students who are made up a little differently from the rest of us. Some of our most brilliant authors, scientists, mathematicians, etc were people who had crushing social anxiety and it would be a damn shame to penalize them so early in the game because of it.
Yes, there will be lazy-ass bonespur children who just use this as an excuse to get out of a difficult assignment, but chances are they're not going to amount to much anyway unless they inherit some money, so I'd rather see ten of them skate than to lose one really talented student.
I'm coming at this from the point of view of a lifelong teacher in higher education (and elsewhere). It's your job to help out the students, not to crush their souls under your Jordan Peterson-esque boot heel.
Yeah, that's what they all say. It generally means they either A) never had an account, or B) burned out their account so badly that all their posts started at -1, and now they want to farm mod points to down-vote the libs.
Which are you? If you had an account in the "old days", you could have recovered the password, you know.
OK, fair enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: A corporation is a legal fiction created by a government granting a charter. Their purpose is to minimize liability for the owners and to create a tax benefit for aggregated capital. Period. That's all they are. That's all they do. No corporation has ever developed anything but shareholder value. Certainly, no corporation has ever developed a drug.
They better not take away my goddamn notch. That's the best feature of the iPhone.
The same people who have always developed new drugs: Scientists, working in labs, trying to do good work. Corporations do not develop drugs. Those scientists would be just as happy working in a well-funded lab at a university.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
So, in his own state, with all the records at his disposal because he was in charge of running the elections, as Secretary of State, he came up with one case of voter fraud? Kobach finally found a single immigrant he could convict of a voting-related crime? Hold the applause, please. Now let's see you get to the "three million" that Trump claims cost him the popular vote.
https://www.kansascity.com/opi...
If you read your link, you will notice that Kris Kobach, who is anything but a neutral observer, offers ZERO EVIDENCE that these things happened, but assures us that they did. Let's see...can we think of any other instances where Kobach lied or whether he had an incentive to do so?
https://slate.com/news-and-pol...
https://www.kansascity.com/new...
https://www.aclu.org/blog/voti...
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
Here's even more recent news about Kris Kobach lying in order to enrich himself at the expense of a bunch of small towns by selling them on a non-existent "immigrant crisis".
https://splinternews.com/kris-...
https://www.propublica.org/art...
Go back and look again. That's not at all what happened. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite of what happened.
I already did, elsewhere in this thread.
You'll notice that he doesn't offer any citation or evidence for this anecdote. Just that it happened.
That National Review op-ed you linked to has been debunked many times over. It doesn't point to a single actual case of voter fraud that doesn't involve a Trump supporter trying to vote twice in 2016.
It points to the fact that there are registered voters who either a) don't vote, b) have died, or c) have moved. I can say that I'm a member of group "C", because I've moved across the country in the past three years and in every single place I was registered to vote. When I move to a new state, I register again. I'm probably showing up registered in four different places from Connecticut to California, but I only vote in one place. That's the "evidence" that this National Review op-ed writer believes is solid proof of voter fraud.
If there was voter fraud, commissions by George W. Bush and Donald Motherfucking Trump would have uncovered maybe a few cases, don't you think? And most important (pay attention), why didn't Trump's commission uncover any voter fraud in the states that did cooperate?
The voter fraud myth is just an excuse the GOP uses to try to commit election fraud.
That's total bullshit and you're a goddamn liar. The story has been debunked over and over.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
Further, this has been an ongoing trope all throughout the Fox News era. They try to sling that bullshit every time a Democrat gets more votes than the Republican, and fact checkers have to shoot it down again and again.
https://www.factcheck.org/2013...
Is anyone here old enough to remember Trump's big "voter fraud" commission? It was going to uncover the millions of illegal aliens that voted in the last election, giving Hillary the popular vote.
Member?