Anonymous
12/22/2022 12:22
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote:
Historian here, and you might be interested in knowing that we don't "write down history."
Economist here. History has a strong empirical component, and analyzes evidence. My favorite example is showing that Homer's "Odyssey" originated in oral tradition.
Historians are experts at documenting what happened, but not at explaining why it happened, because they do not observe counterfactuals. Economics has developed statistical methods that address this.
"if railroads did not exist in 1890, then they probably do not exist now, for there is no record of them being invented in the last ninety-two years."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1816570
Anonymous
12/22/2022 11:58
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote: several threads on DCUM reveal an appalling ignorance of ... business aircraft, and the basic operations of cell phones. what kind of "critical thinking," as the professor describes it, has led them to such beliefs.
Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses reported many colleges fail to improve critical thinking. I don't see why humanities teach "critical thinking" better than other areas.
Some people consider themselves cultured if they know about ancient Greeks or Renaissance literature. Many public intellectuals misunderstand basic economics from the 1800's. They don't understand how public key cryptography can be secure. They don't understand the 2022 Nobel Physics experiment that shows reality is not local. They don't know how banks, hedge funds, and futures markets work. There has been more change in science and culture in the past 100-200 years than in previous history.
critical thinking and the way many of today’s academics define it can be traced back to the post-structuralist critical theories that invaded our English departments ... . [D]econstruction ... has been profoundly influential, not only on English faculty but also on their colleagues in the other humanities and even the social sciences. (Consider, for example, the current popularity of ethnography, a form of social science “research” that combines fieldwork with subjective story-telling.)
Unfortunately, those disciplines are also where most critical thinking instruction supposedly occurs in our universities. (Actually, other fields, such as the hard sciences and engineering, probably do a better job of teaching true thinking skills—compiling and evaluating evidence, formulating hypotheses based on that evidence, testing those hypotheses for accuracy before arriving at firm conclusions. They just don’t brag about it as much.)
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/03/college-graduates-still-cant-think/
Anonymous
12/22/2022 11:46
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:At what age did you learn to read? Were your parents UMC?
(Op here): I was "gifted" for the poor rural area I came from, and was the first in my family to go to college (let alone onto grad school). I did not have academic inclinations or mentors until I went to college. That experience opened my eyes and set me on a different path. I'm deeply sympathetic to the admissions process creating a diverse class--kids of all backgrounds, including socio-economic. It truly makes the classroom far more interesting and educational for everyone.
Yet, you come on a forum and expound upon how much better prepared private school students are. I would agree on some level, they are more prepared to bull sh!t professors and have been well versed in how to charm authority. They are well aware of their privilege and how to use it.
Anonymous
12/22/2022 11:17
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote:the current system of tenure, which involves dedicating the bulk of the instructional budget to a few tenured individuals while the majority of credits are taught by non-tenured instructors (adjuncts, TA's, etc.) is unsustainable and represents a lot of what is wrong with academia today.
Different poster: I'm a tenured professor in a non-humanities area. The original justification was that tenure protected professors from being fired for political reasons. This is overstated. However, several adjunct professors have been recently dismissed for minor slips that offended Black Lives Matter.
It is efficient and sustainable to specialize. My dean can find many lecturers or non-tenure-track faculty to cover courses cheaply. Some of them are excellent teachers. But you need people who are permanently committed to the school to recruit, hire, and nurture junior faculty, develop new programs, etc. I am more committed to my field than my school. If the school does not offer security, then I will act like an independent contractor.
The biggest threat is a dean. My new dean wanted us to do cryptocurrency and blockchain. Now wants climate change research. Next year, it will be something else. Deans don't last long. They have incentive to cut expensive faculty and hire short-term lecturers to balance the budget. After a few years, the whole curriculum deteriorates as new lecturers don't know what is in the curriculum and don't prepare students for subsequent courses.
Anonymous
12/22/2022 11:17
Subject: Re:uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Extremely weird and creepy school/class.
Kids usually says 'I'm from NYC", I played football, I like cats".
They don't say I went to such and such high school named XYZ which is private or public.
My kid has a copuple of classes with 16 kids and 19 kids.
I bet it was never said, and my kid never knows which ones went to public HS and which ones went to priviate HS.
Very weired school/class
Unless you are college profs, you really have no idea. What is really weird is PPs like you who drill down into details like this and think you know better than someone with 20 years’ experience. Your insecurities about sending your kid to public school are shining through.
I went to a college and a grad school, and also have college kids, so I have a good idea.
You are very weird.
Oh, like the vast majority of the board, you went to college! You have college kids! OP must be a liar because of your vast expertise. Your insecurity about sending your kids to private (despite the fact you are so educated but couldn’t afford it) is killing you. It’s not weird at all.
You don't need to be an expert at all.
Did you know what kind of HS your classmates went in your college classes?
Very weird and creepy people
When I went to college I absolutely knew what HS my classmates went to, because we quite naturally talked about it. Some of the kids still wore sweatshirts or t-shirts from their high school. It was especially interesting to learn about the HS experiences of the kids from Alaska.
If you think it's "creepy and weird" for 18 year olds to discuss with each other where they went to HS, there's something creepy and weird about you tbh.
Maybe that's the kind of conversations losers have in college. I wouldn't know. There are lots of other things to talk about any nobody knows or cares what your pathetic high school was. Just like in grad school nobody cares where you went to undergrad.
Not sure why you’re being such a defensive dick. Just because you’re so self-centered and think because YOU aren’t interested in talking about where they went to school or other parts of their background, that doesn’t mean others can’t be interested. I’ve been on both sides (grew up poor with working class family) and put myself through college and grad school. I’ve worked and been friends with people across all spectrum of society. I can say that more people talk about or show some interest in these things than do not. You seem to be the only weirdo that is finding some bizarre offense to the topic. I’d say that speaks more to your own insecurities than anything.
Anonymous
12/22/2022 11:03
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why are humanities in the academy?
Because the human experience is full of shades of grey. The humanities are necessary to prevent science from becoming tyranny. Both are equally vital.
I have no right to demand careful exposition on a free anonymous forum. But this is the type of shallow sloppy thinking that makes me skeptical of humanities. We could use religion to prevent science from becoming a tyranny. Or we could substitute sports, or video games, or my other favorite hobbies. "They are all equally vital."
Critical studies, cultural anthropology, philosophy, and ethnic/victim studies are intellectually unimportant. I'm glad somebody translated the Rosetta Stone and wrote down history. Music, art, and religion thrive better outside the academy. You need more to justify a blank check to support every Babylonian pottery expert.
Historian here, and you might be interested in knowing that we don't "write down history."
Anonymous
12/22/2022 10:12
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
OP, I assume you have tenure. Many people - especially those who have not achieved tenure-track positions - believe that the current system of tenure, which involves dedicating the bulk of the instructional budget to a few tenured individuals while the majority of credits are taught by non-tenured instructors (adjuncts, TA's, etc.) is unsustainable and represents a lot of what is wrong with academia today. Of course they (and I) would never say that to a tenured professor's face. What's your opinion on that matter?
Anonymous
12/22/2022 10:03
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Serious question: do most humanities profs (a) not realize that covid vacc mandates are not supported by data and are unethical, (b) are afraid to say anything to the contrary for fear of retribution/ostracization, and/or (c) have no pull whatsoever where college administrative decisions are concerned?
I feel fairly certain that (c) is true, but it's much harder to discern (a) or (b). Guessing (a) is true (they just don't realize) (no personal offense intended if this includes yourself). Perhaps you might offer observations on this issue, considering the anonymity of your thread.
The data clearly demonstrate the COVID-19 vaccines prevent serious illness and death. Do you disagree with that? If so, based on what?
(a) Mandates are unethical without transmission prevention (or at the very least, durable and significant reduction). The vacc does not prevent transmission. Short duration increase in antibody levels, combined with the lack of any antibody level correlate of protection, do not support mandates.
(b) College students are not at significant risk of severe disease and death. Seroprevalence is very high (>90%) nationally. There is no age-stratified clinical trial data proving a marginal benefit to previously-infected college students against severe disease.
(c) There are risks. Studies on such risks have not even finished and been released (more are due at the end of this month).
(d) All available products in the US are still under EUA only, which prohibits coercion.
See e.g. COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities, https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449
You are a humanities professor. Please stay in your lane. Vaccines don't prevent transmission, but they DO prevent acquisition, which in turn means no transmission needs to be prevented.
Anonymous
12/21/2022 21:09
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
What grade would you give this college advice board ?
Anonymous
12/21/2022 21:05
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why are humanities in the academy?
Because the human experience is full of shades of grey. The humanities are necessary to prevent science from becoming tyranny. Both are equally vital.
I have no right to demand careful exposition on a free anonymous forum. But this is the type of shallow sloppy thinking that makes me skeptical of humanities. We could use religion to prevent science from becoming a tyranny. Or we could substitute sports, or video games, or my other favorite hobbies. "They are all equally vital."
Critical studies, cultural anthropology, philosophy, and ethnic/victim studies are intellectually unimportant. I'm glad somebody translated the Rosetta Stone and wrote down history. Music, art, and religion thrive better outside the academy. You need more to justify a blank check to support every Babylonian pottery expert.
Anonymous
12/21/2022 21:02
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote:I am sorry to say that there are several threads on DCUM that reveal an appalling ignorance of basic facts about our technology-based life, including, but not restricted to, the role of business aircraft, and the basic operations of cell phones. I assume that most people who post on DCUM are college-educated, so I wonder (1) where they got those dumb ideas -- and they are dumb -- or (2) what kind of "critical thinking," as the professor describes it, has led them to such beliefs.
(Op here): Indeed. The pandemic, if it taught us anything, revealed how "I've done my research" bears little on whether one has gained any *real* understanding.
Anonymous
12/21/2022 21:00
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote:Why are humanities in the academy?
Critical Studies originated to address ambiguity and interpretation in literary analysis. But that has spread into general nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
Foucault was a pedophile, and Paul de Man was a Nazi. Even worse, this changes the perception of their work. Lacking objectivity, you cannot separate the truth from the author. The Margaret Meade controversy is also problematic.
Math has near-unanimous agreement on truth. Physical sciences impose discipline by empirical verification. Social sciences also have empiricism, and professional schools like business and engineering develop practical skills. Humanities are neither empirical nor useful. They lack external validation and internal consensus. The Marxists on campus are in humanities, not economics. There have been racial frauds in ethnic studies departments, not in physical science. Humanities seem to lack quality standards because they are subjective and arbitrary. Why should they be in college?
Op here: oh, boy. Leaving aside many of the gross inaccuracies or outright false statements in this post, you seem to have a very deficient view of human thinking and the good life if you think the "humanities" have no role. I'll just leave it at that and leave you to your rage.
Anonymous
12/21/2022 20:28
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
I am sorry to say that there are several threads on DCUM that reveal an appalling ignorance of basic facts about our technology-based life, including, but not restricted to, the role of business aircraft, and the basic operations of cell phones. I assume that most people who post on DCUM are college-educated, so I wonder (1) where they got those dumb ideas -- and they are dumb -- or (2) what kind of "critical thinking," as the professor describes it, has led them to such beliefs.
Anonymous
12/21/2022 19:53
Subject: uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote:Do you have a basic understanding of how automobiles, aircraft, computers, and cell phones work? Do you believe that 5G cell phone towers cause cancer? That private aircraft should be banned because someone flew a plane into power lines in Montgomery County?
People in humanities have critical thinking skills. Why are you associating dumb conspiracy theorists with college professors?
Anonymous
12/21/2022 19:44
Subject: Re:uni. prof, ask me anything
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Extremely weird and creepy school/class.
Kids usually says 'I'm from NYC", I played football, I like cats".
They don't say I went to such and such high school named XYZ which is private or public.
My kid has a copuple of classes with 16 kids and 19 kids.
I bet it was never said, and my kid never knows which ones went to public HS and which ones went to priviate HS.
Very weired school/class
Unless you are college profs, you really have no idea. What is really weird is PPs like you who drill down into details like this and think you know better than someone with 20 years’ experience. Your insecurities about sending your kid to public school are shining through.
I knew where tons of kids went to high school. I was at a SLAC, and every other person had on a private school sweatshirt at some time or another and you would end up hearing where others went. I can’t speak to what it might be like at a large, especially state school, but it definitely came up in conversation.
I went to a college and a grad school, and also have college kids, so I have a good idea.
You are very weird.
Oh, like the vast majority of the board, you went to college! You have college kids! OP must be a liar because of your vast expertise. Your insecurity about sending your kids to private (despite the fact you are so educated but couldn’t afford it) is killing you. It’s not weird at all.
You don't need to be an expert at all.
Did you know what kind of HS your classmates went in your college classes?
Very weird and creepy people
When I went to college I absolutely knew what HS my classmates went to, because we quite naturally talked about it. Some of the kids still wore sweatshirts or t-shirts from their high school. It was especially interesting to learn about the HS experiences of the kids from Alaska.
If you think it's "creepy and weird" for 18 year olds to discuss with each other where they went to HS, there's something creepy and weird about you tbh.
Maybe that's the kind of conversations losers have in college. I wouldn't know. There are lots of other things to talk about any nobody knows or cares what your pathetic high school was. Just like in grad school nobody cares where you went to undergrad.