Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I see a substantial difference between student abilities coming out of private schools and out of public schools (esp. in the ability to read/interpret, think analytically, and in level of confidence).
Do you believe this is due to “good teaching” at private schools, or is it selection bias (smarter parents make money, have smarter kids, and can afford private schools)?
OP here, back,
I think (assertion!) it's more curricular freedom, more emphasis on deep reading, analytical reading, "reading the classics" (which can, in a way, just be careful attention to reading texts that are complex and make you think, struggle, reflect, etc., which is precisely why they seem to then excel at doing those things in college!).
How about writing skills in private vs public students?
Anonymous wrote:Would you advice young people to aspire to be university professors...or is everyone an adjunct these days?
Anonymous wrote:How many books and how many articles did you need to publish to get tenure?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I see a substantial difference between student abilities coming out of private schools and out of public schools (esp. in the ability to read/interpret, think analytically, and in level of confidence).
Do you believe this is due to “good teaching” at private schools, or is it selection bias (smarter parents make money, have smarter kids, and can afford private schools)?
OP here, back,
I think (assertion!) it's more curricular freedom, more emphasis on deep reading, analytical reading, "reading the classics" (which can, in a way, just be careful attention to reading texts that are complex and make you think, struggle, reflect, etc., which is precisely why they seem to then excel at doing those things in college!).
Anonymous wrote:I see a substantial difference between student abilities coming out of private schools and out of public schools (esp. in the ability to read/interpret, think analytically, and in level of confidence).
Do you believe this is due to “good teaching” at private schools, or is it selection bias (smarter parents make money, have smarter kids, and can afford private schools)?
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
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
I see a substantial difference between student abilities coming out of private schools and out of public schools (esp. in the ability to read/interpret, think analytically, and in level of confidence).