Posted on 10/24/2014 8:09:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
It is not? You know "Kyle"?
good for you and for your students.
Tell them right up front. "No extra credit, no second chances for bad work - it wouldn't be fair to those who did it right the first time. It wouldn't be justice. If you do not pay attention and do the work, you'll fail."
If it really is delivered in a mean-spirited way into the face of another; but this is a fictional student who has behaved in an exasperating fashion. No need to be a Holy Christian martyr when writing ironically about it as a help to the many students who read his columns and consider signing up for his courses and who might be tempted to use lame excuses after slacking off all semester. No one is forcing students to study with Adams; they register for his courses. He is not teaching required basic courses for the entire student body -- he is teaching majors in criminal justice. Justice on earth involves consequences for one's choices, no matter how much Christian forgiveness may be sought or felt. A repentant murderer is forgiven by God, but must still go to prison on earth.
No I don’t. But, at worst, he may be the equivalent of one of those squeegee guys who washes somebody’s car window in return for pocket change. A lowlife, probably, but still a step above those just asking for handouts for doing nothing.
University students are adults. Their parents get to pay for their education, but do not get to sue on their behalf. This piece of Adams' writing is satire, like about 90% of the rest of his writing.
Apparently this is a student who has failed to do his work properly all semester sand wants “extra credit” to get a barely passing grade. In a Criminal Justice class. From the description the injustice would be “Kyle” passing.
in the context of his lawsuit, he was denied tenure even though many others received it (and the pay raise it brings) who had fewer students, fewer favorable evaluations, fewer publications, and less well-subscribed classes. The denial was based on specific points culled from his writings that showed his conservative point of view. So his suit was about tenure only in the context of fighting the obvious point-of-view discrimination against a conservative. It was a important victory for our side.
There’s a marked difference between students who worked hard and are seeking grade improvement insofar as their results were insufficient, vs. students who just didn’t do the work and are looking for a quick way to pass (as opposed to learn).
Seems the “Kyle” above was the latter; this was explained in the OP.
When a student is the former, the instructor will often go to great lengths to accommodate (for one, I assigned “explain why the wrong (multiple-choice) answers on the final exam are in fact wrong” - and graded it whilst my wife was in labor).
If I recall correctly, Dr. Adams admits that in decades past, he was a drunken, no-good layabout.
He subsequently came to realize there was no future in that course of behavior, and changed.
“The student, “Kyle”, did not ask for extra points. He asked for extra credit. That’s sort of like asked your boss for extra hours.”
The article notes that it’s sort of like asked your boss for extra hours (paid, of course) after loafing for most of the week/month. (Yes, a lot of people do that.)
And miss a great opportunity to teach a life lesson about slacking (and abusing shortcuts to just get by)?
In particular, read about “Virginia Rester” here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2014/10/16/ten-at-fifty-part-ii-n1905651/page/2
Instructor noted that it wasn’t “bending the rules to accommodate”, it was that the kid is [ab]using the diagnosis to his advantage instead of learning the material.
I have no doubt that discrimination took place against him because of his conservative views. My sense is that was the reason tenure has always been argued for in academic circles. Now, it’s extraordinary that he had to fight to prove his bonafides, and that the security of tenure was what was being withheld from him because the establishment did not want him to have the security of tenure and did want to censure his views. I’m glad he overcame. However, I’m also glad that he now has the security of tenure which originally was designed to protect those who had unpopular views.
I’m quite sure that if his retention of tenure becomes based on ‘evaluations’ from his administrators that he will soon be out on his ear. They will make the evaluations unfair.
Well, of course. My stated opinion is in reference to the incident discussed on the article. I strongly object to Adams' behavior in that case.
he intended it -- as a metaphor for discussing a certain type of student
Now that would be of some value, if "Kyle" did not actually exist, and the whole thing was some sort of morality play.
I was trained as a chemist, trained to be coldly analytical. I often take things literally, unless it's carefully spelled out otherwise!
>> Some folks rank moralizing above everything that makes God who He is.
True, and I place you square in the middle of that cohort of folks.
You have obviously never read any of Mike Adam’s columns. Many are satire, he is pro-live and he does like homos
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.