Professions and Behavioral Standards

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The other day, while teaching my English 101 class (all freshmen), I said, referring to an author's authority in an essay, "What the hell does he know?" I afterward heard several gasps and snickers of disbelief. I found this quite humorous myself, especially since I know several colleagues who aren't shy about throwing around ****s and ****s as they please.

I find it funny that people in some professions (well, really, any profession) are expected to uphold certain behavioral standards. The physical labor worker--rude and crude; the office worker--the normal Everyman; the scientist--straight-laced and nerdy; the teacher--proper and demure. Many find it surprising when people break these assumptions outside or in the work place, sometimes even becoming fiction tropes (the worldly, wise, and cultured janitor comes to mind). I find the surprise amusing.

When it comes to myself, I've found that me being a teacher makes people surprised by how I act out of class--cursing, political incorrectness, etc. Most people don't expect it--they either are surprised by my actions having known I'm a teacher beforehand, or knowing me and then finding out I'm a teacher. I've also found that authority figures, whoever they may be, hold me to a different, higher, behavioral standard than other people (and I mean outside of the classroom) which is just downright odd.

I'm curious if anyone else has experienced this sort of thing--other thinking your behavior just doesn't match your profession.

[Delta40]

I think there is a difference between a persons expectation or perception of a teacher and the standard which the profession should uphold.

I'm a public servant and I know there is a perception of what we look like despite the diversity among us.

However, the codes of conduct and values which we demonstrate when dealing with the public are the standard that remains consistent and is probably what stereotypes us.

As a teacher, I would ask how you might have your 'cool' without compromising the standard of teaching

[Charles Darnay]

I think Dead Poets Society both built and destroyed the image of "I"m not like other teachers, I'm honest, I'll won't bull**** you, I'll teach you things that matter &c." The fact that college students (am a wrong that they're college students) are miffed by something like swearing points to the fact that they are living a sheltered life.

As for me, I stick to a code of conduct for the most part. I don't believe in being friends with my students, but being respectful. I do swear sometimes, but it is admittedly calculated. Students are drifting off, nothing like a good f-bomb to snap their attention back (at least for a few minutes).

[Lokasenna]

I make a lot of jokes when I teach, which the students seem to appreciate. I make a point of not taking my own subject too seriously - I always think the worst teachers, especially at university level, are those who come across as stuffy and self-important.

[YesNo]

Professionals who do not behave appropriately put themselves at risk. Although many of the people working with you may be friendly, you only need a few enemies to make your life interesting in ways you may not like.

[Alexander III]

Based on my experiance I have only one lecturer who swears. But he never does it in lectures, only in seminars when we are casually talking.

Though most of my lecturers don't swear, they fill their lectures with strange sexual innuendoes and jokes which no one finds funny. There are plenty of lecturers who focus more on appearing likable and "hip" than on the actual subject. As a student it is hard to respect these types and people tend to say the worst things about them.

One the other hand I have this one lecturer who doesn't joke and doesn't care if we like him or not, or if he appears not "hip", but he gives a damn fine lecture which has everyone listening because he knows his ****. This is the type of lecturer which always has his lecture hall-filled and has the respect of the students.

As a student I don't want a lecturer like me, I don't give a damn about his personality, I just want a a lecturer I can respect because they spend their lectures giving good and stimulating lectures.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It sucks so much of your class time is taken up by lecturing, Alex.

[Shevek]

I make a lot of jokes when I teach, which the students seem to appreciate. I make a point of not taking my own subject too seriously - I always think the worst teachers, especially at university level, are those who come across as stuffy and self-important.

I've found a lot of the professors I've had who make jokes are also self-important and sometimes just plain arrogant. They also happen to be the best ones I've had, though. The worst are the ones who are passionless about the material -- not necessarily boring, but give off the impression that they are merely teaching this course as a part-time job and don't truly want to be there.

[Alexander III]

It sucks so much of your class time is taken up by lecturing, Alex.

http://images.wikia.com/theamazingworldofgumball/images/1/18/Jackie-chan-meme.png

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Is that a pic as in "Yeah, it does suck!" or a "You're a moron, Mutatis" pic, because I'm sure it could go either way.

[stlukesguild]

It could be a dual-purpose visual: "Yeah, all those lectures suck... but you're still a moron, Mutatis." :devil:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That seems most likely.

[stlukesguild]

The other day, while teaching my English 101 class (all freshmen), I said, referring to an author's authority in an essay, "What the hell does he know?" I afterward heard several gasps and snickers of disbelief. I found this quite humorous myself, especially since I know several colleagues who aren't shy about throwing around ****s and ****s as they please.

My situation is different in that I teach at the grade-school level... which means I teach children and not adults... and I work in one of the most highly politicized careers today. For years, public school teachers were predominantly women (and I am speaking specifically of public education in America). Teaching was one of the few careers open to an intelligent, educated women... and they were paid and treated accordingly... in other words, like crap. The stereotype remains. Many assume that the job of the public school teacher is easy... even fun. After all... they're just children. What many don't grasp is that teaching Kindergarten is in no way easier than teaching High-School... or college. Obviously the college professor or high-school teacher must have a greater grasp of his or her subject matter (whether it be Math or English or Art)... but there is also the knowledge of a child's developmental stage and how they learn which you will understand if you have you ever tried to keep a 5-year old focused for more than 15 minutes... let alone teach him or her something.

But to continue... Public Education in the US was grossly undervalued for years. And as a result the administrators and other powers that be could rather arbitrarily treat teachers however they wished for a long time. As recently as as the mid-1980s a female teacher who became pregnant... by her husband... could be fired because it sent the "wrong" message to children (In other words, the little darlings might figure out that... gasp!!:yikes: "Their teacher has sex!!!").

While the various teacher's unions improved this situation (which is one reason why they have become the number one target of Neo-Cons) there is still this unrealistic expectation of decorum that goes beyond reasonable professional expectations...

It's well understood, for example, that as a professional I am not to swear in the classroom or insult the students... no matter what anatomically impossible thing they tell me to do with myself. Of course in the teacher's lounge, many of us swear like drunken sailors and share every little embarrassing anecdote concerning the precious darlings.

But there have been an increasing number of incidents... rather recently... of a teacher being fired for the most absurd interpretations of what amounts to "unprofessional behavior": An art teacher in Texas was fired for contributing to the delinquency of a minor because she had the gall to take the students (with parental and administrative permission) to the local art museum where they saw some nude sculpture!! Another young teacher was dismissed for posting a photograph of herself holding a glass of Guinness while on summer vacation in Ireland. Yet another teacher, in Florida, was fired for posting a picture of herself in a bikini on a boat while on her summer vacation. Unfortunately there are still those who feel that a teacher should maintain a rather outdated concept of professional decorum not only while working... but even in their private lives... and the ideal is old frumpy turn of the century (that would be turn of the 19th/20th century) schoolmarm who dresses like this:

http://www.cattlekate.com/public/store/products/fullsize/navy_school_marm.jpg

never swears, never drinks, never argues with her "superiors", never has fun... and certainly never has sex.

Unfortunately... that's not reality. Contrary to the fantasies... and/or desires of some, we no longer live in the 19th century. Having taught in the inner-city for 15 years I have known some of the best teachers... and some of the most outrageous characters. They need to be this way simply to survive. Our school's Christmas party two years ago was so wild that we were banned from ever coming back... to a place called "Hoggies". On a separate occasion, one particularly outrageous teacher almost got into bar fight with a regular in a neighborhood dive... over politics!:cheers2:

I don't find it odd that people are expected to uphold a given professional behavior while on the job... I do find it unrealistic to expect that these same individuals to fit within someone else' narrow behavioral ideals outside of the workplace... and I find it highly disconcerting that employers increasingly feel they have the right to monitor and control employee behavior outside of the workplace... and that employees are increasingly willing to surrender their rights to privacy and to their personal lives.

Of course I realize that we hold certain professions to a higher standard on some issues. Teachers, police-officers, doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, etc... can loose their license and jobs if convicted of drunk driving, drug use, fraud, and any number of other offenses that have far less ramifications for non-professionals. We don't want pilots who don't show the common sense to avoid operating a vehicle while inebriated nor a lawyer or law enforcement officer who engages in breaking the law.

On the other hand... considering the pay and other perks "earned" by the same politicians who legislate these behavioral standards for professionals... shouldn't we expect them to live up to the same standard? And yet... if anything... it seems they are free to flaunt every concept of decorum and professional behavior... on and off the job.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Very well said, stlukes.

[JuniperWoolf]

Jackie Chan meme. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-brain-is-full-of-fk)

Most universities seperate courses into lectures and seminars, and a lab if it's a science course. I think the meme has been used in this instance because you kind of just said "it sucks that your lecturer spends so much of your lecture time lecturing."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, it does suck if most of one's schooling, especially when it comes to the humanities, is spent being lectured. The best way to learn is to discuss, to exchange ideas with one another, blah blah blah. If you want to be lectured, just go buy some books about whatever subject it is--it does the same job and probably much more effectively. In my English courses, my university does almost zero lecturing.

I wasn't trying to insult Alex, just merely expressing my opinion on the ****ty education he's probably spending a ton of money on (or, to be more accurate, that his parents are spending a ton of money on).

[Alexander III]

Well, it does suck if most of one's schooling, especially when it comes to the humanities, is spent being lectured. The best way to learn is to discuss, to exchange ideas with one another, blah blah blah. If you want to be lectured, just go buy some books about whatever subject it is--it does the same job and probably much more effectively. In my English courses, my university does almost zero lecturing.

I wasn't trying to insult Alex, just merely expressing my opinion on the ****ty education he's probably spending a ton of money on (or, to be more accurate, that his parents are spending a ton of money on).

That's personal opinion. When I go to a lecture I do not care about the other students ideas, most of them are dumb. I want to hear a well educated man with more experience of the world and literature than myself, lecture on a given subject from which I can learn. I do not want to hear my fellow student discuss their idea's, I would rather stay at home smoke some weed and talk with my friends and hosuemates about literature, history and philosophy rather than most of my fellow students who are about as stimulating as an unwashed ball-sack.


As to the education costs, English university is quite cheap compared to American ones. I pay 3,500 pounds a year, which would be roughly 10,000 U.S dollars, and most American universities are double or triple that rate.

Of-course for the freshmen starting this year rates have gone up nationwide to 9,500 pounds, so it is the same for them as an American tuition.

Besides no one goes to university for an actual education. Back in the 18th century, before starting off in life you would have an influential relative write you a letter or recommendation , and said letter would open the necessary doors leading to a prestigious career. Nowadays a university diploma has replaced the letter of recommendation. You have to pay a high fee to go to a university, show that you are a semi-competent individual by attaining your diploma in 3/4 years, and said diploma is essentially your letter of recommendation which opens the necessary door to a prestigious career.

If your truly want an education, you go to a library.

P.s The picture was not mean to insult you, just state that I had no idea wtf you were talking about.

[Volya]

Many people go to university/are planning on going to university to get an 'actual' education.

[Alexander III]

Many people go to university/are planning on going to university to get an 'actual' education.

No one at univ cares about an actual education a few months into their first year. Although I have heard legends that there are some colleges with students who actually come for educations rather than a letter of recommendation and an impressive display of social contacts. Also I have been told that Cambridge is far better in that regard of students who want education. But I think it is a case of the grass is just greener on the other side. "Gee Alex everyone here is a damned philistine, I heard that at Cambridge they have actual students who care." Wishful thinking if you ask me.

Besides if your interest is actual education why spend 9,500 pounds when you can go to a public library and learn everything you could possibly want. 3000 years of human literature, philosophy and history for a few pounds.

[Volya]

An education is not just about reading books.

[qimissung]

An education may not be just about reading books, but Alex is right. I read somewhere once that you can get the equivalent of a college education if you read.

[Alexander III]

An education is not just about reading books.

Ah well if we are being open minded, I have learnt many things at university

1) How to handle my liquor
2) How to roll my own joint
3) The art of conversation and entertainment
4) The decorum of how to conduct a transaction with a prostitute
5) How to play Polo
6) How to sail a boat
7) How to properly fvuck a woman
8) How to throw a proper party sparing no expense
9) The value of money
10) The importance of social contacts
11) The art of Savile Row
12) The true value of most drugs and how to haggle with pushers and how to recognize the phony from the good stuff
13) How to play Chess
14) How to roll my own cigarettes
15) The importance and art of nonchalance
16) The various cultural differences of Europe
17) The zeitgeist of my generation
18) The beauty and damnation of Idleness
19) How to appear respectable to those who need respectability and how to appear debauched to those who want debauchery
19) The virtues I loath and the vices I admire in others
20) How to play a saxophone

[Scheherazade]

How many of those could you have achieved without having to go to the univerisity?

[Alexander III]

How many of those could you have achieved without having to go to the univerisity?

Who knows

[Volya]

....so you learnt how to be a posh snob?

[Paulclem]

That's personal opinion. When I go to a lecture I do not care about the other students ideas, most of them are dumb. I want to hear a well educated man with more experience of the world and literature than myself, lecture on a given subject from which I can learn. I do not want to hear my fellow student discuss their idea's, I would rather stay at home smoke some weed and talk with my friends and hosuemates about literature, history and philosophy rather than most of my fellow students who are about as stimulating as an unwashed ball-sack.


As to the education costs, English university is quite cheap compared to American ones. I pay 3,500 pounds a year, which would be roughly 10,000 U.S dollars, and most American universities are double or triple that rate.

Of-course for the freshmen starting this year rates have gone up nationwide to 9,500 pounds, so it is the same for them as an American tuition.

Besides no one goes to university for an actual education. Back in the 18th century, before starting off in life you would have an influential relative write you a letter or recommendation , and said letter would open the necessary doors leading to a prestigious career. Nowadays a university diploma has replaced the letter of recommendation. You have to pay a high fee to go to a university, show that you are a semi-competent individual by attaining your diploma in 3/4 years, and said diploma is essentially your letter of recommendation which opens the necessary door to a prestigious career.

If your truly want an education, you go to a library.

P.s The picture was not mean to insult you, just state that I had no idea wtf you were talking about.

That's personal opinion. When I go to a lecture I do not care about the other students ideas, most of them are dumb. I want to hear a well educated man with more experience of the world and literature than myself, lecture on a given subject from which I can learn. I do not want to hear my fellow student discuss their idea's,

Lecturing and seminar discussions are only one way of learning. It is useful to engage in discussion - not because of what your apparently ignorent student colleagues say and think, but of your responses to them. The formulation of answers/ responses/ contributions are the real reason why discussion is good. In talking, one can reflect upon the topic in hand and format it for your use in essays and exams. Then again one of them might disengage themselves from their ignorence and say something worthwhile and coherent.

It's like teaching. A really good way to learn something is to teach it. It seems counterintuitive - surely you know about a subject before you present it to others - but the nuances of the topic, the difficulties, particularities of language, the awkward questions and inconsistencies with what you know really give an insight into a subject. It is this kind of knowledge that makes a good lecturer, but more is needed from the student's side to really learn.

Besides no one goes to university for an actual education.

This is nonsense.

You have to pay a high fee to go to a university, show that you are a semi-competent individual by attaining your diploma in 3/4 years, and said diploma is essentially your letter of recommendation which opens the necessary door to a prestigious career.

Unfortunately students are no longer walking into jobs. I doubt they ever did. Of course your situation may be different and a job may be no problem for you, but other students will not only have to complete their degrees, but they will have to become pretty good at interviews and selection procedures to get into "prestigious careers", and then many of them will undertake further career training - such as in law and any number of jobs.

If your truly want an education, you go to a library.

More nonsense. You expect a university education - particularly in the sciences and techology- to keep up with and informed about current developments - especially research where the careers might lie.

[BienvenuJDC]

Unfortunately, there are more and more teachers and professors who have academic learning, but have a lack of "world experience". I'd like to see more teachers that have a greater storehouse of experience, and maybe not so much academic learning. We have an education system that is feeding itself. There are many individuals that have gained a great education through hands on learning, and self taught methods. Why do we bar these individuals from teaching in our universities, just because they haven't completed certain academic coursework?

[stlukesguild]

Unfortunately, there are more and more teachers and professors who have academic learning, but have a lack of "world experience". I'd like to see more teachers that have a greater storehouse of experience, and maybe not so much academic learning. We have an education system that is feeding itself. There are many individuals that have gained a great education through hands on learning, and self taught methods. Why do we bar these individuals from teaching in our universities, just because they haven't completed certain academic coursework?


At the college level there have always been those teachers/professors who came to the field with a "real world" work experience. Within my own field of art education, I would say that a good majority of the professors I know who teach art are working and exhibiting artists... a good many having worked and exhibited for years prior to teaching.

When you speak of grade-school/public education the "game" is altogether different. Of course the teacher needs to know his or her subject to a great extent to teach at the given grade level... but the necessary knowledge or skills expected of those who teach children go well beyond "world world" experience of the subject. Teaching children involves far more of an understanding of pedagogy... how children at a given grade level...learn, child psychology, gaining parental support, classroom control, how to motivate and teach students of vastly different abilities, to say nothing of all the various tests and other assessments.

There are efforts to put such individuals with real world work experience into the classrooms after completing a limited number of courses in teacher preparation, but such an idea is no cure-all to our current problems in public education. From my experience, few of these "real world" professionals last long in education after they are confronted by the realities such as a lack of necessary materials/supplies, lack of respect for the profession, lack of respect/abuse from students, parents, and incompetent administrators, poor student motivation, poor/meaningless professional development/training, ever-increasing demands for documentation and standardized assessments... to say nothing of the likely cut in pay they will be facing in coming from a successful position in the corporate world to public education.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That's personal opinion. When I go to a lecture I do not care about the other students ideas, most of them are dumb. I want to hear a well educated man with more experience of the world and literature than myself, lecture on a given subject from which I can learn. I do not want to hear my fellow student discuss their idea's,

Lecturing and seminar discussions are only one way of learning. It is useful to engage in discussion - not because of what your apparently ignorent student colleagues say and think, but of your responses to them. The formulation of answers/ responses/ contributions are the real reason why discussion is good. In talking, one can reflect upon the topic in hand and format it for your use in essays and exams. Then again one of them might disengage themselves from their ignorence and say something worthwhile and coherent.

It's like teaching. A really good way to learn something is to teach it. It seems counterintuitive - surely you know about a subject before you present it to others - but the nuances of the topic, the difficulties, particularities of language, the awkward questions and inconsistencies with what you know really give an insight into a subject. It is this kind of knowledge that makes a good lecturer, but more is needed from the student's side to really learn.

Besides no one goes to university for an actual education.

This is nonsense.

You have to pay a high fee to go to a university, show that you are a semi-competent individual by attaining your diploma in 3/4 years, and said diploma is essentially your letter of recommendation which opens the necessary door to a prestigious career.

Unfortunately students are no longer walking into jobs. I doubt they ever did. Of course your situation may be different and a job may be no problem for you, but other students will not only have to complete their degrees, but they will have to become pretty good at interviews and selection procedures to get into "prestigious careers", and then many of them will undertake further career training - such as in law and any number of jobs.

If your truly want an education, you go to a library.

More nonsense. You expect a university education - particularly in the sciences and techology- to keep up with and informed about current developments - especially research where the careers might lie.

This is pretty much exactly what I was planning to say. Discussion is more than just hearing what your ignorant classmates have to say--we can learn from everyone. It happens all the time when I'm teaching; my ignorant students consistently come up with ideas I don't think of. Saying people don't go to universities to get an education is one of the the dumbest things I've ever heard. And there are things from person-to-person interaction one just can't get from reading a book (which is why lecturing is useless, because it's just a one-way flow of information . . . like a book).

[BienvenuJDC]

When you speak of grade-school/public education the "game" is altogether different. Of course the teacher needs to know his or her subject to a great extent to teach at the given grade level... but the necessary knowledge or skills expected of those who teach children go well beyond "world world" experience of the subject. Teaching children involves far more of an understanding of pedagogy... how children at a given grade level...learn, child psychology, gaining parental support, classroom control, how to motivate and teach students of vastly different abilities, to say nothing of all the various tests and other assessments.

There are efforts to put such individuals with real world work experience into the classrooms after completing a limited number of courses in teacher preparation, but such an idea is no cure-all to our current problems in public education. From my experience, few of these "real world" professionals last long in education after they are confronted by the realities such as a lack of necessary materials/supplies, lack of respect for the profession, lack of respect/abuse from students, parents, and incompetent administrators, poor student motivation, poor/meaningless professional development/training, ever-increasing demands for documentation and standardized assessments... to say nothing of the likely cut in pay they will be facing in coming from a successful position in the corporate world to public education.

Well, from the results that are coming from the teachers that I see, the educations system's efforts are failing. Maybe we should try something new.

[Scheherazade]

One of my favourite videos on education, which, I am sure, I posted somewhere else before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

[BienvenuJDC]

One of my favourite videos on education, which, I am sure, I posted somewhere else before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

OK...that was AWESOME!

My biggest beef right now is a teacher that is more concerned about teaching her curriculum than teaching my daughter. She's not learning simple methods of math. The homework that she brings home doesn't make sense to me (which doesn't make it bad), but it isn't working...therefore, don't fail the student...fail the curriculum...(of course, by don't fail the student, I mean that we still need the student to be able to pass the tests). The goal is for the students to learn. If our methods aren't working, we need to be able to shift gears.

[Alexander III]

Lecturing and seminar discussions are only one way of learning. It is useful to engage in discussion - not because of what your apparently ignorent student colleagues say and think, but of your responses to them. The formulation of answers/ responses/ contributions are the real reason why discussion is good. In talking, one can reflect upon the topic in hand and format it for your use in essays and exams. Then again one of them might disengage themselves from their ignorence and say something worthwhile and coherent.

I am not discrediting learning trough discussion amongst peers, I am objecting to this being done in the lectures at university. Firstly the class mates in lectures are for the most part strangers. The key thing to learning trough discussion, is that sense of intimacy and equality is required, hence why it works perfectly with friends but it fails with strangers. With strangers one is uncomfortable speaking their true mind and thus most of the discussions are cliche and bland. Hence why such type of learning when forced is doomed to fail, it can only succeed when people choose to do it with people who they are comfortable with.


really good way to learn something is to teach it. It seems counterintuitive - surely you know about a subject before you present it to others - but the nuances of the topic, the difficulties, particularities of language, the awkward questions and inconsistencies with what you know really give an insight into a subject. It is this kind of knowledge that makes a good lecturer, but more is needed from the student's side to really learn.

I agree that a good way to learn something is to teach it. But in my personal experience discussions in large groups of strangers merely produce dull hymns to the same dull gods. Honest learning much like honest religion is a private affair. When it is forced upon one to engage in it with a group of strangers it produces a single conformist mind which is guided by fear of breaking conformity, a condition which hardly arouses the flowers of thought.


Besides no one goes to university for an actual education.

This is nonsense.


As a university student, at one of the finest and oldest establishments in Europe, what I say is the majority belief of my peers. You do not have to agree with it, I am merely stating what I see. You cannot blame the messenger.



Unfortunately students are no longer walking into jobs. I doubt they ever did. Of course your situation may be different and a job may be no problem for you, but other students will not only have to complete their degrees, but they will have to become pretty good at interviews and selection procedures to get into "prestigious careers", and then many of them will undertake further career training - such as in law and any number of jobs.

I did not say it was a guarantee of a good job, but much like a letter of recommendation; without one those doors are infinitely more firm in their closeness.


If your truly want an education, you go to a library.

More nonsense. You expect a university education - particularly in the sciences and techology- to keep up with and informed about current developments - especially research where the careers might lie.
[/QUOTE]

When I said that I was thinking about the humanities; Philosophy, Literature, History. For maths and hard sciences such as biology or chemistry, I agree a university education is necessary. One needs lab equipment and data which only a university can provide.


This is pretty much exactly what I was planning to say. Discussion is more than just hearing what your ignorant classmates have to say--we can learn from everyone. It happens all the time when I'm teaching; my ignorant students consistently come up with ideas I don't think of. Saying people don't go to universities to get an education is one of the the dumbest things I've ever heard. And there are things from person-to-person interaction one just can't get from reading a book (which is why lecturing is useless, because it's just a one-way flow of information . . . like a book).

I have several lecturers which are men of great intelligence and when they lecture it is a one way flow of information, and I am grateful for it. I am young and my knowledge on given subjects is microscopic compared to their experience and depth of a lifetime of study. When they give lectures I am fascinated by their discourse and I and my fellows are fixed upon every word of theirs. How can you call lecturing useless, maybe you have never had a lecturer of great intelligence and don't know the sensation of being in raptures over hours upon hours of soliloquies from truly great men. These are the types of academians I respect. Not those who have to resort to having the class discuss amongst themselves, for when they lecture the class is naturally bored with a man whose erudition and passion on a given subject is mediocre at best.


....so you learnt how to be a posh snob?

That's one thing I have always found funny. From since I was a child I was told by media, by teachers, by my parents; that the most important thing was to be myself. Naturally the naive fvuck that I am I took it to heart and proudly displayed myself for whom I was. It was only then that I realized that when society said, "the most important thing is to be yourself" They mean a generic self which resembled a politically 90's correct sitcom character. Anything other than that and no one wants you to be yourself anymore.

Besides, outside of the polo everything else was quite ordinary.


One of my favourite videos on education, which, I am sure, I posted somewhere else before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

I agree with the magical hand which has a remarkable talent for enunciation and draftsmanship.

[Scheherazade]

I agree with the magical hand which has a remarkable talent for enunciation and draftsmanship.I am sorry, Alexander. I did not expect it to be so confusing for some; it is not the hand that is doing the "enunciation". They were simply trying to draw pictures to support Sir Ken Robinson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Robinson_(educationalist)) lecture on education to make it more dramatic and accessible, one would think, and recorded the hand of the artist doing just that.

Hope this helps clear it for you a little bit.

As a side note, one would have thought that they would have helped the students develop the skills to differentiate such nuances at "one of the finest and oldest establishments in Europe".

[JuniperWoolf]

Come on, no one else here hates classroom discussion? It's the most embarrassing thing in the world when someone is too stupid to know they're stupid and seeks attention in front of strangers. The instructor stumbles around trying to find some way to escape the situation, but sometimes the student won't shut up and keeps going and going. Sometimes they do it in every class for the entire semester, and when they raise their hand your brain just shuts off and you recede into yourself until it's over. As for learning how to speak in front of a large group, don't most humanities courses have a presentation component? Most of mine have, especially in literature.

The exception is language courses, in which you obviously need classroom discussion.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I agree that a good way to learn something is to teach it. But in my personal experience discussions in large groups of strangers merely produce dull hymns to the same dull gods. Honest learning much like honest religion is a private affair. When it is forced upon one to engage in it with a group of strangers it produces a single conformist mind which is guided by fear of breaking conformity, a condition which hardly arouses the flowers of thought.









How would you know? I've conducted several conversations with my students--all strangers--with great success. All it takes is a little time to get to know each their, maybe a few classes at most.

I think you're just combatative because your fancy, prestigious university is using teaching methods that have been obsolete for half a century.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think you're just combatative because your fancy, prestigious university is using teaching methods that have been obsolete for half a century.

The U of A seems to have the same course structure. At a big university it's just not feasible to hold classroom discussions when your lecture hall is filled with 400 students. The lecturers are the stars of the course, they're (supposed to be, or they shouldn't have been hired for the job) brilliant, at the forefront of their field, in many cases they've written or helped to write the textbook you're using, you're there to watch them and absorb their genius. The minor players guide labs and seminars, they do the one-on-one stuff. Labs and seminars are small, and usually instructed by grad students. I like labs, it's all hands-on, tinkering with microscopes and specimens and touring the faculty's resource centers. Seminars sound like exactly what you're talking about, a small group of about 20-35 students talking and an instructor responding. It's not very stimulating or fulfilling, basically it's subject comprehension and homework help.

[BienvenuJDC]

How would you know? I've conducted several conversations with my students--all strangers--with great success. All it takes is a little time to get to know each their, maybe a few classes at most.

I think you're just combatative because your fancy, prestigious university is using teaching methods that have been obsolete for half a century.

I agree.

[Shevek]

There's always one or two people in discussion-based classes and seminars who make me cringe when they speak, but I don't see why that renders discussion useless. If anything, discussion requires greater knowledge and intellect than taking notes and digesting the information afterwards. You have to think on your feet sometimes in a discussion, which is a learning experience that can't be emulated in a massive lecture hall.

This said, I've had good and bad seminar classes. The good ones are usually the result of good discussion questions from the professor, whereas in bad ones instructors took a passive role while allowing students to veer discussions onto irrelevant tangents.

Edit: this reminds me of a hilariously terrible question that was asked during a first-year history course.
Professor: "It's estimated that around 30% of Europe was killed by the black plague...(etc. etc.)
Student: "What percentage survived the plague?"

[OrphanPip]

Discussions serve different purposes at different levels. The lower undergrad courses seem to use it mostly as a means to reinforcing comprehension and student engagement. In grad school and upper level undergrad students are often working on very different projects, and coming from very different perspectives, so discussion can often be a great learning tool.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The U of A seems to have the same course structure. At a big university it's just not feasible to hold classroom discussions when your lecture hall is filled with 400 students. The lecturers are the stars of the course, they're (supposed to be, or they shouldn't have been hired for the job) brilliant, passionate, in many cases they've written or helped to write the textbook you're using, you're there to watch them and absorb their genius. The minor players guide labs and seminars, they do the one-on-one stuff. Labs and seminars are small, and usually instructed by grad students. I like labs, it's all hands-on, tinkering with microscopes and specimens and touring the faculty's resource centers. Seminars sound like exactly what you're talking about, a small group of about 20-35 students talking and an instructor responding. It's not very stimulating or fulfilling, basically it's subject comprehension and homework help.

I guess the US has different seminar classes (they're not even called seminar classes, but discussion based classes) than other countries, because it isn't just about subject comprhension (some of it is) or homework help (none of it is--that's just Q and A). It's pretty much universally agreed among education scholars/professors that active learning is better than passive learning, and it doesn't get much more passive than being lectured. Not to mention the problem of hearing one person's opinions and point of view--it's very limiting, not at all engaging, barely motivating, and ever tedious.

Discussion classes, just like lecture classes, depend on the instructor. The instructor has to be good at facilitating discussion--being able to respond quickly, manage students (good discussion can get rowdy), think on their feet, etc. Lecturers need to do none of this. It's a lot easier, which is why so many professors prefer it.

[Clopin]

Alex proves yet again that he's a complete {efit}. I do agree though that a lot of people getting degrees in fields like "sociology" and "english" are just there for the hell of it.


I am sorry, Alexander. I did not expect it to be so confusing for some; it is not the hand that is doing the "enunciation". They were simply trying to draw pictures to support Sir Ken Robinson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Robinson_(educationalist)) lecture on education to make it more dramatic and accessible, one would think, and recorded the hand of the artist doing just that.

Hope this helps clear it for you a little bit.

As a side note, one would have thought that they would have helped the students develop the skills to differentiate such nuances at "one of the finest and oldest establishments in Europe".

From the same person who repeatedly posts warnings in threads about personal attacks? This {edit} gets under my skin as well, but come on ;)

[JuniperWoolf]

Not to mention the problem of hearing one person's opinions and point of view--it's very limiting, not at all engaging, barely motivating, and ever tedious.

Then you've never had a world-class lecturer. I've been lucky enough to have had a few, there are some lectures which stand out in my mind as having been among the best of my university experiences. I wouldn't have been able to have those experiences at all if our class sizes had only been small group discussion-based teaching, because if the greatest minds in their field on earth were made to provide "active learning" to groups of forty measly undergrads at a time, I know I sure as hell wouldn't be able to afford to get into those classes. To format a course like that would be completely illogical.

It's a combination of teaching methods which employs lecture, so you get small classes and large classes within the same course, two-in-one, inspiration from the big dogs and personal help from the up-and-comers. It just makes sense that way, how else would you organize it so that the largest number of students possible has access to the best education possible?

*shrug* That's the education I prefer, which is obviously why I buy it. If I wanted all small-class "active learning" courses, I'd go to a small college, I did for a few months. Thirty-five people per class, lots of discussion, they hold your hand the whole way and focus on instruction a lot more, but the instructors and the equipment and facilities aren't as impressive by half. The cost of a university vs. community college is comparable here, so you really do have a choice at least up until the end of your second year, in most cases. After second year you usually have no choice but to to transfer to a big university if you want a bachelor's. Anywho, what I'm saying is, given a choice and having experienced both, I found the teaching method which employs lecture much more enriching than your way.

[Scheherazade]

Come on, no one else here hates classroom discussion? It's the most embarrassing thing in the world when someone is too stupid to know they're stupid and seeks attention in front of strangers. The instructor stumbles around trying to find some way to escape the situation, but sometimes the student won't shut up and keeps going and going. Sometimes they do it in every class for the entire semester, and when they raise their hand your brain just shuts off and you recede into yourself until it's over. Hunh. One could say they are almost like Forum discussions, eh?
From the same person who repeatedly posts warnings in threads about personal attacks? This twerp gets under my skin as well, but come on ;)'Sokay. I have already sent myself a stern warning.

I was merely expressing a disappointment in the quality of education offered at Alex's "fine and old" institution. Had I called him a dolt or a twerp, on the other hand, it would have been a personal attack, no doubt.

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, "twerp." Clopin, you wouldn't happen to be the incarnation of Moose from the hit 1940's comic book series Archie, would you?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Then you've never had a world-class lecturer. I've been lucky enough to have had a few, there are some lectures which stand out in my mind as having been among the best of my university experiences. I wouldn't have been able to have those experiences at all if our class sizes had only been small group discussion-based teaching, because if the greatest minds in their field on earth were made to provide "active learning" to groups of forty measly undergrads at a time, I know I sure as hell wouldn't be able to afford to get into those classes. To format a course like that would be completely illogical.

It's a combination of teaching methods which employs lecture, so you get small classes and large classes within the same course, two-in-one, inspiration from the big dogs and personal help from the up-and-comers. It just makes sense that way, how else would you organize it so that the largest number of students possible has access to the best education possible?

I agree, a combo of both is best. Maybe I've been a bit over-enthused/over-emphasetory when it comes to discussion based classes at my University, because there usually is some lecture. The professor still gives the students information, shares their points of view, etc. That's just not all the class is. Of course a professor needs to impart their knowledge on whatever the subject is.

I have had awesome professors when it comes to lecturing. One in particular lectures more than others, and he's awesome. He'll still get the class involved from time to time, though.


*shrug* That's the education I prefer, which is obviously why I buy it. If I wanted all small-class "active learning" courses, I'd go to a small college, I did for a few months. Thirty-five people per class, lots of discussion, they hold your hand the whole way and focus on instruction a lot more, but the instructors and the equipment and facilities aren't as impressive by half. The cost of a university vs. community college is comparable here, so you really do have a choice at least up until the end of your second year, in most cases. After second year you usually have no choice but to to transfer to a big university if you want a bachelor's. Anywho, what I'm saying is, given a choice and having experienced both, I found the teaching method which employs lecture much more enriching than your way.
35 students in a class isn't my way. That's way too many people to have an effective discussion--too many students will get overlooked, won't speak up, will be able to "hide" from the conversation, etc. I'm betting you never got into any real discussions--where you actually debate and exchange ideas with the professor and other classmates. In my English class, I have 22 students, and that's still a few too many, in my opinion.

Come on, no one else here hates classroom discussion? It's the most embarrassing thing in the world when someone is too stupid to know they're stupid and seeks attention in front of strangers. The instructor stumbles around trying to find some way to escape the situation, but sometimes the student won't shut up and keeps going and going. Sometimes they do it in every class for the entire semester, and when they raise their hand your brain just shuts off and you recede into yourself until it's over.
This is a risk, no doubt (the whole no risk, no reward thing, no?). I've had one in every class. Have one now. The teacher has to be savvy enough to pick something out of their tangents that can move the discussion forward. Sometimes (usually) I can, sometime's I can't. If I can't, I'll just fall back on "What do you guys think of what so-and-so said?" And then the conversation moves on. As for them talking so much, I just tell them, "Okay, so-and-so, I see some other people who want to talk, let's see what they have to say" (they never seem to get offended). Sometimes the class will just fall back on this person and let them do all the work, in which case I address the whole class, "Come on, guys, you can't let so-and-so do all the work."

[stlukesguild]

Then you've never had a world-class lecturer. I've been lucky enough to have had a few, there are some lectures which stand out in my mind as having been among the best of my university experiences. I wouldn't have been able to have those experiences at all if our class sizes had only been small group discussion-based teaching, because if the greatest minds in their field on earth were made to provide "active learning" to groups of forty measly undergrads at a time, I know I sure as hell wouldn't be able to afford to get into those classes. To format a course like that would be completely illogical.

I was lucky enough to go to a top-rated art school where we were exposed to the best of both approaches. At the time, such as education wasn't cheap... but it was far more affordable than today. Were I to attend the same school today, I'd be looking at nearly $50,000 US per year. Our Art History courses, for example, included two early morning lectures per week in a large auditorium with slides. We also met once or twice a week in small groups in what was termed Art History Review. At this time there was the possibility of discussion... as well as developing a personal relationship with the professor. Every other week the review session would meet at the art museum where we could explore and discuss works of art in real life.

I agree that lecturing is considered "outdated" as opposed to more "progressive" teaching strategies... however I'm not overly fond of a great many "progressive" teaching strategies... many of which have not been proven to be overly successful... and often seen like an effort to make education entertaining. This is especially true at the grade school level where there is a push to make education as fun as video games and watching TV... which I do not think is the greatest strategy for preparing students for the real world.

Personally, if there was ever a teaching strategy that I hated as a student it was group projects in which teachers intentionally placed higher achieving, highly motivated students with the lower achieving and the slackers. The concept was that the higher achieving students would help push and motivate the others... but from my experience, the result was that the slackers sat back and the higher achieving students did all the work... because they were not about to let some "moron" ruin their grade. This strategy has even been employed at the college level. During my second year of art school the school administration took the 5 students with the highest GPA and placed us in a class of essentially remedial students. Contrary to Alex' belief, I recognize that in most instances there is little difference between the level of teaching at the finest schools vs the state subsidized schools. The real difference lies in the resources (money), the connections you might make, and the quality of students. I, and the others involved in this little social experiment were more than slightly POed. The group of us all threatened to withdraw, and as a result they agreed that if we continued the year in the class we would be given our first choice for all classes for the remainder of our time at the school.

35 students in a class isn't my way. That's way too many people to have an effective discussion

:smilielol5: Tell that to those responsible for all the cuts to public education. You think 35 is bad... try 45... or 52... including 10 "special education" students... 4 of whom are coded as having "severe behavioral/emotional disabilities". And don't even begin to imagine that the students as a whole are going to just sit there passively or be at all willing to participate in the discussion.

[Paulclem]

Lecturing is a good way to begin and inspire learning about particular topics in whatever field, and, as has been pointed out, a good lecturer makes a great impression. (I can remember sitting in really great lectures in the late 80s). But no lecture can give you what you need at university to learn the subject. The fact that it is a lecture means that discussion to facilitate clarification of points or expansion of various aspects is necessary to consolidate the thrust of the learning. That's what a seminar is for, and I agree that you can't have much of a discussion with 35 people. What you do is manage them into smaller groups. And manage is what you do with the know it all who drones on. This is basic class management.

Lectures and discussions are only a couple of the possible ways of encouraging learning because what lectures and seminars are for is to give pointers to new ideas and developments in the field. I was attending university before the summer and the lecturers there used a few methods. We were given tasks such as evaluation of resources, (it was a maths teaching course).
We were asked to solve problems and discuss how we could adapt and present the problem or a modified version.
We were given scenarios to develop teaching strategies and schemes of work for.
We were asked to investigate an educational aspect and report back to everyone else.
We were asked to learn a new skill/ method and teach it to each other.
We were asked to discuss and report back on the implications of recent educational developments.

All of these methods - investigations, learning and passing on, presenting, developing, constructing scenarios, considering the implications of something, reflecting upon learning can be done by small groups and/ or individuals. They are about meta-learning and the subject hardly matters. Most of them could be applied to any subject.( I suspect the nature of sciences requires a lot of this in lab work anyway), but I bet that there are some methods missing.

The point of them is not that you will remeber everything - that's what books are for - (not lectures) - It's about what you do with what you've gleaned whether it be an essay, a presentation, a theorem you develop, a set of data you present, your contribution to a discussion/ blog/ website/ forum or the research you take up and investigate. The feedback doesn't have to be in class time, but can be on a website of blog - as ours often was. It can be carried over into the next session or have a sheet produced for the other members of the class.

I suspect that universities are slacking on teaching methods. My wife attended our local uni a couple of years ago and the head of Department lectured them by reading his notes out verbatim and expecting them to write it all down. Disgraceful - especially considering what it costs these days. I think it's partly due to the old idea of academia in Scher's video. There was a palpable reluctance by some of the older lecturers to engage with the IT at the Uni, and thus the younger student were denied their probable preferred way of learning - online.

I think the reason for this in the UK is the lack of an inspection body that will ramp up standards. The idea that knowing a lot makes you a good teacher is rubbish. The two are skills that need developing. If your university is not making the most of teaching methods and the online opportunities, then i would start asking questions. It's you who are paying.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]Personally, if there was ever a teaching strategy that I hated as a student it was group projects in which teachers intentionally placed higher achieving, highly motivated students with the lower achieving and the slackers. The concept was that the higher achieving students would help push and motivate the others... but from my experience, the result was that the slackers sat back and the higher achieving students did all the work... because they were not about to let some "moron" ruin their grade. This strategy has even been employed at the college level.

Yes - my wife experienced this at Uni. A good group with one student who expected to be carried by the others. I think they made their case known.

Another chap on the same course went round to one of the slackers in his group and stayed with him all night tomake sure he did the work for their presentation the next day. The lad in question was formidable when roused and so the work got done, but it is a completely unfair way to conduct assessments that contribute to grades.

[BienvenuJDC]

I've been here for about a week and you are just an irritating person. I'm not surprised to find that nobody likes you.

Everyone here is irritating at one time or another. But I don't think that there is anyone that isn't also liked sometimes too. We're like family...and we annoy each other just like family as well.

[Athenal]

I find this an interesting topic. I work in a factory that could be compared to a sweat shop. The other day a man came up and told a co-worker That he had been dropping the f-bomb alot in his conversation. The man stated that this could offend some of the people he worked with. I was thinking Dude this is a factory. Just for the record I know most of the people that work with us use the f-bomb frequently.

[Varenne Rodin]

I guess it's lucky for me that I'm an artist. I can be as passionate and strange as I want to be. If I want to paint a picture of tits using my tits while cussing and smoking and drinking, well that's peachy keen (I don't smoke). I can even wear a stupid hat if I feel like it. It's easy.

[Calidore]

If I want to paint a picture of tits using my tits while cussing and smoking and drinking, well that's peachy keen (I don't smoke). I can even wear a stupid hat if I feel like it. It's easy.

Well, now I know what all those how-to-paint programs on PBS are missing. Couldn't nail it down before.

Until they become more enlightened, however, we do have Youtube, should you feel the urge. :ihih:

[BienvenuJDC]

I guess it's lucky for me that I'm an artist. I can be as passionate and strange as I want to be. If I want to paint a picture of tits using my tits while cussing and smoking and drinking, well that's peachy keen (I don't smoke). I can even wear a stupid hat if I feel like it. It's easy.

I'm glad you don't smoke. It's harmful for your health.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well, now I know what all those how-to-paint programs on PBS are missing. Couldn't nail it down before.

Until they become more enlightened, however, we do have Youtube, should you feel the urge. :ihih:

Ha. It just might be the wave of the future.


I'm glad you don't smoke. It's harmful for your health.

That struck me funny for some reason.

I hear tell that sophisticated types vaporize herbs. I might give that a whirl someday. The worst detriment to my health was being forced into existence. :D

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic posts have been and will be removed without further warning.

Meanwhile, please do not forget to visit our brand new "Freedom of Speech" thread.

~

[Alexander III]

I'm glad you don't smoke. It's harmful for your health.

An interesting side note, this current youngest generation in America is the first generation in the history of AMerica, who is expected to have a shorter lifespan than their parents. Not because of smoking, but because of diet. The way we consume food in the 21st century has outpaced medicine's ability to cure it. I am not saying smoking is good, just maybe equal emphasis should be placed on Mcdonalds and Philip Morris.

{edit}

[Shalot]

The other day, while teaching my English 101 class (all freshmen), I said, referring to an author's authority in an essay, "What the hell does he know?" I afterward heard several gasps and snickers of disbelief. I found this quite humorous myself, especially since I know several colleagues who aren't shy about throwing around ****s and ****s as they please.

I find it funny that people in some professions (well, really, any profession) are expected to uphold certain behavioral standards. The physical labor worker--rude and crude; the office worker--the normal Everyman; the scientist--straight-laced and nerdy; the teacher--proper and demure. Many find it surprising when people break these assumptions outside or in the work place, sometimes even becoming fiction tropes (the worldly, wise, and cultured janitor comes to mind). I find the surprise amusing.

When it comes to myself, I've found that me being a teacher makes people surprised by how I act out of class--cursing, political incorrectness, etc. Most people don't expect it--they either are surprised by my actions having known I'm a teacher beforehand, or knowing me and then finding out I'm a teacher. I've also found that authority figures, whoever they may be, hold me to a different, higher, behavioral standard than other people (and I mean outside of the classroom) which is just downright odd.

I'm curious if anyone else has experienced this sort of thing--other thinking your behavior just doesn't match your profession.

Were they snickering in disbelief at the word **** or at what you said? Probably, it was the use of the word **** and not at your statement, since the assumption would be that they hadn't heard of whomever or whatever you were discussing in your classroom before that day and they couldn't possibly know enough to snicker in disbelief at something you'd said other than the word ****.

I am an office worker and I have a foul mouth, and I was amused by my coworker's face when I dropped the "F" bomb in conversation a couple of years ago. Now that coworker has been promoted twice in the holier-than-thou setting that we work in and I have received only 1 job "promotion" if you could even call it that. I'm not the only one to drop the "F" bomb at work because that word is often called for in that place but those of us who dare drop it stay right where we are. I guess if you can keep your cool and not cuss, then you can be promoted.

In an academic setting, I would think that swear words would be more tolerated than they are in an office setting for some reason. I guess it depends though on whether you're educating thinkers or training producers.

Personally, when I was in college, I liked having an instructor or professor who had a human side and didn't have a stick up his or her arse in the classroom. But, if the professor was just using a "h e l l" or a shart or an F bomb to get the attention of some college students, I was more turned off then interested. In fact, I lost interest in the buffoon professor who thought he was cool because he used those words in his classroom. A professor who knows how and when to use certain words is certainly preferable. But maybe those snickering students in your class were just dumb, hick students from the sticks who had never heard the word **** used in what they believed should be a more formal setting.

Also, you said that you find it funny that people in any profession are expected to uphold certain behavioral standards. The definition of the word professional is (copied and pasted her from Merriam Webster online) is:

"c (1) : characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace

In other words, they are expected to be professional.

But then you went on to describe stereotypes of professions, like the rude and crude laborer, and the straight-laced nerdy scientist, and then the educated janitor who shocked everyone because he didn't fit the stereotype. Isn't there also a stereotypical "hip" college English professor who has a ponytail and grades his 101 compositions after partaking of the kind bud, and who throws a "****" or a "****" around in his classroom because he is afreethinker who doesn't conform to the traditional norms?

I'm sorry, I've dated myself with that stereotype. What is the new "cool" English professor wearing and doing these days?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yes, but a key to that definition is the part where it says "in the workplace." Everyone should be professional in their workplace, to a certain extent. A professor cursing moderately in a classroom isn't necessarily seen as unprofessional by the majority of professors and administrators working at a university. It's all about context.

I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about stereotypes. Of course a college professor has a stereotype, just like most any profession, or any thing, for that matter. I wasn't attempting to belittle those various professions, just pointing out what the stereotypes are--not claiming that they're true. The opposite, actually.

And, my favorite English professor has a ponytail. Take from that what you will.

[Shalot]

Yes, but a key to that definition is the part where it says "in the workplace." Everyone should be professional in their workplace, to a certain extent. A professor cursing moderately in a classroom isn't necessarily seen as unprofessional by the majority of professors and administrators working at a university. It's all about context.

I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about stereotypes. Of course a college professor has a stereotype, just like most any profession, or any thing, for that matter. I wasn't attempting to belittle those various professions, just pointing out what the stereotypes are--not claiming that they're true. The opposite, actually.

And, my favorite English professor has a ponytail. Take from that what you will.

Oh, well thanks for clarifying that.

[Paulclem]

I don't swear in my adult classes, and nor do the learners. It's not because none of us swear, but there seems to be an unspoken code that - in its own mysterious unspoken way - goes through all the adult classes. It's really quite interesting because no-one has laid this law down. I think there's a sense of mutual respect, and it's rather nice.

Having said that, the team I'm working with at the moment have been together over a year now, ( we often get moved around the city to various venues).We began quite naturally not swearing, but there has been a bit of a sea change. Perhaps - as we're all the same grade - we've relaxed in each others company more. The five of us do sit around a fairly small office for long periods, and all sorts of weird conversations take place. We've discussed swearing, and since, we've all felt a lot less inhibited - though it is by no means gratuitous, but is often a reflection of frustration. I tend to say "bugger" a lot but I have occaisionally ejaculated a "bollocks". Still none of us woud swear in front of the learners - even though they know that we swear, and we know that they know that we swear, and no doubt they know that we know that they know that we swear and vice versa.

[stlukesguild]

I guess it's lucky for me that I'm an artist. I can be as passionate and strange as I want to be. If I want to paint a picture of tits using my tits while cussing and smoking and drinking, well that's peachy keen (I don't smoke). I can even wear a stupid hat if I feel like it. It's easy.

Hey... why not? Renoir claimed to paint with his pr**k... so I say go for it. Of course Yves Kline already beat you to the punch:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_ant57_zps8eb54924.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=ant57_zps8eb54924.jpg)

Of course considering that "he" wasn't a "she" he was forced to employ someone else's tits as his brush of choice... so you still might be the first... although considering the art world as I know it... I highly doubt it. Tits are no big deal. Not when we have enema paintings:

http://www.improbable.com/2010/07/21/art-boadwee-rectal-squirt-method/

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No! Bad stlukes! Bad!

[stlukesguild]

And it would completely undermine my opinion of you if I even thought for a single minute that you weren't among the first to check out that link.:lol:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yeah, I checked it out. Stupid picture was censored, though. What a rip-off.

[stlukesguild]

You could just Google his name if you really want to see an uncensored picture of him "painting"... although I cannot for the life of me imagine why you would want to do so... other than to prove it to yourself just how f***-ed up the art world... and our culture as a whole really is.
















But you've already Googled his name, haven't you?:hand:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Actually, I can say in complete honestly that . . . yeah, I have.

[stlukesguild]

I came across him years ago in some magazine article on the outrageous crap that passes for art. Among other examples there was Chris Burden's Shoot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE5u3ThYyl4

Vito Acconci's Seedbed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seedbed_(performance_piece)

Piero Manzoni's Merda d'artista

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_Manzoni

Then there was the Aktionismus Group, including Rudolf Schwarzkogler whose "performances" included an apparent self-castration followed shortly thereafter by a real suicide; and then there was Hermann Nitsch, who liked to stage blood sacrifices in which a living animal was slaughtered so that participants could wallow in its warm blood and entrails.


All of these examples of "Art" are the result of the decline of the traditional atelier, art schools, and the apprenticeship system which stressed the real work of the artist in the studio, and the shift in art education to the colleges and universities which stressed theory and concept and thinking "deep thoughts" over the actual creation of an art image or object.

The result has been such an obsession with the scatological that it has become a running joke. I remember one cartoon in the alternative art press here is town in which 3 or 4 consecutive weird-looking individuals stop into a local butcher's shop each requesting things such as cows intestines, pigs penises, or a gallon of chicken blood. A young employee looks in confusion over these strange requests to the butcher, who replies nonchalantly, "Oh... the performance art festival is in town."

[Clopin]

"All of these examples of "Art" are the result of the decline of the traditional atelier, art schools, and the apprenticeship system which stressed the real work of the artist in the studio, and the shift in art education to the colleges and universities which stressed theory and concept and thinking "deep thoughts" over the actual creation of an art image or object."

The community centre where I live in Canada hosted some sort of showing by some incredibly avante garde artiste. The show? He masturbated into a bottle and smeared it onto a canvas with used condoms and then hung it on a tree. And for this he received a grant from parks Canada to perform.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

"All of these examples of "Art" are the result of the decline of the traditional atelier, art schools, and the apprenticeship system which stressed the real work of the artist in the studio, and the shift in art education to the colleges and universities which stressed theory and concept and thinking "deep thoughts" over the actual creation of an art image or object."

The community centre where I live in Canada hosted some sort of showing by some incredibly avante garde artiste. The show? He masturbated into a bottle and smeared it onto a canvas with used condoms and then hung it on a tree. And for this he received a grant from parks Canada to perform.

I hope he wasn't watching porn when he did it. That would be bad.

[Varenne Rodin]

I guess it's lucky for me that I'm an artist. I can be as passionate and strange as I want to be. If I want to paint a picture of tits using my tits while cussing and smoking and drinking, well that's peachy keen (I don't smoke). I can even wear a stupid hat if I feel like it. It's easy.

Hey... why not? Renoir claimed to paint with his pr**k... so I say go for it. Of course Yves Kline already beat you to the punch:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_ant57_zps8eb54924.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=ant57_zps8eb54924.jpg)

Of course considering that "he" wasn't a "she" he was forced to employ someone else's tits as his brush of choice... so you still might be the first... although considering the art world as I know it... I highly doubt it. Tits are no big deal. Not when we have enema paintings:

http://www.improbable.com/2010/07/21/art-boadwee-rectal-squirt-method/

Haha. Ewwww. Always educational, stlukes. I did not click the link. I was scared.

I think I'll stick to more traditional methods of painting and sculpting, but it's nice to know I can go nuts and not get fired, should the mood strike. :D

[tonywalt]

I hope he wasn't watching porn when he did it. That would be bad.

I just hope he didn't shoot a "dreaded dribbler" when he deposited - that would look bad.

[stlukesguild]

Haha. Ewwww. Always educational, stlukes. I did not click the link. I was scared.

There are certainly aspects of my art education that I could have done without.:eek2:

I think I'll stick to more traditional methods of painting and sculpting...

I'm rather "traditional" myself... at least in the sense that I prefer drawing and painting over these less traditional "media". Sculpture... I never got the hang of. It would look good from one side... and then I'd turn the thing around to discover a "masterpiece" of Expressionist distortion. I think too much in terms of images... 2 dimensional... and even my paintings employ a rather shallow space.

[Anton Hermes]

I think I'll stick to more traditional methods of painting and sculpting
And so will just about everybody else. There's no reason to be alarmist about artistic values changing overnight.

I don't believe for a minute that cultural festivals are featuring lots of castrations, suicides, and animal slaughters; or that art galleries are overrun with tins of poop.

[Alexander III]

And so will just about everybody else. There's no reason to be alarmist about artistic values changing overnight.

I don't believe for a minute that cultural festivals are featuring lots of castrations, suicides, and animal slaughters; or that art galleries are overrun with tins of poop.

Half of the Tate Modern in London is dedicated to the equivalent of can of poop. I cannot help but feel that the men of our times owe a huge apology to posteriority for the average quality of our art world.

At least our music and literature compensates for the formers faults.

[stlukesguild]

Alex... if you are really interested there are two short texts: The Painted Wordby Tom Wolfe and The Eclipse of Art by Julian Spalding that are very good at dissecting the current malaise of the "art world."

You might be surprised just how much this sort of Merda d'artista has dominated the art world for the last several decades.

Tom Wolfe astutely recognized that the "art world" was in actuality little more than a small village... albeit a very wealthy village. In other words, the "art world"... those individuals who largely control what art gets seen, bought, and talked about are no more than a few thousand in number of collectors, dealers, curators, and critics.

The "art world" might be broken down into three distinct groups... those who buy art because:

1. They Love Art. This is by far the smallest and least influential group.

2. They buy art for investment. This was a concept almost unheard of... until the Art Boom of the 1980s. Since then, investing in the "right" art has become one of the investment possibilities with the highest rate of return.

3. The third reason people in the art world buy art is best explained by Bill Watterson in his classic comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes:

"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world."

This small group known as the "art world" has exerted an inordinate influence on what art gets seen (in galleries, magazines, books), bought (by museums as much as by private collectors), and talked about. The few major dealers limit what artists are shown to a few big names. These are who they market to collectors and even museums. The major art periodicals, such as Art News, Art in America, and Art Forum are all wholly dependent upon the advertising revenues from the major galleries. Most would immediately recognize that there is a certain conflict of interest involved when the "objective" voice of the press is "owned" by the dealers selling the art that they purport to critique. Of course there have always been a few dissenting voices. Robert Hughes, for example, wrote for Time Magazine, whose advertising revenues come from GM, Coke, Merrill-Lynch and other major corporate sponsors as opposed to art dealers. This gave him a freedom to be brutally honest about the art he reviewed.

The "art world" also exerts its influence upon the museums. A wealthy collector, for example, may donate a "masterpiece" by Artist X to the Metropolitan or MoMA thereby gaining the museum's stamp of approval... and thus increasing the worth of all the other "masterpieces" by Artist X... including the several dozen that he owns.

The wealthy collector may also aspire to a position on the museum board of trustees. From this position he can pressure the museum to buy further "masterpieces" by Artist X or to give Artist X a one-man show... again increasing the worth of all of Artist X's works. Again... one immediately recognizes a conflict of interest.

Art education has suffered on several accounts. Many of the art educators are aspiring and/or failed artists who followed the fashions put forth in the art periodicals and galleries... and they push their students to follow in their footsteps. The shift in art education from the traditional ateliers, art schools, and apprenticeship system to the colleges and universities also impacted the sort of work being done. The ateliers, art schools, and apprenticeships stressed hands-on practical training in the art studio in drawing, painting, sculpting, etc... But this is not the sort of thing that academia is good at. It is next to impossible to put into words what is "great" about a given painting... this one, for example:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Titian_Noli_me_Tangere_1511_12.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Titian_Noli_me_Tangere_1511_12.jpg)

Truly grasping how a painting "works" also demands spending an extended period of time looking at real paintings... in person... but so many colleges and universities are far from any major museums and so a majority of art school graduates of the last 50 years experienced art almost exclusively through slides and photographic reproductions... seeing art as mere images... not as an object that has a definite size, color... in which one can discern the artist's touch and how the work was developed.

Academia also promotes words and ideas... thinking over doing. As such, the shift in art education to academia led to a shift toward "Conceptual Art"... art that stresses "deep" (or just clever) ideas over the actual image/object. Promoting Conceptual Art is also cheaper... no need for expensive studio spaces and costly materials like oil paint... and Conceptual Art also meant that the teachers/professors need not show a minimal level of proficiency in drawing and painting. They only need to be able to speak "art speak" fluently, quote the proper critics (especially French Deconstructionists), and master the art of bull****ing.

As Alex noted above... the result of all of this is that even "major" museums such as the Tate have been reduced to a repository of s***. But what is one to expect when the collection of the Tate has been largely controlled for the last several decades by one major collector with egregious taste, Charles Saatchi, and his gopher boy, Nicholas Serota?

Of course, just as there have always been dissenting critical voices such as Robert Hughes, so have there been dissenting artists. Indeed, one would suspect that traditional drawing and painting... and even "realism" never went out of fashion... at least not among the larger populace. But among the "art world" who see art as a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world... such art is hopelessly outdated and "kitsch". Art must offend the sensibilities of the masses if it is to lend the wealthy collector a sense of superiority... and help to assuage his or her own sense of guilt for being so successful within the same system as the bourgeois masses. In other words, by collecting art that offends the bourgeois tastes, the wealthy bourgeois collector convinces himself that he... like the artist... is a bohemian... a rebel... superior to all the rest to the riff-raff.

There are cracks in the system. The larger art audience has begun to question why they should fund (through their tax dollars) the tax write-offs and the museums purchases of cans of [I]Merda d'artista and other crap that they find detestable and offensive. Younger artists have begun to question the value of a college or university education in art (especially thanks to inflated tuition), looking to more traditional art schools, ateliers, and apprenticeships... where they will learn and master real (and marketable) skills without being saddled with a debt equal to a house mortgage. The internet has also resulted in an increasing voice being given to dissenting opinions, as well as alternatives to the gallery dominated market.

Contrary to Alex' notion that the visual arts are alone in this warped vision, one need only give a listen to several "masterpieces" of contemporary classical music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFKFiXSx4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13D1YY_BvWU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZazYFchLRI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71hNl_skTZQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEZMrtjseoU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2qPccm8YrI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAxGbZgzuAU&feature=related

[Anton Hermes]

Contrary to Alex' notion that the visual arts are alone in this warped vision, one need only give a listen to several "masterpieces" of contemporary classical music:

You need to update your alarmism. These pieces are all about half a century old.

And they didn't even characterize the mainstream of composition back when they were first heard. Just like the tins-of-poop aren't characteristic of art these days either. You guys are making it sound like some fringe artists represent what every artist nowadays is doing.

Who do you think you're fooling?

[Alexander III]

And they didn't even characterize the mainstream of composition back when they were first heard. Just like the tins-of-poop aren't characteristic of art these days either. You guys are making it sound like some fringe artists represent what every artist nowadays is doing.


Have you even been to a contemporary art exhibit? Since my university is a train away from london, and I have several friends studying within the city so I can crash at their's, I often visit London to go to contemporary art exhibits and the occasional opera and play.

Last year I went to 4 major contemporary art show's, holding hundreds of works by living artists. The Frieze show was the largest and most renown. I assure you it is not fringe in the least, it is the bread and butter of the modern art world, and merely to see an oil painting was as rare and relieving as an oasis in the desert. And for ever oil painting there were four or five dozen Jesus's pissing of defecating or scatological pieces which were made only to shock, but when scatology becomes conformity how can it shock when one is utterly numb to it.

These works of "art" may not be the most popular amongst the mass, but they are the only ones which sell for high prices and furthermore they are the only ones which seem to gain respect from the art-world.

My empathy goes out to the few artists out there who have a notion of what aesthetics are, and are not fooled into the conceptual bull****, it is a though battle but as usual I am sure that posterity shall be just in it's assessment of things.

[Anton Hermes]

Anyone concerned about Al's claim that Half of the Tate Modern in London is dedicated to the equivalent of can of poop should go to the Tate Modern website (http://www.tate.org.uk/visit/tate-modern). There, you'll be hard pressed to find art dedicated to urination and defecation anywhere in their announcements, lists of collections or exhibitions.

Really, this nonsense about scatology being universal in modern art needs to stop.

[Volya]

A lot of modern art is complete and utter bollocks though. All these idiots talking about how 'oh this lovely splat here represents the conflict of the mind', and other nonsense like that needs to stop. Why can we not go back to when art actually required skill and talent to make.

[Alexander III]

Anyone concerned about Al's claim that Half of the Tate Modern in London is dedicated to the equivalent of can of poop should go to the Tate Modern website (http://www.tate.org.uk/visit/tate-modern). There, you'll be hard pressed to find art dedicated to urination and defecation anywhere in their announcements, lists of collections or exhibitions.

Really, this nonsense about scatology being universal in modern art needs to stop.

fvuck the website, I visited twice in June; I assure you half of it is the equivalent of a can of poop.

[stlukesguild]

You need to update your alarmism. These pieces are all about half a century old.

And they didn't even characterize the mainstream of composition back when they were first heard. Just like the tins-of-poop aren't characteristic of art these days either. You guys are making it sound like some fringe artists represent what every artist nowadays is doing.

Who do you think you're fooling?

I'm not fooling anyone, junior. Do you seriously want to get into a debate about art with me? There are plenty of artists who are continuing to work within the same realm: Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin, Lisa Yuskavage, Alexander Esguerra, Andrea Fraser, Jeff Koons, Robert Gober, On Kawara, Marina Abramović, Ilya Kabakov, Vanessa Beecroft, even Joseph Kosuth and John Baldasare all all still active and working last I heard.

Perhaps you might need a bit more than Modern and Contemporary Art 101 and a year's subscription to Art News before you can claim an in depth knowledge of Contemporary Art and the art world.

[Anton Hermes]

I'm not fooling anyone, junior.

Ain't that the truth.


Perhaps you might need a bit more than Modern and Contemporary Art 101 and a year's subscription to Art News before you can claim an in depth knowledge of Contemporary Art and the art world.


Which I never claimed to have. But you don't need an in-depth knowledge of the art world to know that the artists castrating themselves, committing suicide, slaughtering animals, and tinning their poop are a vanishing subset of the art world. Despite the howls of protest from our resident Chicken Littles, the art world by and large isn't violent or scatological.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

The OP:


The other day, while teaching my English 101 class (all freshmen), I said, referring to an author's authority in an essay, "What the hell does he know?" I afterward heard several gasps and snickers of disbelief. I found this quite humorous myself, especially since I know several colleagues who aren't shy about throwing around ****s and ****s as they please.

I find it funny that people in some professions (well, really, any profession) are expected to uphold certain behavioral standards. The physical labor worker--rude and crude; the office worker--the normal Everyman; the scientist--straight-laced and nerdy; the teacher--proper and demure. Many find it surprising when people break these assumptions outside or in the work place, sometimes even becoming fiction tropes (the worldly, wise, and cultured janitor comes to mind). I find the surprise amusing.

When it comes to myself, I've found that me being a teacher makes people surprised by how I act out of class--cursing, political incorrectness, etc. Most people don't expect it--they either are surprised by my actions having known I'm a teacher beforehand, or knowing me and then finding out I'm a teacher. I've also found that authority figures, whoever they may be, hold me to a different, higher, behavioral standard than other people (and I mean outside of the classroom) which is just downright odd.

I'm curious if anyone else has experienced this sort of thing--other thinking your behavior just doesn't match your profession.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'll assume since I'm the OP I can approve the topic change. I find the current conversation fascinating.




Truly grasping how a painting "works" also demands spending an extended period of time looking at real paintings... in person... but so many colleges and universities are far from any major museums and so a majority of art school graduates of the last 50 years experienced art almost exclusively through slides and photographic reproductions... seeing art as mere images... not as an object that has a definite size, color... in which one can discern the artist's touch and how the work was developed.


I don't think this is really that big of a problem, especially since image quality keeps getting better. Not that I'm saying an image can ever equal the real thing (although it seems like many museums I've gone to, even the Louvre, has lighting that puts really bad glare on paintings), but seeing an image of a piece of art rather than not seeing it at all is surely better than nothing, yes?


As to the current art world being inundated with shock art (which is really all the scatological and Jesus pissing stuff is--and ironic that artists who work in that medium don't get that it isn't shocking anymore), I haven't seen that . . . but I've never gone to a "real" gallery showing for a contemporary artist, either. I've gone to plenty of art fairs, though, and you never see any of that stuff there (of course, that these are usually events meant to be inviting for families with kids probably plays a big role in that). You see plenty of paintings, drawings, and glass (way too much glass, IMO). I guess these fairs don't draw in the "art community"--I mentioned going to one of these fairs and she snobbishly said she never went to art fairs, because their actually craft fairs. Well, not the ones I've been to. There're plenty of legitimate artists selling really cool stuff.

That paragraph was kind of all over the place.

[OrphanPip]

I don't really get comparing Ligeti to contemporary art though. Ligeti is certainly not immediately accessible, but his music is complicated and definitely requires an expert understanding of musical theory to compose. And certain pieces, like "Lux Aeterna" and "Requiem," have even crossed over to popular culture (largely due to Kubrich). Though I don't usually voluntarily choose to listen to Ligeti.

[Clopin]

A lot of modern art is complete and utter bollocks though. All these idiots talking about how 'oh this lovely splat here represents the conflict of the mind', and other nonsense like that needs to stop. Why can we not go back to when art actually required skill and talent to make.

Make me your best "modern" art painting or sculpture. I don't care for Duchamp's found art (or Duchamp in general, though I like him as a man; mainly because I'm a huge Chess fan) or a purely blue canvas very much, but people like Duchamp and Reinhardt or Jackson Pollock were all very skilled and talented artists when it came to realism and technical skills.



I don't think this is really that big of a problem, especially since image quality keeps getting better. Not that I'm saying an image can ever equal the real thing (although it seems like many museums I've gone to, even the Louvre, has lighting that puts really bad glare on paintings), but seeing an image of a piece of art rather than not seeing it at all is surely better than nothing, yes?



I'm far from an art aficionado or expert, but the few excellent oil paintings I've ever really looked at seriously are definitely very textural. It adds a whole new dimension to the painting for sure .

[Volya]

Make me your best "modern" art painting or sculpture. I don't care for Duchamp's found art (or Duchamp in general, though I like him as a man; mainly because I'm a huge Chess fan) or a purely blue canvas very much, but people like Duchamp and Reinhardt or Jackson Pollock were all very skilled and talented artists when it came to realism and technical skills.

Make some modern art? Challenge accepted.

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/HunterMedia/modernart_zps94b11439.jpg

I call it, 'Black Dot on Canvas'. It represents loneliness and racial segregation.
It's a masterpiece of creative thought!!!

[Alexander III]

Make some modern art? Challenge accepted.

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/HunterMedia/modernart_zps94b11439.jpg

I call it, 'Black Dot on Canvas'. It represents loneliness and racial segregation.
It's a masterpiece of creative thought!!!

haha, needless to say I have see about a million variations of this at various contemporary art exhibits, some with price tags ranging into the hundreds of thousands.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm far from an art aficionado or expert, but the few excellent oil paintings I've ever really looked at seriously are definitely very textural. It adds a whole new dimension to the painting for sure .
There is no doubt that seeing the actual piece will be more valuable than looking at an image of the piece. Still, in high quality images, one can see the brush strokes--I have images of Van Gogh and Monet where you can zoom in and see the individual strokes, and how the light (the light when the image was taken, that is) reflected off the texture. I have an image of money Lisa where I can zoom in to just the eye or just the hands and see all the individual cracks and imperfections from its age.

Make some modern art? Challenge accepted.

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/HunterMedia/modernart_zps94b11439.jpg

I call it, 'Black Dot on Canvas'. It represents loneliness and racial segregation.
It's a masterpiece of creative thought!!!

:lol: Well played.

It's funny Volya, your attitude towards modern/abstract art seems pretty much exactly as mine was when I was in high school. I'd constantly argue how stupid a painting was if a little kid could do it (my most usual analogy at the time) and all that. No surprise, my ideas and opinions have changed quite vastly.

[Scheherazade]

I'll assume since I'm the OP I can approve the topic change. Not really.


~

Since the OP has indicated that he is not interested in the topic of this particular thread anymore, it will now be closed.

Those who wish to discuss other topics such as poop, art and modernism can start new threads on those particular topics.

~