"I've never had a problem opposing a teacher, and it's never damaged my grade."
I've found that a good way to do that is to answer the question "What did you learn from this" with the answer "Nothing."
More seriously, I seem to be having trouble communicating my point. It's not a matter of proposing an alternate viewpoint, it's a matter of arguing that the entire paradigm you're working in seems irrelevant and to come to the conclusion that the entire exercise has been without value for you. In Music, about the only thing I learned from Arnold Schoenberg was that some people have the amazing ability to be paid for being born naturally in a state the takes illegal hallucinogens for the rest of us to achieve. To be less flippant, I don't think I gained a damn thing out of studying him, but there seems a pressure on students not to write down that the only thing they got out of a class was regret at wasting ten weeks of their life.
It's not so much an opposing academic viewpoint as it is a statement that they believe that what they just went through was useless to them. This is probably why non-majors see the purpose of some literature classes as "To Read Books", where non-majors also see the purpose of math classes as "To Solve Equations". I don't see any cure for that problem; unless the genetics people can actually fix the human genome.
"I've met many like him in similar fields - people who don't know how to politely communicate dissent, and who expect that their brutally-delivered 'logic' will simply be the final word. I can't imagine the shitstorm that could follow if they, with all their genitility and grace, attempt to argue with a teacher."
To which I ask the question, what's wrong with that approach? You point out that there has to be a lot of arrogance in some of the Liberal Arts-surely they're used to blunt criticism by now. It seems a bit odd to have to coach dissent in polite words. What's wrong with a student simply stating that reading James Joyce is a waste of time, and isn't worth the student's time because it's too convoluted for further use? Or because, even though they can see how this would let them inside Joyce's head, they don't see any reason to be there?
I will acknowledge that there are better ways than directly expressing dissent to deal with the matter, but there's nothing wrong with bluntness, especially in a great many places in the real world. There's no good reason why a Professor should not be able to deal with a blunt answer in the same way that they deal with a more elaborate one.
no subject
I've found that a good way to do that is to answer the question "What did you learn from this" with the answer "Nothing."
More seriously, I seem to be having trouble communicating my point. It's not a matter of proposing an alternate viewpoint, it's a matter of arguing that the entire paradigm you're working in seems irrelevant and to come to the conclusion that the entire exercise has been without value for you. In Music, about the only thing I learned from Arnold Schoenberg was that some people have the amazing ability to be paid for being born naturally in a state the takes illegal hallucinogens for the rest of us to achieve. To be less flippant, I don't think I gained a damn thing out of studying him, but there seems a pressure on students not to write down that the only thing they got out of a class was regret at wasting ten weeks of their life.
It's not so much an opposing academic viewpoint as it is a statement that they believe that what they just went through was useless to them. This is probably why non-majors see the purpose of some literature classes as "To Read Books", where non-majors also see the purpose of math classes as "To Solve Equations". I don't see any cure for that problem; unless the genetics people can actually fix the human genome.
"I've met many like him in similar fields - people who don't know how to politely communicate dissent, and who expect that their brutally-delivered 'logic' will simply be the final word. I can't imagine the shitstorm that could follow if they, with all their genitility and grace, attempt to argue with a teacher."
To which I ask the question, what's wrong with that approach? You point out that there has to be a lot of arrogance in some of the Liberal Arts-surely they're used to blunt criticism by now. It seems a bit odd to have to coach dissent in polite words. What's wrong with a student simply stating that reading James Joyce is a waste of time, and isn't worth the student's time because it's too convoluted for further use? Or because, even though they can see how this would let them inside Joyce's head, they don't see any reason to be there?
I will acknowledge that there are better ways than directly expressing dissent to deal with the matter, but there's nothing wrong with bluntness, especially in a great many places in the real world. There's no good reason why a Professor should not be able to deal with a blunt answer in the same way that they deal with a more elaborate one.
"Too bad we don't see any of the money."
College taking its cut? Or was it for charity?