In Music, about the only thing I learned from Arnold Schoenberg...
It's interesting that you had to learn about Schoenberg. We didn't study him until Theory IV, two years into the declared major. He was mentioned in Music History II, but nothing detailed. I absolutely loathe pantonal music for its calculation and sterility. I've never had a problem stating exactly that. All I learned from it was that it exists. It's just history.
To which I ask the question, what's wrong with that approach?
Nothing, if the recipient is as emotionless as the speaker. But the reality is that every human being has emotions, triggers, and reactions, and most people cannot control them. Effective communication with a human has to take all of this into account, and these details are things that are, once again, not so easily charted in scientific ways. This is just one of the important practical uses of the liberal arts. I learned half of my communication skills from literature and the other half from theatre. Some of it might be that I'm just a considerate person, but as we've all seen from GAFF, I can easily set that filter aside. No, it has much more to do with the fact that I've learned how to gauge emotions and use listener response to the best of my ability. That's what interpersonal communication is all about, and it's a skill that you'll use for the rest of your life.
There are indeed times when you simply need to do what the course requires. No, James Joyce may not be all that great. But if a curriculum has a portion dedicated to his book, the professor cannot and will not change it just because someone doesn't like Joyce, just as a math professor wouldn't let me off the hook just because I think sines and cosines are idiotic wastes of time that I, frankly, don't need and never will. I still have to do it, and if I don't, I will fail the course.
If you don't like Joyce, retain that stance as you read the assigned book, and dissect it intelligently from that viewpoint. Such and such a character was vapid, and let me tell you what they did to support that view. This chapter was poorly developed, and while it may have been his intent to craft it as such, let me explain why I think it didn't play as well as it could have. The language of this book was coarse and irritating, and here's why. This is what critical thinking is about, and I can think of a great many professors who would feel honored to have such an honest, intelligent student in their class. If a professor grades such an essay poorly, take it to the dean.
But you can't just throw down your pencil, plant your feet, and say you won't do it because you don't see the point. None of us can do that, no matter what our field of study.
no subject
It's interesting that you had to learn about Schoenberg. We didn't study him until Theory IV, two years into the declared major. He was mentioned in Music History II, but nothing detailed. I absolutely loathe pantonal music for its calculation and sterility. I've never had a problem stating exactly that. All I learned from it was that it exists. It's just history.
To which I ask the question, what's wrong with that approach?
Nothing, if the recipient is as emotionless as the speaker. But the reality is that every human being has emotions, triggers, and reactions, and most people cannot control them. Effective communication with a human has to take all of this into account, and these details are things that are, once again, not so easily charted in scientific ways. This is just one of the important practical uses of the liberal arts. I learned half of my communication skills from literature and the other half from theatre. Some of it might be that I'm just a considerate person, but as we've all seen from GAFF, I can easily set that filter aside. No, it has much more to do with the fact that I've learned how to gauge emotions and use listener response to the best of my ability. That's what interpersonal communication is all about, and it's a skill that you'll use for the rest of your life.
There are indeed times when you simply need to do what the course requires. No, James Joyce may not be all that great. But if a curriculum has a portion dedicated to his book, the professor cannot and will not change it just because someone doesn't like Joyce, just as a math professor wouldn't let me off the hook just because I think sines and cosines are idiotic wastes of time that I, frankly, don't need and never will. I still have to do it, and if I don't, I will fail the course.
If you don't like Joyce, retain that stance as you read the assigned book, and dissect it intelligently from that viewpoint. Such and such a character was vapid, and let me tell you what they did to support that view. This chapter was poorly developed, and while it may have been his intent to craft it as such, let me explain why I think it didn't play as well as it could have. The language of this book was coarse and irritating, and here's why. This is what critical thinking is about, and I can think of a great many professors who would feel honored to have such an honest, intelligent student in their class. If a professor grades such an essay poorly, take it to the dean.
But you can't just throw down your pencil, plant your feet, and say you won't do it because you don't see the point. None of us can do that, no matter what our field of study.