elm@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) (12/12/88)
[NOTE: no longer posted to sci.math and sci.physics, crossposted to soc.college] In article <5653@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> liu@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Hai-Ning Liu) writes: ->In article <18144@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: ->>In article <1060@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: ->> ->>Adrian Ho had said that there is a rumor in Singapore that some American ->>universities have quotas for foreign students. Herman and I both said ->>that such quotas exist at our schools (Purdue and UC Davis). [Again, I ->>must emphasize that these are quotas limiting numbers of foreign students, ->>not limiting the number of non-white American students.] ->> ->>I agree. The schools we are talking about are tax-supported institutions; ->>this is why the quotas are imposed. As far as I know, the private ->>universities have no such quotas. ->> ->> Norm -> ->Ok, how do you explain the "nondiscrimination statemant" appears ->in every application form? I quota part here: -> -> The Uninversity of Calfornia, in compliance with Title VI of the ->Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education ->Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the ->Age Discrimination Act of 1975, does not discriminate on the ->basis of race , color, NATIONAL ORIGIN, sex , handicap, or practices ->nordoes the university discriminate on the basis of sexual origin ->orinentation. This nondiscrimination policy covers admission and ->access to , andtreatment and employment in, university programs ... -> ->When it comes to talk about nondiscrimination stuff, I find ->most admistors slap their own faces. -> ->--liu -> ->haining liu ->CSE UCSD National origin refers to where a person's ancestors are from. They don't care whether you were originally Hawaiian, Japanese, English, or African. They DO care whether you are currently a legal CA resident. It's much harder to get into UC as an undergraduate if you are out of state (and thus out of country). Nothing wrong with that, since the university is tax- supported, and those who don't live in CA don't contribute to the tax. This is similar to companies that require US citizenship to work. Many of them are doing classified work, and you must be a citizen for certain types of classification. Are they discriminating? NO. Requiring US residence is legal since anyone can become a US residence (not necessarily everyone, but definitely anyone). ethan ---------------- "Quod erat demonstrandum, baby." ------------------------ WHO: ethan miller | WHERE: bandersnatch@ernie.berkeley.edu HOW: (415) 643-6228 | WHAT : overworked underpaid graduate student
gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (12/12/88)
In article <42@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >This sounds not like the prof saying "don't bother me", but rather like an >ultimatum: you can learn something, or you can learn nothing. If you really >want to learn nothing, just get the credit, I'll oblige you right now. >Otherwise, I assume you want to learn something. My psychology professor (forgot his name) is notorious for unusual case studies. His aim was probably to determine how many students took up the offer, how many didn't, and how many believed he would carry it out. >How many people signed that list? I bet most felt pretty >uncomfortable about it. (A psych professor should be good at that!) I don't remember. I do remember some of them coming back to class, and the professor telling them afterwards that they had to take the final. Some of them didn't believe that he would carry out his promise, although other students will testify that he did, indeed, give As out to students who signed their names. Other students felt guilty about not coming to class. A few wanted to learn something. --gregbo
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (12/12/88)
In article <8229@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> bandersnatch@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) writes: >This is similar to companies that require US citizenship to work. Many >of them are doing classified work, and you must be a citizen for certain >types of classification. Are they discriminating? NO. YES. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
gds@joyce.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (12/15/88)
In article <4378@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, zimm@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) writes: > In article <859@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > >I still don't understand this. WHY would it be despicable? > > Certainly the A students would not object, but those who received C's > or D's could be seriously hurt: they may think (probably falsely) that > their colleagues are laughing at their "stupidity." I got an A, but I still disagreed with the practice on ethical grounds. > Professors, administrators and parents may have a need to access a > student's grades--ie. grades are not confidential in the strictest > sense--but there is no point in needlessly hurting people's feelings > by subjecting them to what they may regard as public humiliation. Perhaps another question to be answered about our current educational system is what are grades meant for, vs. what they are used for. Presumably, you are in school to learn, and your grade should be used by you as a yardstick to measure your aptitude of the subject. However, grades are used also to distinguish between members of a community competing for various positions, such as entry into the job market or graduate school. Those who have the highest grades (in general) are rewarded by acceptance to these positions, and those who do not (in general) are rewarded to a lesser degree. I would like to hear other people's opinion of what grades should or should not be used for. I have no objection to the fact that grades are used as a method of qualification for advanced work, but I feel that there is a certain "dishonor" conveyed on those whose grades are less than the requirements. Furthermore, students are not necessarily encouraged to work harder to improve themselves; they are told "switch majors to something easier", "transfer into an easier school", etc. --gregbo
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/16/88)
In article <15456@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@joyce.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >Presumably, you are in school to learn, and your grade should be used >by you as a yardstick to measure your aptitude of[sic] the subject. But how can you do that unless you know the quality of the yardstick? Publishing the grades of a class exposes the _teacher_ just as much as the students. The two Universities I've been to wouldn't let people into a class in the first place if they didn't think there was a good chance that they would be able to cope with it. If 90% of the class get Cs, the teacher is doing something wrong. Why should this information be concealed from the students?
karam@sce.carleton.ca (Gerald Karam) (12/17/88)
In article <870@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <15456@joyce.istc.sri.com> gds@joyce.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >>Presumably, you are in school to learn, and your grade should be used >>by you as a yardstick to measure your aptitude of[sic] the subject. > >But how can you do that unless you know the quality of the yardstick? >Publishing the grades of a class exposes the _teacher_ just as much as >the students. ... stuff deleted... If 90% of the class get Cs, the >teacher is doing something wrong. Why should this information be >concealed from the students? i don't think there is any dispute that grades be posted, just not a student's name. why does one student need to know another's grade unless there is some suspicion of collusion between professor and student. and in that case there had better be more evidence than a grade. gerald
lady@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Lee Lady) (01/01/89)
Will it really accomplish anything for me to point out again the mirror-image symmetry between the postings from faculty and the postings from students? Almost certainly not. Will that stop me? What do you think! Faculty say: how can we possibly teach anything to these students when they're all such losers, and care about nothing except what's going to be on the next exam? Students say: how can we possibly learn anything when our professors are such losers who don't know how to teach and don't care anyway? In article <9237@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes: > > ... So what happens? Students don't get a >good base on which to build, and they really have to struggle all of >their college life. Will this change? Probably not; universities are >not all that interested in educating Joe Student. > The difference between winners and losers lies in their attitude toward life. If you think of school as something that _happens to_ you, if you honestly believe that by doing what you're told, by doing all your homework and passing all your tests, you will wind up getting an education, then you are playing a loser's game. I've got some harsh news for you, old buddy. Universities are not fair, and never will be. Life is not fair and never will be. If you're going to wait until you're treated fairly before you start winning, you'll wait the rest of your life. I got a teaching evaluation once that was a classic example of the attitude of a loser. In his (or her?) evaluation, this student referred to a really dumb error I'd made on the first day of class, and said "I knew then that the course was going to be worthless, and the rest of the semester proved me right." But s/he STAYED IN THE COURSE THE WHOLE SEMESTER, even though he'd already decided on the first day that he wouldn't get anything out of it. If this example doesn't make what I'm talking about clear, then nothing will. A lot of what you say in your posting is true. The question is: So What? You had a choice, friend. You could have gone to a junior college (community college) for your freshman-sophomore years and got the kind of teaching you complain about not getting at a university. Although it may be too late now, I think you should really seriously think about that choice and decide whether that would have been the better choice for you. If you decide after much thought that that would not have been an acceptable alternative for you, then you should think about how you can better take advantage of those things a university offers which junior colleges cannot. I want to speak a few other harsh truths. To paraphrase Theodore Sturgeon, 90% of what you learn in college is crap. In fact, my guess would be that 98% of the information you are given in college will be of no value to you after you graduate. Probably you're going to refuse to believe that, but accept it as a hypothesis for just one day, and through the filter of that hypothesis think hard about what it is that is really worthwhile about a college education. You may decide to drop out, or you may find some real insight into what universities are really about. Either way, it will no longer be possible for you to continue as a loser. Students love professors who make everything really clear, who make it all easy. But what they're doing is making it easy for you to learn stuff that will probably never be of any use to you anyway, and depriving you of the opportunity to learn something of real value, namely how to figure out difficult material for yourself. (This is not meant to justify professors who make everything so incomprehensible that you can never figure it out!) Another harsh truth: Your professors have no idea in the world what is or is not useful for you to know (except that certain things are necessary as prerequisite material for subsequent courses). Faculty choose material for a course on the basis of what is important *to them*. In particular, most mathematicians tend to like beautiful theories, and their objective is often more aesthetic than practical. But most important of all is the following fundamental triviality: we teach what is known, and we do not teach what is not known. It took me a long time to understand that. When I was a student, I used to think that there was this immense body of truth and that professors selected out what was most important to present to us. I thought that B was less important than A, because A was what was covered in class. None of my classes ever pointed out that the reason for not covering B was simply that B was not known. Okay, enough! Here I am spitting into the wind again. -- Lee Lady lady@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu Dept of Mathematics lee@kahuna.math.hawaii.edu University of Hawaii lady@uhccux.bitnet Honolulu, HI 96822
duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (01/05/89)
In article <1217.23C35B05@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG> Mike.Wasylik@f419.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Wasylik) writes: > > Something my >father pointed out to me before sending me off to school was that the >most important things I would learn at school were *not* what the professors >taught me in the classroom, at least not specifically. I very much agree -- looking back on my college experience. A lot of what has turned out to be valuable was not specifically tested or examined by any process in college. But it probably contributed to almost all the success I had in anything then -- and much now. > I will never ever use this in real life. However, I >learned valuable lessons just by thinking about some of the things >I was told. In other words, I learned (actually, continued learning; >this skill must be developed over a *long* period of time) how to better >think and evaluate things for myself. Can we who instruct (and who are instructed) really try to do something to insure that this happens more deliberately? Or will trying to do so just kill the individual will to do it on ones' own? >Another very important thing about a college education is the people >you are with. This is probably the most important reason to choose >one university over another, who you'll be spending the next four years >with. I guess, in one sense, that's true, but, other than faculty access, I think you can find people to associate with almost ANYWHERE that will encourage you to better things. What is hard is risking looking less sophisticated, self- sufficient, etc. in the process of seeking out such people since it opens you up to folks who may be passing judgements on you left and right. (And I do not just mean the faculty -- probably less them than others for this kind of an effort.) > (My high school English teacher would have failed me for that >sentence, but in the real world, people don't care... another thing >I've learned) Well, asn an English teacher, I can't let this get by right? :-) I think good communication skills are VERY IMPORTANT anymore. Your sentence, in and of itself, isn't a problem; but what I discovered as a student, and tried to get across to people I taught, is that you often REALLY don't know what you think about a subject until tyou have had to really 'defend' it, verbally or in writing. Then you learn how many ways people can interpret what you've tried to say! > How do you relate to people? Interpersonal relations >are vital to life unless you plan to be a hermit. I've been developing >this skill for years and still haven't perfected it (far from it!). >However, the intensively people-oriented atmosphere (for lack of a >better tag) is the ideal environment for honing such skills. The problem, at least back when I was a student in the 60's was that people- skill(s) became synonymous with emoting to others, and real skill in dealing effectively with people didn't seem to be a part of the college scene. I do not know whether this ability is more clearly needed these days from the per- spective of students. I'm still trying to learn it. I think it's simply because I didn't have too many years ago when "doing your own thing" let you avoid interacting with people in a reasonable and direct manner. >Mike Wasylik - via FidoNet node 1:107/520 >UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!115!419!Mike.Wasylik >ARPA: Mike.Wasylik@f419.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (201-699-3910 (w) 201-463-3683 (h))
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/06/89)
In article <13206@bellcore.bellcore.com>, duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: > In article <1217.23C35B05@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG> Mike.Wasylik@f419.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Wasylik) writes: > > > Well, as an English teacher, I can't let this get by, right? :-) I think good > communication skills are VERY IMPORTANT anymore. Say what? You can say "... NOT very important any more"; is that what you meant, and just left out the "not?" Or you can say "...are very important these days" or "...now" but not as you phrased it. I agree it's useful to be able to communicate. But in this day and age of "reading skills" and "writing skills" and "thinking skills" I would phrase the thought without the use of the idiotword "skills." Try expunging it -- and the shallow thoughts it represents -- from your vocabulary. You'll like it. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/06/89)
[i hope i have the attributions correct, but it was somewhat unclear] In article <9264@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In article <13206@bellcore.bellcore.com>, duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: >> I think good communication skills are VERY IMPORTANT anymore. >[...] >You can say "... NOT very important any more"; is that what you meant, and >just left out the "not?" Or you can say "...are very important these days" >or "...now" but not as you phrased it. Or you can just write "...VERY IMPORTANT anymore" in the secure realization that people will pay at least some attention to the thought you were expressing, and not focus on your typographical errors. Oops, my mistake. The message from Nather proves that not everyone is that adept at reading through typos. Well, most books have a typo or two in them, and most people get through them just fine. I therefore suggest that he is in the minority. And if it wasn't a typo, it was in any case still entirely clear what was intended. >I agree it's useful to be able to communicate. But in this day and age >of "reading skills" and "writing skills" and "thinking skills" I would >phrase the thought without the use of the idiotword "skills." > >Try expunging it -- and the shallow thoughts it represents -- from your >vocabulary. You'll like it. Well, I for one object to this. I find that my writing skills are best supplemented by my vocabulary skills when I am able to use my access skills on as much of the English language as I know. The meaning of the original poster, I suspect, was clear to nearly everyone else who read the message. If you have a problem with certain words, I suggest you put them in a kill file, so that you won't have to read messages with them anymore. In the meantime, you are demonstrating astoundingly shallow sentiments yourself in accusing someone you've never met of having shallow thoughts. Who was the one who was unable to understand an extremely simple sentence? Who was the one who read a sentence and responded not to the meaning and intention of the sentence, but to its surface form? [a prototypical instance of shallowness] And who was the poster who decided that the word "skills" has no place in the English language, is an "idiotword" and a sign of shallow thoughts? My reading of this message chain identifies that individual as Ed Nather. -Dan
duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (01/06/89)
In article <9264@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In article <13206@bellcore.bellcore.com>, duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: >> communication skills are VERY IMPORTANT anymore. > >You can say "... NOT very important any more"; is that what you meant, and >just left out the "not?" Or you can say "...are very important these days" >or "...now" but not as you phrased it. Yes...sigh. I've had to work on other than my own workstation since the be- ginning of the year and more than the usual typos are happening. In this case a whole line got lost in the process -- the display was messed up and not show- ing what was, apparently in the text buffer. My apologies for that terrible example of English! (By the way, I meant to say "are VERY IMPORTANT and, especially in technical fields, cannot be ignored anymore." But I don't think you could even imagine that from what got posted. Again, I'm very sorry...) >I agree it's useful to be able to communicate. But in this day and age >of "reading skills" and "writing skills" and "thinking skills" I would >phrase the thought without the use of the idiotword "skills." > >Try expunging it -- and the shallow thoughts it represents -- from your >vocabulary. You'll like it. On the other hand, since I'm not teaching on a regular basis these days, perhaps the word 'skills' has taken on a really bad meaning of which I'm unaware. I did not think its use would condemn my thoughts on communication with others (which I did not express in any detail) so completely. Do others active in teaching feel this word suggests shallow thoughts? Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (201-699-3910 (w) 201-463-3683 (h))
fritz@unocss.UUCP (Sharon O'Neil) (01/07/89)
> > Well, I for one object to this. I find that my writing skills are best > supplemented by my vocabulary skills when I am able to use my access skills > on as much of the English language as I know. The meaning of the original > poster, I suspect, was clear to nearly everyone else who read the message. Yes, the meaning of the original poster was probably clear to everyone else who read the message, but that's not really any reason to excuse mistakes. It's great that most people here can decipher a poorly phrased or poorly typed message, but I would think that the computer would have made it easy for him to quickly check and edit his message. -- --------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Sharon O'Neil | Internet: oneil%zeus@fergvax.unl.edu Does Anyone Read These? | Bitnet : oneil@unoma1 University of Nebraska- Lincoln | "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/07/89)
In article <5170@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: > In the > meantime, you are demonstrating astoundingly shallow sentiments yourself in > accusing someone you've never met of having shallow thoughts. Have we met, Dan? -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/07/89)
In article <13223@bellcore.bellcore.com>, duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: > In article <9264@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: > > > >You can say "... NOT very important any more"; is that what you meant, and > >just left out the "not?" Or you can say "...are very important these days" > >or "...now" but not as you phrased it. > > (By the way, I meant to say "are VERY IMPORTANT and, > especially in technical fields, cannot be ignored anymore." But I don't think > you could even imagine that from what got posted. Thanks for the clarification. A missing line (especially when using an unfamiliar text editor) can often be spotted right away, but sometimes it "makes sense" -- like turning two pages in a book thinking it was one -- but was certainly not what was intended. One example from years ago: my wife was reading a book on child care, learning about breast feeding. She turned two pages accidentaly, then let out a yelp when she read "...first heat the needle, then plunge it into the nipple ..." > > perhaps the word 'skills' has taken on a really bad meaning of which I'm > unaware. I don't think it has yet, but I'm trying to promote the idea, because I find it often used as a substitute for "understanding", a very different internal process. It takes skill to ride a bicycle or fly an airplane, but it takes a lot more than "skill" to understand why a bicycle can be balanced easily while it's in motion, but not while it's stopped. I just feel the word is being misused, and in a dangerous way: it suggests that being skilled at taking tests, for example, is the equivalent of understanding the material the test covers. Or, perhaps, you can put this down to an unreasoning prejudice on my part against overused buzz-words. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/08/89)
In article <9287@ut-emx.UUCP> nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In article <5170@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: >> In the >> meantime, you are demonstrating astoundingly shallow sentiments yourself in >> accusing someone you've never met of having shallow thoughts. > >Have we met, Dan? No. Did you read my message? I don't claim to know the first thing about your thoughts. I don't claim to know if your message represent your real opinions. I don't even claim to know if you're a real person. (I don't actually care.) I do claim that the sentiments you expressed are shallow. I suppose you didn't read my rationale. The sentiments you demonstrated same phrasing as I originally used), I contend, are shallow. I, unlike you, never called anyone else shallow except by implication, and that implication I left open-ended, according to each reader's preference. The fact that you seem to have found the implication doesn't mean that I've accused you of having shallow thoughts. I think my assertion is appropriate again, however. Incidentally, whether or not I am technically guilty of what you are claiming, it is again fairly clear from what I wrote that I at least avoided a parallel construction, and in the right direction, indicating that I wanted to make a distinction between the two. You apparently don't think the distinction was made, but to most readers, the intention was, I'm sure, obvious - to point out that you don't really know anything about the thoughts of someone from their postings, you can only make vague inferences. You, however, apparently chose to ignore my intention again and make a (foundless, as far as I can tell) attack not on the meaning but on some chance pattern in the surface form. (If the word "apparently" isn't enough in the previous sentence, replace it with "by some indicators of appearance, which though unreliable are all I have to go on") -Dan