week 2 writing response to teacher

I see no where in the discussion, assignment 1, or assignment 2 where there is anything bout this article which need to be talked about.

One thing which annoys me most about gradschool, there is an assumption on from both the admin and some teachers that “its obvious, give us what we want htose instructions do not need be that clear”. That is actually hwere the instructions need to be the clearest. To every student, those “assumed” parameters simply do not exist.

As for this read this article and post something about it.

 Rogers-Shaw and Carr-Chellman

if an author wants to write long, that is great. You can write long and force whoever reads the information dies of boredom through the reading. I read the first couple pages and it was not written with content in mind, it was written specifically to make a very little amount of information which did not need to be repeated adnausiam to make the paper longer.

Every 3 sentences commenting on “socio-emotional learning” no need to mention it 10 times in that short of space. In addition no need to mention it almost identically 8 of them. That is writing to just fill inches, no new context was added after the second time it was mentioned.

I am not sure what the purpose of this was other than for the author to “publish or perish” but whatever the point was I did not find any kind of point in the first several 1000 words.

“[U]niversity educators and researchers are part of the problem. Our

endless focus on narrow achievement goals, our obsession with

sophisticated schemes of evaluation and measurement directed

(naturally enough) at things that are relatively easy to measure, our

reinforcement of the mad desire to be number one - to compete, to win

awards, to acquire more and more of whatever is currently valued - in

all these ways we contribute to the proliferation of problems and

malaise. (Noddings, 1988, p. 226)” Noddings writings which the author of this article both miss the point of upper end education by a mile. Although Noddings point is close to the mark, Rogers point is a wild hay maker of spray and pray. Neither actually find and address a solid point regarding upper end education. They both make assumptions which are dead on the money correct for them, for those that think like they do, and above all follow the Prussian educational system. Which si not designed for the advancing of education but to turn scholars into combat oriented mental soldiers. Using the pen instead of using a bullet to achieve supremacy over the enemy.

However Noddings fails to address the larger picture, perhaps because academics has such a huge problem addressing the actuall history of the subjects they want to learn. The modern academics primarily comes from the Prussian Empire which had no interest at all in advancing the concept of schoalsitcs, only in fiding better weapons, better ways to control the populations, and to make itself more powerful.

Although Noddings does correctly point out the concept that drilling down to the smallest idea to make a point is a waste of time. This si absolutely correct, and absolutely how to control the flow of infmation. Proving any one given point is literally a waste of time, when that information is entirely isolated from the mechanism that thing exists within.

In find a single tooth on a single gear form a machine is a great thing to discover. However if the gear and the machine as well as why that machine was built to power are all ignored to focus only on that one tool is totally useless. Entire academic careers have been made based on finding a given tooth from a given gear. Information out of context is just as bad as wrong information in context.

There is a solution to this academic problem.

Instead of working the problem from a small piece of information complied into another small piece of information. IT would be better to have a structured not all that dissimilar to how a company and or a military is worked.

Each researcher is a tooth in a larger machine.

but instead of mostly unfocused and non concentrated efforts. Have a sequence of studies which gear towards every larger and larger ideas and concepts. To review and put everything into a context. The context is not about finding profits, or finding research grants. The larger context is to assemble the larger pictures of how the largest ideas work.

It is interesting but I was thinking about a similarity

Aileen Wuornos; her life has an interesting equation variable sequence consistances with the function and structure of academcis. Yes I like the scientific method, I am not on the other hand interested in understanding the concepts of what is “popular”. I have never really understood the concept of popular. In my life the poparl people I have know are either nightmares of people in person or they are a façade who spend all of their time working to please others to stay popular.

Yougn Aileen grew up in a steriotypica abusive household. Where at least one member of her immediatlye family had the steriotypcical violent temper and would regularly beat on his family members. Usually it is a male, but not always. In this case Aileen was a specific favority victim of her retelavies rage. The number of times as a child she was hit, punched, in the head is more than enough evidence medically to point to a TBI. Minus the cremation there is more than enough evidence to suggest her actions could be easiy linked to CTE. The number of times her … she regained consciousness and … after. At some point in her actions, she was beaten so badly that she was out for at least 20 minutes based on testimony. More likely more than 45 minutes, which to any medical professional would say she suffered a significant traumatic brain injury during that first event of the serial events. She did manage to escape but the damage was done. To both her brain and to the sequence of events which occurred next.

One reason she was forced into a red light life was her caregivers refused flat out to provide enough of anything which she needed for basic survival. Not enough to eat, no new clothes, etc. not enough on all aspects minus physical violence. So she was forced as a late adolescent to turn away form “normal puritan” rules of social order to that of a red light behavior patterns. However, to survive her childhood meant that by the time she was 11/12 her cultural reputation was permanently destroyed. She would never be seen as anything other than a red-light person.

Not all that dissimilar behavior patterns in first year phd students and of course career academics. Break the (unspoken) unbreakable society rules and scholastics will eiter not let a student pass beyond the first year or two in their phd program or the promising scholar will be forced to go through a round robin of different schools trying to find one which will not be abusive. Prime example steven halkings did not complete is Phd at Oxford, his ideas offended at oxford so he had to transfer to Cambridge. Aileen found her self unable to function because of the red light behaviors she was forced to perform to eat and cloth herself as a child. But as a young teen, peer started to pull away because she was “dirty”. As the article pointed out, the metaphor regarding “dirty” can be seen in some of the intent behind some students emotional journey. They are doing x, but peers and the institutions they are attending begin to see their actions as “dirty”. Shunning the student in much the same way Steven, Einstein, Mileva Marić, Marie Curie, Hedy Lamarr (her shunning was on a global multi culture, multi continent, and at its base the definition of pure sadistic. Her main enemy Richard Milhouse Nixon; his interaction her Hedy from day one to his last breath was beyond any measure of disgusting.), Tesla, Jobs, etc. I am 100% sure if I looked I could find 1000 more top end legendary scholars who had a similar shunning process. Another name comes to mind, Dmitri Mendeleev. His application for the University of Moscow was rejected. His mother and he walked the 700-1000 km from Moscow to St Petersburg to gain admittance in that program.

Oh you are doing something we do not like, ok, go away. We do not care how good the idea is, how how groundbreaking it is, if it hurts our feelings or worse makes up feel dumb. The idea is circle filed and the person is shunned.

Focusing on the wrong attributes to find out about the emotional stability of students is the problem.