StupendousExcellence
No bio...
User ID: 3660
StupendousExcellence
2d ago
Sure. My answer is 'you have not provided an established standard by which it is not in accordance.' It is also exceedingly unreasonable to use a position of authority to formally punish people for something that is not against the rules. The actual material of the paragraph is immaterial- if it is not forbidden, it is unreasonable to punish it as if it were forbidden.
Are you making a positive claim that academic evaluations do not, or ought not, incorporate normative expectations of domain relevancy? This feels like an untenable position; can you point to another equivalent domain of human interaction where such a positive claim would be supported? I can't imagine a high school calculus teacher accepting "because my mom told me so" as an acceptable answer in a proof whether or not the syllabus explicitly stipulated mathematical reasoning as a grading requirement. Most people don't begin asking a stranger on the street for directions with an explicit enumeration of acceptable sources of knowledge yet would be unnerved if informed the source came from a dream.
In any case, virtually every university student handbook will identify the purpose of education and grades as being for the purpose of learning. This doesn't mean just in a generalized sense but also in the specifics of learning a topic. Unless otherwise stated, calculus class is offered with the intention of teaching students calculus. This is usually identified under a section like "Academic Integrity" because it clarifies exactly this question: this is not a free for all. It might just be easier to look at OU's Academic Integrity language:
- Students attend the University of Oklahoma in order to learn and grow intellectually.
- Academic assignments exist for the sake of this goal and grades exist to show how fully the goal is attained.
https://studenthandbook.ouhsc.edu/hbSections.aspx?ID=430
Arguing about the biblical implications of a psychological claim does not provide any evidence of the students learning or growth in the field of psychology and consequently does not satisfy the academic integrity requirements of the university.
Students are obligated to read, understand, and agree to the terms in the handbook every year by the way.
A more fruitful response would have attempted to delineate some difference between the claim you intended and the claim as it reads. I quoted you directly
The "punishment" you're referring to in this context is the assigned grade, and this line is a quote response to the question
Making you appear to be responding to the notion that standards exist beyond those explicitly outlined among some set of specifically delineated "rules" (most likely the formal rubric). In other words this is a positive assertion that
If this is not what you intend, you should be more clear.
You're welcome to make an argument.
This is confused on a few counts. First, comprehending the implications of a conclusion implies no necessary understanding of the arguments which lead to the conclusion. These are two wholly distinct domains of knowledge. Second, the issue in this case is not identifying the existence of "biblical implications of a psychological claim" but rather making a claim about psychology on the basis of biblical premises. Biblical evidence is not itself scientific in nature and consequently does not form a rational basis for scientific claims.
The student shouldn't have been given a zero my prior is strongly in favor of the position that the grader's decision to award no points rather than whatever the rubrik assigned was politically motivated.
However, if you are rejecting the question
On the basis that such considerations would constitute an "unreasonable" application of authority to "formally punish people for something that is not against the rules."
Then you're incorrect both in general and in these particulars.
More options
Context Copy link