This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Going by the rubric, she clearly deserved significantly more than a 0.
But it's a terrible rubric, and the goal shouldn't be applying shockingly low standards to all students fairly, but to apply reasonable academic standards fairly. If successful, this red-tribe push is far more likely to just further hollow out American universities as glorified daycare for post-teens than it is to get reasonable standards applied fairly.
Though, I can see an argument that universities are already doomed, so might as well accelerate the collapse so that something better can take their place.
Who the hell is pushing for higher standards and more rigor at universities? Literally who? Like that's not going to happen. And state schools in flyover aren't going to be leading the charge on that even if you get a genie out of a bottle.
Based on this thread, roughly two people on this entire site while two dozen think an attempt at doing that was grounds for dismissal. I”d liike to say I’m shocked but this isn’t the exactly the first or even the twentieth time people here have argued in simular vein.
The TA was not trying to apply consistent academic standards to everyone. The TA was punished for failing to apply consistent academic standards to everyone!
More options
Context Copy link
To my friends, anything. To my enemies, the law.
I think none of the people involved in this story should have been anywhere near a university education. This paltry assignment, the nauseating submission, the insane grading standard, even the "research" that prompted it. None of this is scholarship. It's posing as such, but quite literally none of this is creating anything approximating the furtherance of human knowledge. And I say this as someone that at least recognizes psychology as a very useful and meritorious discipline when done rigorously.
The correct and unthinkable course of action is to stop letting this sort of people attend universities, let alone teach at them, and kick them back into the pamphleteer masses where they belong instead of pretending politics and truth can be consorts. How's that for raising standards?
More options
Context Copy link
False. You are making a clear logical error. Most of the posts aren’t saying “lower standards.” Indeed most don’t address what the standard ought to be. Instead, they are saying the current standard is being applied unevenly.
I think rightfully her paper should get an F (though she is hot so you know D-). But I think there are probably a lot of grades that should be Fs. If you only want high standards for views you don’t like, that isn’t rigor but an isolated demand for one.
Strongly agree. I think most here would be heavily in favor of nuking 90% of the university system and enforcing extremely high standards in what remains.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It can't be the first time, or any time, because it just doesn't fit the criteria for being an instance of the general case you claim it fits into.
Where did anyone argue against increasing standards? Where did anyone even show that the discussed case was an attempt at increasing standards to begin with?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm reminded of when I was in grade school, my mother demanded to speak with a teacher (known to dislike me) over an assignment I received a "C" on. Not because I'd been graded unfairly, but because it was a multi-part assignment, and I'd received "C"s for every individual part of it... including the part I hadn't done at all. My mom's fury wasn't over a low grade, but that the grade had nothing to do with the quality of the work I had or hadn't done, and was simply because the teacher jumped straight to marking it all "C" because she didn't like me (but presumably expected a "D" or a failure to bring pushback, given my grades from other teachers).
When faced with this, the teacher's immediate response (with a fellow teacher in the room!) was to ask, "well, what grade do you want me to give, then?" in the assumption that having arbitrarily given me a poor grade because she disliked me, my mother would be satisfied with an arbitrary good grade to make up for it--yet another mistake by that teacher.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, it's a terrible rubric. Most likely this class simply shouldn't exist. It's probably being used for political indoctrination.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link