rchill
Junior member
Posts: 73
|
 |
« Reply #46 on: January 01, 2010, 10:20:20 AM » |
|
bcantaire: you sound like a former student of mine. Very unhappy with the system, as she "had" to learn useless basic information....she was so beyond that level. This, of course, explained why she did not do well on exams, because she just could not get "into it"....too simplistic for her advanced intellect. Her mother let her pursue her interests as she needed....not boxing her into boring readings and useless assignments.
Now, the problem is....you need to master the basics BEFORE you move on to deeper level thinking and analysis. Every field has its own language, its own theories and processes. If you already know these,consider yourself lucky and enjoy the easy A as it wil get more rigorous later on when you must apply your knowledge to complex problems and analysis. I teach the hard sciences (this student was in my Developmental biology course). Coming into my course I expect students to have mastered the basics; introductory biology, cell biology and genetics. I also expect the capacity to interpret, analyze and apply that knowledge in the study of development. She could not do this, because she did not really understand the basics. She could regurgitate facts, but not apply them. She dropped my course, convinced the fault was mine. Sadly, she had that complaint about every other professor, so she left school. I recently saw her working at the deli section of a local food store.
When all you do is read books on your own (what kind of books are you reading, by the way?) there is no opportunity to bounce your interpretation off someone else, to be challenged and challenge your understanding. You are a junior - that is the time in a college education when most of the basic knowledge courses are behind you and you begin to do the fun stuff (at least by your postings I think you find it fun) - the analysis, problem solving and application of all the knowledge stuffed in your head. Why not see if you can audit some advanced level courses....see if they would provide the stimulation you seem to crave?
Remember, professors come in all shapes and sizes, and all levels of ability. Some are amazing, some not. I find it hard to believe you have not encountered some good professors in your journey. I have had students (who thought I was just horrid) return to thank me for the basic knowledge I forced them to master, as they needed that solid understanding in the more advanced courses (which I also teach - so I do know what they need to have mastered). Perhaps as you advance through the last two years, the boring basics may come in useful and you might find all those boring easy courses were not a waste of time.
As far as graduate school, at least in the hard sciences there is still a lot of homework, a lot of basic learning and knowledge that gets thrown at you....a lot faster than when you were an undergraduate. My qualifying exam was about 3 1/2 hours of an oral grilling. Kicking back basic knowledge as well as detailed analysis and application of that basic knowledge. Of course, basic knowledge at the graduate level is far from basic for most people!
I earned my undergraduate degree over the course of 13 years - around raising kids and living a life. During that time I read many books related to my degree. Found them so interesting, so informative. Then I pursued my doctoral degree (I was 50 when I defended, successfully to my delight). Those books that seemed so profound as an undergraduate seemed shallow, surface explorations of my field as I completed my degree (that is why I ask what kind of books are you reading). There was so much I thought I knew, thought I understood as an undergraduate....Lord was I clueless!
It seems to me that leaving college to find yourself is a great idea. Given you have tried numerous majors with no luck....I think you do not know what you want to be when you grow up. That is just fine. Life is a journey. Enjoy the ride. Just remember, your interpretation of facts and data is just that - yours, not necessarily THE interpretation. Annectodal experience does not make proof; correlation does not prove causation. If people disagree with your analysis, they are not necessarily wrong.
|
