next »

[prytania3]

Someone wanting to understand how this forum works could do worse than parse this very thread.  Note the familiar progression:

1) OP posts a dilemma in reasonably good faith.

2) Forumites respond with confusion/follow-up questions that reveal a failure to read the original post closely.

3) OP clarifies/repeats hu's self.

4) Good advice is dispensed for several hours.

5) One or two troublesome, smartypants forumites see an opportunity to deconstruct the OP's wording/interpretation of the situation/ethics/political correctness.

6) An argument ensues.

7) OP clarifies, counters, and eventually bows out.

8) The thread devolves into anarchy/pedantry/Absurdism.

9) Realizing that everything original has been said, another smartypants forumite (me, this time) resorts to meta-criticism.

10) None of us get tenure because we f-----d around here for six hours a day.

So what's your point?

[kedves]

Someone wanting to understand how this forum works could do worse than parse this very thread.  Note the familiar progression:

1) OP posts a dilemma in reasonably good faith.

2) Forumites respond with confusion/follow-up questions that reveal a failure to read the original post closely.

3) OP clarifies/repeats hu's self.

4) Good advice is dispensed for several hours.

5) One or two troublesome, smartypants forumites see an opportunity to deconstruct the OP's wording/interpretation of the situation/ethics/political correctness.

6) An argument ensues.

7) OP clarifies, counters, and eventually bows out.

8) The thread devolves into anarchy/pedantry/Absurdism.

9) Realizing that everything original has been said, another smartypants forumite (me, this time) resorts to meta-criticism.

10) None of us get tenure because we f-----d around here for six hours a day.

What I hear you saying is that Jane Doe is so freaking hot the OP thinks she's a bimbo who can't do math.  I know, it's terrible, isn't it?  We freaking hot people get that all the time.  Sometimes the test includes geometry.  We all know what that means.

[aandsdean]

Someone wanting to understand how this forum works could do worse than parse this very thread.  Note the familiar progression:

1) OP posts a dilemma in reasonably good faith.

2) Forumites respond with confusion/follow-up questions that reveal a failure to read the original post closely.

3) OP clarifies/repeats hu's self.

4) Good advice is dispensed for several hours.

5) One or two troublesome, smartypants forumites see an opportunity to deconstruct the OP's wording/interpretation of the situation/ethics/political correctness.

6) An argument ensues.

7) OP clarifies, counters, and eventually bows out.

8) The thread devolves into anarchy/pedantry/Absurdism.

9) Realizing that everything original has been said, another smartypants forumite (me, this time) resorts to meta-criticism.

10) None of us get tenure because we f-----d around here for six hours a day.

What I hear you saying is that Jane Doe is so freaking hot the OP thinks she's a bimbo who can't do math.  I know, it's terrible, isn't it?  We freaking hot people get that all the time.  Sometimes the test includes geometry.  We all know what that means.

Horizonal planes.

[prof_smartypants]

Someone wanting to understand how this forum works could do worse than parse this very thread.  Note the familiar progression:

1) OP posts a dilemma in reasonably good faith.

2) Forumites respond with confusion/follow-up questions that reveal a failure to read the original post closely.

3) OP clarifies/repeats hu's self.

4) Good advice is dispensed for several hours.

5) One or two troublesome, smartypants forumites see an opportunity to deconstruct the OP's wording/interpretation of the situation/ethics/political correctness.

6) An argument ensues.

7) OP clarifies, counters, and eventually bows out.

8) The thread devolves into anarchy/pedantry/Absurdism.

9) Realizing that everything original has been said, another smartypants forumite (me, this time) resorts to meta-criticism.

10) None of us get tenure because we f-----d around here for six hours a day.

That's PROFESSOR Smartypants.

[post_functional]

Someone wanting to understand how this forum works could do worse than parse this very thread.  Note the familiar progression:

1) OP posts a dilemma in reasonably good faith.

2) Forumites respond with confusion/follow-up questions that reveal a failure to read the original post closely.

3) OP clarifies/repeats hu's self.

4) Good advice is dispensed for several hours.

5) One or two troublesome, smartypants forumites see an opportunity to deconstruct the OP's wording/interpretation of the situation/ethics/political correctness.

6) An argument ensues.

7) OP clarifies, counters, and eventually bows out.

8) The thread devolves into anarchy/pedantry/Absurdism.

9) Realizing that everything original has been said, another smartypants forumite (me, this time) resorts to meta-criticism.

10) None of us get tenure because we f-----d around here for six hours a day.

You only have 41 posts at this writing!  Who the hell are you to toss around accurate observations about the fora like that?

[alleyoxenfree]

My guess is that the OP and the newbie critic are one and the same.

[ptarmigan]

There's *no* way I'm ever going to attempt to teach a basic math/algebra class without training.

That's the confusing part, to me, about the test.  I have general purpose knowledge good enough to pass subject tests way, way outside my field.  However, even for things that I know quite well like basic math and algebra, I struggle to tutor those things for my general education students who don't know them so I definitely wouldn't sign up to teach a whole course on those things because I don't know enough about the pedagogy of doing so to be effective.

Now, if the test were on effective teaching methods for developmental math instead of the math itself, then the point of the test makes sense to me.

A question, though - do most graduate students get trained in the pedagogy of their fields?  If I hadn't gotten lucky with my fellowship, I'd be teaching remedial algebra next year.  I certainly know the material but I have no training in teaching whatsoever.  The year after next, I'll probably be teaching something - that or college algebra or possibly calculus.  Did you all take classes in pedagogy in your fields?

[cc_alan]

A question, though - do most graduate students get trained in the pedagogy of their fields?  If I hadn't gotten lucky with my fellowship, I'd be teaching remedial algebra next year.  I certainly know the material but I have no training in teaching whatsoever.  The year after next, I'll probably be teaching something - that or college algebra or possibly calculus.  Did you all take classes in pedagogy in your fields?

No. For me, the difference is between using the math to teach a basic chemistry class (that I can do) and teaching someone how to do basic math (that I can't do).

I was fortunate to not only like being a TA but to be somewhere where they did put an emphasis on giving some help to the TAs. I disliked the weakly meetings after the xth time but they were extremely useful.

Alan

[cc_alan]

You only have 41 posts at this writing!  Who the hell are you to toss around accurate observations about the fora like that?

Wahoo! Bang that drum! Bang that drum! Bang that drum!

Alan

[writingprof]

My guess is that the OP and the newbie critic are one and the same.

Actually, yes.  The trick, though, is that we're you, too.  In fact, everyone here is the same bored, mid-level administrator at a mediocre SLAC--killing time with a thousand different identities.  This is the closest he/I will ever come to admitting it.

[prytania3]

My guess is that the OP and the newbie critic are one and the same.

Actually, yes.  The trick, though, is that we're you, too.  In fact, everyone here is the same bored, mid-level administrator at a mediocre SLAC--killing time with a thousand different identities.  This is the closest he/I will ever come to admitting it.

Woh! I'm an administrator. Call me Provost Prytania from now on.

[cc_alan]

My guess is that the OP and the newbie critic are one and the same.

Actually, yes.  The trick, though, is that we're you, too.  In fact, everyone here is the same bored, mid-level administrator at a mediocre SLAC--killing time with a thousand different identities.  This is the closest he/I will ever come to admitting it.

<holds head in pain>

Whoa. That's too deep for me.

Wait... you knew I was going to write that, didn't you/me/I/we?

Alan

[polly_mer]

My guess is that the OP and the newbie critic are one and the same.

Actually, yes.  The trick, though, is that we're you, too.  In fact, everyone here is the same bored, mid-level administrator at a mediocre SLAC--killing time with a thousand different identities.  This is the closest he/I will ever come to admitting it.

Untrue.  There are six of us forumites.  But obviously you are the one who lost out on the scramble for the five beds in the cave on the last round so you're wearing the troll hat.  <old interthreadualities>

[polly_mer]

A question, though - do most graduate students get trained in the pedagogy of their fields?  If I hadn't gotten lucky with my fellowship, I'd be teaching remedial algebra next year.  I certainly know the material but I have no training in teaching whatsoever.  The year after next, I'll probably be teaching something - that or college algebra or possibly calculus.  Did you all take classes in pedagogy in your fields?

No. For me, the difference is between using the math to teach a basic chemistry class (that I can do) and teaching someone how to do basic math (that I can't do).

I was fortunate to not only like being a TA but to be somewhere where they did put an emphasis on giving some help to the TAs. I disliked the weakly meetings after the xth time but they were extremely useful.

Alan

As Alan wrote, part of being a TA (at institutions that taking training future faculty seriously) should include training in teaching for the relevant field.  As Alan also wrote, being competent at a skill is not the same as being able to teach that skill.  I run into this in my science for teachers classes because it turns out that I cannot show all the steps in a calculation.

"But. Dr. Mer. why does the denominator of the denominator go into the numerator?"  "Um, let me check and get back to you.  At this point, just trust me that it does and let's continue with our unit conversion"  For the curious, you multiply by a special way of writing unity so that the fraction in the denominator clears.  However, I never do that explicit step and I had to look it up when I got back to my office so that I could share that information with the class the next period. 

What I do as math relies on a bunch of knowledge that I don't even know that I'm using so that I am not the person you want teaching a developmental class where the purpose is to pass along the knowledge instead of getting someone competent at a particular application.  Likewise, I am not the person who should be teaching composition as a standalone class.  I just don't have that knowledge base, even though I am actively involved in scientific publication as a writer, reviewer, and student work editor.

I've taken workshops in pedagogy of physical science teaching and I've had OJT for engineering teaching, but while I am a competent math and English tutor for some areas, I am not qualified to be in front of those classrooms except as a dire emergency when the other choices are just warm bodies to keep order.

[cc_alan]

I've taken workshops in pedagogy of physical science teaching and I've had OJT for engineering teaching, but while I am a competent math and English tutor for some areas, I am not qualified to be in front of those classrooms except as a dire emergency when the other choices are just warm bodies to keep order.

And playing the part of the warm body- me!

Your denominator example (that I snipped out) is one reason why I've resorted to doing calculations like the gas law with R using "just" dimensional analysis instead of using PV=nRT and then manipulating it to get the desired answer. Putting R in the denominator continually resulted in a few exploding heads each class until my coworker showed me how he did it. Start with R and the "work the units" until you get what you want.

In order for this to make sense, I do have to go over the relationships between pressure, volume, temperature, and moles. I have zero data to support it, but my impression is that they have been performing better on these calculations since I stopped manipulating the ideal gas law. Well... I didn't stop completely. I show it and show how to manipulate it once.

I see fewer instances of T=nR/PV this way. Yeah, checking one's units should minimize that error, but the weaker students have a difficult time seeing the difference between K and 1/K.

Alan