blackmercedes - 2/4/2005 9:41 AM
79-300SD - 2/4/2005 7:05 AM
The point is that Students were paying very good money to get an education...not hear this lunatics liberal political rants........
Okay, so if his rants were neo-con, that's okay? I guess the cirriculum should be based on right-wing "truths?"
The whole point of "higher learning" is NOT to stand in front of the class and "tell" them the facts. That was the job of elementary school. The university system is supposed to knock them out of their seats, make them think, and develop critical thinking skills. If you sit there and believe what a professor tells you, you're an idiot and deserve to be "indoctrinated."
I had no shortage of radical ideas thrown at me in my years in post-secondary school, and often disagreed with them. Did I fail? No. Graduated near the top of my class. Could I simply disagree? No. I had to back up my position and tear down the professors hypothesis.
Maybe post-secondary education works differently in the US? In Canada, the whole point is not about facts, but about ideas. We can read old books to learn dates and trivia. The classroom is for ideas, postulation, and debate. This is a controversial idea that I would have LOVED to come out in a class. Imagine the debate. The point is not to say "you're an idiot professor Churchill." It's to tear his position down with critical thinking skills.
I didn't pay all my tuition to learn trivia. I could have stayed home and read books for that. I paid to be exposed to ideas from all angles.