I thought rote memorization went out in the 1970's
I just finished my midterm. It consisted of 4 sections. Section 1 asked us to identify 4 different people. Section 2 was 8 short questions, which were essentially identifications of concepts or seminal articles. Section 3 was a 4-part question about the great awakenings, section 4 was a choice between-- distributive justice or the ethics of technological change.

I don't object to this as a set up. Or to the fear-factor of being told I had to take 4 blue books before the exam started (the whole room tensed. 4? We're supposed to write that much in 90 minutes?). What I object to was that 3 of the 4 sections (each worth 40 points) simply required us to spew information. I suspected this would be the case, and spewed appropriately. But how is that useful? How does that test anything beyond our ability to memorize information? I'm sure I did better then I would have had I been expected to actually think, at least given my lack of studying time, but that was mere coincidence. And it didn't even test the theories we've learned, or ask us to take a stand. This is an ethics class. We've debated a lot in class. We've covered every sensitive topic imaginable. And you're going to ask me to write 2 sentences identifying Salmon Chase? If you asked me to analyze the importance of the creation of the Free-Soil party in the rise of the abolitionist movement, then I would have dropped his name in the discussion and actually said something interesting. More interesting than "provocative anti-slavery proponent. elected Senator from Ohio as one of the founders of the Free-Soil party."
etc.

Ah well. My mother teased me last night as I whined about it that I was having the exact same problems and frustrations that plagued me in high school. And she's right. but I haven't been asked to do this since high school.

Further frustrations in the writing class. One of my peers keeps defending herself to the obnoxious guy. Last week she said "I have a degree in economics and I find this confusing. It has nothing to do with not being expert in the subject." this week it was " I actually worked on Wall Street, and to me that sentence does not in any way imply long-term investments. It actually seems much more about the short-term". Why is it that gender politics play into so much? When our papers are critiqued we sit back and listen. Sometimes we disagree, but we don't fight it. We don't say "actually, I'm very clear, you're just dumb". Instead we recognize that we weren't clear to the reader...which is the point of the papers we write.

Looks like Kerry won tonight. I bet that means bye-bye to Clark, at least realistically if not literally. I can't believe in a few shorts months I'm going to have to be adamantly pro-Kerry. I know that as a born-and-bred Boston liberal this shouldn't be too hard, but it is.

Today I received further proof that not all people are good. Some are manipulative liars. Remember a few months ago when I alluded to people alleging things? (yes, I know, that is perhaps the most non-specific sentence ever written). Well, apparently we've been persistent and willful in our evil-doing. Just when my hate and ire was receding to the back of my brain...In the immortal words of Marlene Dietrich: I need a drink.
- posted by Heidi @ 8:26 PM