I have a snowflake; we shall call him Douchey Don. The other day in class Douchey Don asked me for “my opinion” on altruism in hamsters. I tried to explain to Douchey that I rarely give my opinion in class, but rather I try to present data and research from the field. In an effort to try to get these particular snowflakes to think like scientists, I asked Don what his hypothesis would be. He refused to participate and reiterated again his desire for my opinion, since I was the expert (of course he said this in a snide and condescending tone).So I ignored him and opened it up to the rest of the class. I got several hypotheses, and then we discussed the RESEARCH on hamster altruism, completely irrespective of my opinion. Douchey Don didn’t understand and arrogantly huffed out of the room whilst mumbling some nonsense about me not answering his question.
Q: Why is it that the tea-partying douchebag snowflakes think that anything professors say in front of the classroom is “opinion” as opposed to, oh, I don’t fucking know, facts, data, or theory from major researchers in the field?
One reason is because they don't know the difference. This is discussed at length by Peter Sacks in "Generation X Goes to College," although I think he goes too far in linking it to Postmodernism.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason is that they don't want to know the difference.They surmise that if anything presented or discussed in a classroom is mere opinion, they should get an A, since your taking off points "is just your opinion."
Oy! the Postmodernism!
DeleteI recall a casual conversation with one of Tuk U's other profs came to a screeching halt when they announced "Well, data is really just another hypothesis." This person probably teaches undergrads that they really are entitled to their own facts after all. I suspect that much of the wholly unnecessary conflict between humanities and STEM can be laid at the feet of postmodernism.
I was going over the midterm in class, and a student was lobbying hard for the (completely wrong) answer that s/he had selected. After what I thought was a dazzlingly clear explanation of why the correct answer was correct, s/he said, "well, we just have to agree to disagree." NO THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS
ReplyDeleteVeronica Palmer of the short-lived (but grossly underrated) Better Off Ted:
ReplyDelete"Linda, just listen to yourself. Those are just facts, and facts are just opinions, and opinions can be wrong."
When I first heard that, uttered in Veronica's iconic corporate tool certitude, it clarified how such tea-partying lunacy was accomplished: People want their beliefs validated and will create whatever alternate fictionalized stream is required to accomplish it. Sadly, we now have entire an media machine more than willing to accommodate this.
It's a real shame that they dumped Better Off Ted. It was one of the smartest and funniest shows of the last decade, in my opinion, and Portia De Rossi was fantastic as Veronica.
Delete"It depends on the person." "Everyone has a different interpretation." "What I got out of it was . . . " The word "just" is a biggie, too, especially when I mildly challenge someone to explain why he/she believes something ("I just feel that . . . "). This settled assumption that opinions vary according to the individual (in spite of the irony that "everyone" seems to have exactly that opinion about opinions) seems like a way to avoid thought. I would love it if "respect" for another's beliefs led to actual curiosity about those beliefs; instead, it's more like an agreement that I won't challenge you to critically examine X if you will do the same for me. It's soul-crushingly boring -- another irony lost on those who perpetually whine about being bored.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to engage in a bit of shameless self-promotion and link to a post I made a few weeks back that touched on this exact issue. I received an email from a student unhappy with his grade, and his main argument about why he should receive a better grade is that he was stating his opinion. "Is it your position that my opinion is not good enough?" he asked belligerently.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the only way to respond to such a question is to go into a lengthy explanation of the difference between opinion and analysis. I sent a long explanation of what constitutes good analysis, and how it differs from mere opinion, and never heard another complaint from him, although I'm not sure whether that's because he actually accepted my explanation, or because he just didn't know how to respond to it. I'm also sure he slammed me on the evaluations at the end of the semester.
If anybody has figured out a way to explain to undergraduates where knowledge (and its close relative "information") comes from, with the end result being that they understand both that (1) knowledge is contingent and constructed and that the nature of the question asked and the methods used to answer the question (not to mention the prior experience and assumptions of the question-asker/observer) often do affect the results and (2) there are nevertheless wrong answers, bad research, and unsupportable conclusions, especially within a given disciplinary context, please, please share your technique with the rest of us. I, too, seem to be spending a lot of time trying to explain to students the difference between an off-the-top-of-your-head "opinion" and an "opinion" informed by evidence, analysis, and an understanding of the context in which both are being deployed. ACA did exactly what I think needs to be done in such situations, and what I strive to do, but, as her experience shows, it doesn't always work.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, it sounds to me like this particular student was trying to pick a fight (and might even have had his phone on record and been hoping to come up with some material to report to a watchdog group of one kind or another. If so, congratulations to you, Charlotte Anne, for instead providing him with a recording of excellent, unimpeachable teaching, and nothing more.
I more or less explain it almost exactly the way you describe it. I start my World History surveys with a discussion of historiography and epistemology ("Sources Lie. But they're all we have.") and I talk incessantly about good and bad historical arguments and evidence.
DeleteDoes it work? Not immediately, no. But I hope it "plants a seed" or "lays a foundation" or something...