Comment on Transcribed text of Samantha Fulnecky's assignment, paper, and professor's comments
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 day ago
The assignment
reaction paper demonstrating that you read the assigned article, and includes a thoughtful reaction to the material presented in the article
dafuq is a “reaction paper”?
A scientific critique would be something but a reaction paper?
clear tie-in
thoughtful reaction or response
thoughtful discussion of some aspect of the article
clearly written
These standards seem extremely loose. Does the syllabus state stronger standards?
I was opposed to the student’s dumb opinion as far below academic standards I imagined for the course. Now that I see the standards written, they seem low. Nowhere does the assignment demand “empirical evidence” that would be expected of “a scientific class” as the professor stated. Is this one of those unserious, filler classes students take just to fill general requirement outside their concentration?
Everyone has a reaction like they have an asshole. They asked for a “clearly written”, “thoughtful reaction” discussing “some aspect of the article” and got one. 🤷
Sprinks@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The way i interpreted the syllabus based on the example questions is that they wanted them to react to the article with how they “feel” about the topic and how it relates to them, and why. To me a passing response would follow the structure of “I feel this is/is not important for study because of x,y,z” supporting their stance, but their response was “I think/believe x,y,z, therefor we shouldn’t study the topic.”
One is a supported opinion that can be openly discussed and debated.
The other is an unsubstantiated conclusion (belief) being used justify a hard decision on a topic, closing off any open discussion or debate, which is not the goal of the assignment.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 day ago
I want to agree with you, however, an approach listed
seems to fit what the student did. They in so many words explain their feelings that the claims of the article are unworthy of study by stating an opinion based on backward dogma & distorted mythology. While I disagree with their position, my approval isn’t a stipulation of the assignment, which barely has any.
Religious & dumbass opinions can & probably should be debated as has historically been done in a liberal arts & sciences education. We can absolutely challenging dumbass religiosity by arguing how it conflicts with open inquiry, science, and the rational pursuit of objective truth. Some might say challenging our thinking is the basic purpose of a liberal education program.
Unless more stringent stipulations for the course are written elsewhere that we missed, I think this is a failure to set stipulations appropriately.