Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: chuckywang
He ain't gonna get in grad school anywhere if his essays are as pompous as that.
What makes you say that? Universities run on pomp as far as I can tell. It just goes unsaid (usually).
I had a friend in high school who had amazing grades + 1600 SAT + 36 ACT + very good writing skills that got rejected from MIT, Harvard, and Yale. He went to Stanford.
He was rejected because he was pompous? I don't get it.
BTW, MIT, Harvard and Yale look at more than just SAT scores and grades. In fact, I believe MIT has an interview process.
Yes, he thought he was smarter than many many people (he is, but that's not the point). He got rejected at other schools too (I can't remember which), but I remember that I was shocked that he got rejected from so many. I have no idea why he got rejected.
Well pomp is probably not good prior to becoming an undergrad. Once you are admitted there isn't much they can do about your pomp. I don't think the university wants you to really acquire pomp until you are a full tenured professor. Then you can sit back with your pipe and jacket with elbow pads as you ponder how many students you plan to flunk that semester. :laugh:
I don't know what it is about my school. I haven't taken too many higher level classes (about 5), but I've yet to encounter a really pompous professor. I go to an urban state school -- but mainly commuters attend -- and I've yet to really encounter someone that is pompous. That could be because I mainly take liberal arts classes -- or not -- but most of the professors here are pretty damn genuine and understanding. The closest to being pompous is my current adjunct Forensics professor. Don't disagree with her viewpoint on crime or she will ream you for it. I've actually found many CJ and CJ related professors are like that to an extent. If you aren't always 100% on the side of the current legal structure and the police, then you'd damn well better be in your essays and discussions.
I've found that the older a professor is that the less likely they are to bash you over the head with for disagreeing. In fact, many will agree with you, or say it is a subject worth discussing. A lot of the younger professors just want to lecture you and espouse ideals, but they won't allow for disagreement or someone challenging the reality of their opinion. Case-in-point: I pointed out how ineffective current drug laws and rehabilitative methods are at preventing recidivism. We were discussing community standards in policing, and how many places are now "decriminalizing" or at least starting to ignore marijuana possession and usage of small amounts. The professor was vehemently against any decriminalization. The argument was that if the are in jail they can't be committing their crimes against property in society. While true, it totally ignores the idea of the CJ system providing justice and solutions instead of just punishment. I'm very much libertarian in some of my ideas, and I don't think locking someone up for 10 years for simple possesion (after a history of such possession) will actually solve any problems. It just shifts the burden to the next time they are out of jail, or it cost taxpayer resources and money to jail someone as a temporary solution. Providing classes, education, and other rehabilitative means lowers the rate of re-offense, and at much less cost to the taxpayer. Not only that, but society has a duty to coax other members back into being produtive. Otherwise they are simply a leech when they could be re-introduced and be productive.
I hate to rant, but this thread had me thinking a lot about this semester. There's a lot of current thought that policing should be much tougher and throw more people into jail rather than solve problems and enforce normal societal controls. I really hate this -- it seems we are moving into a new area of policing that is leading back to the "no questions asked and no discretion is allowed" period of the Reform Era. A lot of people think that the problem of crime is solved by being tough, inflexible, and vindictive toward offenders. I guess it is easy to fall back onto that instead of actually taking the extra effort to provide permanent solutions. A lot of people think NYC's tough crackdown on petty crimes was so effective and beautiful that is should be implemented everywhere (they basically followed the model of a broken window theory and then some). I think it was a pretty sorry way of trampling on personal rights and the disorder that society tolerates. Being fascist -- or at least appearing to be -- doesn't actually solve or prevent crime. It just takes a lot of people off the streets or makes them move elsewhere.
Sorry for the rant... I realize a I am TOTALLY off topic.
I had a math professor who had people write problems on the board. Someone made a simple spelling error and he lectured us for five minutes on how we are required to be grammatically correct and he would take points off for spelling mistakes in the future. I hated the class. This was Probability and Statistics at an engineering institution.