I'm kind of of two minds about English classes. On the one hand, I was one of those who loved books too much to take it well when ordered to butcher them and bullshit about the auspices of the entrails. I wanted to grab my English teachers by the lapels, shake them and shout, "It's a story, not a primitively coded message, and even if it's possible to interpret it in themes, it doesn't accomplish anything more than lying back and talking about the shapes you see in the clouds!"
On the other hand, I now see the purpose of it, even if I don't think it's a good plan. I think it's like history classes ought to be, too-- an attempt to evoke and exercise general intelligence by getting people into the habit of looking for patterns. This is one reason, I think, why the smaller the class size, the better-- the teacher gets to know the student better, and one of mine might have been able to learn where I was, mentally and in maturity, the better to get past my objections. I sometimes do think we treat education like Wal-Mart would-- buying it in bulk.
in a Survival situation, old bats like me would be the first targets
I still teach English (online lit classes at a community college) and I think the main skill that analyzing literature teaches is forming an opinion and backing it up with evidence! I can't speak for all teachers, but I'm fairly happy with any view of the text that means that students have gone beyond summarizing the action so that they can look at specifics, form generalizations about them, communicate the generalizations, and then make their points convincing by using the specifics to support their statements. You're right that it requires one-on-one attention from the instructor, though.
Well, I think we're talking about the same thing, since forming an opinion requires looking at it and seeing patterns, even if a student doesn't describe them as patterns in his or her mind.
Home--first rate first aid kit, water, canned food, tools, batteries, flashlights. Earthquake kit, basically. I used to drive around with same, but don't have those in the car, which gets so hot in parking lots...I don't fret as much because I figure, in any situation so dire I'm living out of my car I'll be the first target to take away whatever I have, so I kinda zen about it.
Well, it's not disaster fiction in the usual sense, though it does involve one-- explosive combustion and electronics stop working. Technologically, everyone's knocked back to the Middle Ages. No guns, no internal combustion engines. That's it in a nutshell. (But yes, the human population goes back to the levels sustainable with beast-of-burden-based agriculture.) I have some problems with it and its sequels, but it's an interesting concept for a book, nevertheless.
On the other hand, I now see the purpose of it, even if I don't think it's a good plan. I think it's like history classes ought to be, too-- an attempt to evoke and exercise general intelligence by getting people into the habit of looking for patterns. This is one reason, I think, why the smaller the class size, the better-- the teacher gets to know the student better, and one of mine might have been able to learn where I was, mentally and in maturity, the better to get past my objections. I sometimes do think we treat education like Wal-Mart would-- buying it in bulk.
in a Survival situation, old bats like me would be the first targets
What's in your emergency kit? Automotive or home.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Hey, who is ALWAYS the first target in really horrible situations? The old and weak, especially women. Bingo!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment