What is management? (baby don't hurt me)

[Nessus]

no more

If I was ever a manager, and I have no intention of ever being one, things would never get to this stage.

If you're going to do anything sensible with your PhD, you'll be managing some kind of team of people at some point

In case you haven't noticed, I can't tolerate stupidity. At least with students, I have the authority to get them to do the work and have incentives to get them to move in that direction. With workers, you have far less leverage, and you rarely have full authority to hire and fire them.

Poor students. You'll make a pretty poor teacher with that kind of attitude. I take it you're the "all stick, no carrots type"?

And if you think that teaching isn't a managing job, then you have even less of a clue about the subject than I previously suspected.

Actually I was thinking about guiding students as management too, Low-key. You are in a position of authority over them, as you noted, but you also have to be motivating and guide their learning process. It's still also management, at least over here. And intolerant teachers/mentors/whatever probably aren't most conductive to an open learning environment for fruitful research. Are they?

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, the problem is that the attitude "I can't stand stupidity" inevitably translates into "Why are you even asking that?"

Terrible approach for any teaching role. First rule as a teacher: "There are no stupid questions." Yes, over-used, but true nevertheless. Just like there are no stupid answers (if we discount obvious jokes and trolling).

Everybody thinks differently and learns differently - sometimes there are only subtle differences, somtimes they're quite huge. So, if you're assuming that just because someone asked a seemingly "stupid" question they're a stupid person, then you're plain wrong.
Because it may just be that your way of explaining things may not be best-fitted towards this person's way of thinking.

In essence, if someone did not understand what you're trying to teach them, first try to find out what you could do differently.

Because if you simply assume that everyone is stupid who does not understand you, you'll demotivate them. They'll lose interest in the subject you're teaching.

I personally see such things as a personal failure - if someone loses interest in chemistry of physics because I somehow reinforced the person's belief that they're unable to comprehend the subject, then that's my own failing. Yes, I know that some people are unwilling to learn or somesuch. But still, I have to try. Because that's the job I chose and I love my subjects

And if you're thinking that "good grades" are a measure of success, then you're sadly mistaken. Numerical grading is one of the worst ways to assess a person's abilities. Anyone into statistics should recognize that from the start.

[Ominous Gamer]

How can one expect to teach a classroom full of students if they can't juggle (gasp: manage) their different learning styles, educational history, and preconceived notions on the subject at hand?

[Loki]

How can one expect to teach a classroom full of students if they can't juggle (gasp: manage) their different learning styles, educational history, and preconceived notions on the subject at hand?

Yes, when you have 50 minutes a week to teach 30 adults, your main goal should be to teach every person differently. The best feedback students get is on assignments, as A) it's private, and B) it's possible to carefully examine the person's weaknesses and strength. The classroom is not the time to please everyone.

And if you're thinking that "good grades" are a measure of success, then you're sadly mistaken. Numerical grading is one of the worst ways to assess a person's abilities. Anyone into statistics should recognize that from the start.

No, I'll just your method of always assuming I'm right and using anecdotal evidence to reinforce that view. Your last sentence once again reinforces the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Whether exams accurately measure someone's knowledge or not has nothing to do with the strengths or weaknesses of statistics.

Perhaps it's simply down to differences in attitude... I agree with the above posters that eg. teaching students requires management of the teacher's and the students' resources in order to achieve various goals. Perhaps Loki sees the teacher's role as that of a solitary worker rather than that of a leader and a manager of people? Perhaps his view is that his task is to present information and to grade assignments, and damn anyone who's so stupid that he can't work with our kitten?

There are many different styles of management. I think that Loki is a manager to some extent--just as any teacher may be--but a less involved one than is eg. Khen. One who doesn't want to involve himself with the shortcomings of his students. Every man for himself. It's a cat-eat-cat world

My job is to make them think like political scientists, which usually entails teaching them basic info that they should have been taught in high school before I could do my job. The shortcomings of students are relevant only to the extent that this task is made more difficult. I've actually had several people who wrote really dumb things when the class started and were in the middle of the pack before it ended. Having stupid views is not a problem as long as one is willing to change them when presented sufficient evidence.

Well, lolli, you're the lecturer in front of class. As such you are partly responsible for the success of your students.

And if you find that some students don't learn the topics you present as well as other students, then it's your responsibility to examine if that's a fault of your teaching methods - instead of defaulting to the easy: "Well, they're stupid."

Okay, it's an idealistic approach - but it's a better one than the pessimistic one where you simply give up everyone one for lost who does not fit into your raster.

You're confusing stupidity as a trait with having stupid views. The latter can be easily corrected as long as the person is willing to learn. The former rarely make it to this kind of university.

Also, you have to separate systematic components from idiosyncratic ones. Any class will have people who have no intention of doing work; this is especially true for mandatory, intro-level classes that people take just because they have to. If half the class doesn't do work, then it's either because they're not properly motivated or because the work has not been properly explained. If it's just a handful of people, then it's because they couldn't be bothered or think they deserve a B just because they show up to class (a view expressed by more students than you'd think).

I thought Loki wanted to be the next Kissinger or something. But yeah, international relations and diplomacy are forms of 'management'.

Only if you twist the definition of the word to something that no longer relates to the term. A manager is in a position of authority, which is not the case in diplomacy. A manager is also mainly responsible for getting people to do work that they should be doing anyway, which is not the case for teachers.

[Khendraja'aro]

No, I'll just your method of always assuming I'm right and using anecdotal evidence to reinforce that view. Your last sentence once again reinforces the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Whether exams accurately measure someone's knowledge or not has nothing to do with the strengths or weaknesses of statistics.

Heh. Oh, I can back that up.

There's a problem with the scales used for grading - there are three different grading categories: Ordinal scales (representing the order only: First, second, third, ... in class), interval scales (e.g. IQ - equidistance between points is important, the difference between an IQ of 110 and 120 is the same as between 120 and 130), and proportional scales which introduces a zero point.
Numerical grades in university and school are only at the level of ordinal scales which means that you may not use any statistical tools on those. Averages, Median and so on and so forth are right out.

Numerical grades further suffer from the problem that they are serving three main purposes at once, they are overloaded: Diagnosis, prognosis and ananmesis.
This means that just one grade is used to define the past efforts of a student (ananmesis), his current status (diagnosis) and an outlook as to what the student will be capable of (prognosis).
And there are further purposes, which muddle the water: Disciplinary, control, legitimation, selection.

Next up: Tendencies.
Harshness: You tend to exaggerate small or insignifacant mistakes, tending to give rigorous and negative grades.
Leniency: You tend to overlook mistakes, thus tending towards positive grades.
Tendency towards the middle or extremes.

Furthermore: Interference - which means that other signal sources interfere with your grades
Sequence error: The present effort is set into relation with past efforts - e.g. a tendency downwards has a negative impact on the grades
Logical error: Transfer of effort to another related area. E.g. good performances in math usually create an expectancy of good performances in physics.
Halo effect: Some properties of the student influence his grading - a student with clean clothing will have it easier to get better grades than a student with dirty clothing.

Measurement errors:
Threshold problem: In order to measure a performance, a certain threshold has to be passed. Since we are not mind-readers, a blank paper does not signify that the student doesn't know anything, just that the threshold was not reached.
Rounding problem: The problem always exists when we have a continuum of performances which have to be graded with discrete values. Do we round up or down? What do we do with answers which are neither completely correct nor completely incorrect?
Random sample problem: We can't test the students' performances completely but only by random sampling. Which means that for some students, the intersection of our random sample and the students' performances will be smaller or larger than it really is.

And so on and so forth. That's just a small translation of a paper I wrote on this very same subject. If you want to have a look at the sources:
Beutel, S.-I., & Vollstädt, W. (2000). Leistung ermitteln und bewerten. Hamburg: Bergmann + Helbig Verlag.
Fischer, W. L. (1991). Mathematische Kritik der Ziffernnoten und ihrer Interpretation. Von Hohenzollern / Liedtke.
Ingenkamp, K. (1974). Die Fragwürdigkeit der Zensurengebung. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag.
Krauth, J. (1995). Testkonstruktion und Testtheorie. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.
Sacher, W. (2004). Leistungen entwickeln, überprüfen und beurteilen. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.

And, yes, I do know what I'm talking about here.

And yes there are stupid answers as well. If you ask someone what 1+1 is and they give you something other then 2 then their answer is both stupid and wrong.

1+1 is 1+
1+1 is 10

Both valid answers. The first one stems from a lecture in Number Theory (where you first have to define what numbers actually are). The second one is binary (Base 2).
And the fun really starts if you use an irrational-base number system like Base Pi or Base e.

[Loki]

Heh. Oh, I can back that up.

There's a problem with the scales used for grading - there are three different grading categories: Ordinal scales (representing the order only: First, second, third, ... in class), interval scales (e.g. IQ - equidistance between points is important, the difference between an IQ of 110 and 120 is the same as between 120 and 130), and proportional scales which introduces a zero point.
Numerical grades in university and school are only at the level of ordinal scales which means that you may not use any statistical tools on those. Averages, Median and so on and so forth are right out.

I don't know about Germany, but the grading here is done by intervals. A grade is based entirely on how well the person answers a given question, and it reflects the proportion of the question that the person got right. And this means that the mean and median are in.

Numerical grades further suffer from the problem that they are serving three main purposes at once, they are overloaded: Diagnosis, prognosis and ananmesis.
This means that just one grade is used to define the past efforts of a student (ananmesis), his current status (diagnosis) and an outlook as to what the student will be capable of (prognosis).
And there are further purposes, which muddle the water: Disciplinary, control, legitimation, selection.

Not really relevant given the point above, but this is why you have multiple grades. I have grades for 10 written assignments, and 3 exams, with each exam having essays and multiple choice portions.

Next up: Tendencies.
Harshness: You tend to exaggerate small or insignifacant mistakes, tending to give rigorous and negative grades.
Leniency: You tend to overlook mistakes, thus tending towards positive grades.
Tendency towards the middle or extremes.

Not an issue as long as the grading is done with respect to the quality of individual answers.

Furthermore: Interference - which means that other signal sources interfere with your grades
Sequence error: The present effort is set into relation with past efforts - e.g. a tendency downwards has a negative impact on the grades
Logical error: Transfer of effort to another related area. E.g. good performances in math usually create an expectancy of good performances in physics.

Not quite sure how any of this is relevant as I only grade for one type of class.

Halo effect: Some properties of the student influence his grading - a student with clean clothing will have it easier to get better grades than a student with dirty clothing.

That assumes I actually remember everyone's names (or look at the names on papers before grading them).

Measurement errors:
Threshold problem: In order to measure a performance, a certain threshold has to be passed. Since we are not mind-readers, a blank paper does not signify that the student doesn't know anything, just that the threshold was not reached.
Rounding problem: The problem always exists when we have a continuum of performances which have to be graded with discrete values. Do we round up or down? What do we do with answers which are neither completely correct nor completely incorrect?
Random sample problem: We can't test the students' performances completely but only by random sampling. Which means that for some students, the intersection of our random sample and the students' performances will be smaller or larger than it really is.

I don't think having to round up or down 1-2% on an exam that's worth 100% will make any difference, especially if the rounding has a consistent rationale. In conclusion, thanks for copying and pasting a bunch of text that's not in any way relevant to your point.

[Khendraja'aro]

For reference: I'm assuming a numerical grading system with the numbers 1 through 6 as grades, 1 being best, 6 being worst. You can replace that with any other numerical grading system, doesn't really matter.

I don't know about Germany, but the grading here is done by intervals. A grade is based entirely on how well the person answers a given question, and it reflects the proportion of the question that the person got right. And this means that the mean and median are in.

Actually no. This just means that 1.6 and 2.4 will both arrive at a 2 - which means that equidistancy of grades just flew out of the window. There is no zero point, because even a student with a grade of 6 will/may have done something.

Furthermore, take a student with the grades: 2, 2, 3, 6, 6 and another student with 1, 2, 3, 4, 4. Both have the same median of 3 - even if the latter student is clearly better than the former.
As for the average, a student with the temporal succession of grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and another with the series of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 show a very different progression of performance - and yet both arrive at the same average.

That's what I'm talking about when I'm speaking about the inadequacy of numerical grading.

You should really take a look at that problem - it's even more of a pressing concern in "soft" subject like economics, politics and the like, because you don't even have hard references - i.e. 100% correct answer - like in physics or maths.

And since your grade "is based entirely on how well the person answers a given question", this means that all the other problems exist as well. Closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and screaming: "LALA, I can't hear you!" is not the way to treat that problem.
Geeze, man, at least acknowledge that this problem exists.

And for reference: Since my texts are largely German, I can hardly "copy and paste".

Not really relevant given the point above, but this is why you have multiple grades. I have grades for 10 written assignments, and 3 exams, with each exam having essays and multiple choice portions.

You obviously misunderstood this part. Try reading it again. I'll give an example: An athlete runs 100 meters in 10.5 seconds. For everyone involved, this means that he just ran in 10.5 seconds this time.

In school, such a measurement means that the student probably ran 10.5 seconds before and will continue to run 10.5 seconds in the future. Furthermore, it enforces the teacher's belief that he did something right, because his student ran 10.5 seconds instead of 11. It also tells everyone else that training is worth it, because otherwise he clearly couldn't have run 10.5 seconds.

That's what I mean by "overload". It creates a false significance for grades, everyone seems them as something they are not, and everyone sees them as something different!

Not an issue as long as the grading is done with respect to the quality of individual answers.

Right. And you surely base your corrections on free text answers only on purely objective check points? Eheh.

Not quite sure how any of this is relevant as I only grade for one type of class.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what you know about your students.

That assumes I actually remember everyone's names (or look at the names on papers before grading them).

Then take the style of handwriting, the grammar or syntax. A "high" style of writing, using foreign words is usually associated with intelligence, while down-to-the-earth style is not.

I don't think having to round up or down 1-2% on an exam that's worth 100% will make any difference, especially if the rounding has a consistent rationale. In conclusion, thanks for copying and pasting a bunch of text that's not in any way relevant to your point.

I find it interesting that you're completely dismissing all of my points and saying that you ain't got no problems in that department. Truth to be told, I find it pretty sad that you're so sure of yourself that you can't even begin to think about what I just told you here. I would not want to be one of your students, you're too full of yourself.

[Ominous Gamer]

Yes, when you have 50 minutes a week to teach 30 adults, your main goal should be to teach every person differently. The best feedback students get is on assignments, as A) it's private, and B) it's possible to carefully examine the person's weaknesses and strength. The classroom is not the time to please everyone.

Whoa, you totally didn't get the point there. I'm saying that you need to be receptive to how students learn. You can't present a set of information in your own own way and say thats good enough. You can't expect students to come in knowing nothing on a subject thinking you are starting with empty glasses that are yours to fill.

Of course I'm not surprised you favor feedback via assignments. Its one way, so you still get to dictate the direction, without discourse with the other party. That much is obvious with how you handle yourself on these here forums.

[Aimless]

Perhaps it's simply down to differences in attitude... I agree with the above posters that eg. teaching students requires management of the teacher's and the students' resources in order to achieve various goals. Perhaps Loki sees the teacher's role as that of a solitary worker rather than that of a leader and a manager of people? Perhaps his view is that his task is to present information and to grade assignments, and damn anyone who's so stupid that he can't work with our kitten?

There are many different styles of management. I think that Loki is a manager to some extent--just as any teacher may be--but a less involved one than is eg. Khen. One who doesn't want to involve himself with the shortcomings of his students. Every man for himself. It's a cat-eat-cat world

[LittleFuzzy]

Perhaps it's simply down to differences in attitude... I agree with the above posters that eg. teaching students requires management of the teacher's and the students' resources in order to achieve various goals. Perhaps Loki sees the teacher's role as that of a solitary worker rather than that of a leader and a manager of people? Perhaps his view is that his task is to present information and to grade assignments, and damn anyone who's so stupid that he can't work with our kitten?

There are many different styles of management. I think that Loki is a manager to some extent--just as any teacher may be--but a less involved one than is eg. Khen. One who doesn't want to involve himself with the shortcomings of his students. Every man for himself. It's a cat-eat-cat world

In Loki's defense, he's speaking as a TA. It might well actually be his task to just present information and grade assignments.

[littlelolligagged]

I don't really think as a college professor Icky will need to "be responsible for" his students learning. They may despise him and give him terrible reviews, but a college professor who treats his students like dopey children is doing no one any favors. Making allowances for separate learning styles is completely ridiculous in the situation he will be in. He's not teaching children, he'll be teaching adults. Who are enrolled in college by choice.

[Khendraja'aro]

I don't really think as a college professor Icky will need to "be responsible for" his students learning. They may despise him and give him terrible reviews, but a college professor who treats his students like dopey children is doing no one any favors. Making allowances for separate learning styles is completely ridiculous in the situation he will be in. He's not teaching children, he'll be teaching adults. Who are enrolled in college by choice.

You still have to use some didactic knowledge. The best professors I had were those who were actually interested in their students learning. It showed in the ways they presented their materials, the way they gave the tasks and homework, the way the exams were done.
Just using this "you're here by choice" in order to excuse a crappy performance does not fly. I mean, the lecturer at university is also there by choice.

[EyeKhan]

no more

Actually I was thinking about guiding students as management too, Low-key. You are in a position of authority over them, as you noted, but you also have to be motivating and guide their learning process. It's still also management, at least over here. And intolerant teachers/mentors/whatever probably aren't most conductive to an open learning environment for fruitful research. Are they?

Management in practice is very analagous to tribal behavior. If you've noticed, people have a thing for grouping into tribes and beauracracies are no exception. In fact, they're practically the rule. Managers are like tribal leaders and departments struggle with each other for no other reason than loyalty to their tribe and their leader. Its fucked up. But its natural human behavior. One more illustration of how humans are less sentient than we think.

[GGT]

Management in practice is very analagous to tribal behavior. If you've noticed, people have a thing for grouping into tribes and beauracracies are no exception. In fact, they're practically the rule. Managers are like tribal leaders and departments struggle with each other for no other reason than loyalty to their tribe and their leader. Its fucked up. But its natural human behavior. One more illustration of how humans are less sentient than we think.

IMO understanding human behavior and some psychology is a crucial management skill. Starting with the manager Knowing Thyself; one's own personality type and leadership style. What works in a military setting won't necessarily work in an elementary school, skills aren't transferrable that way.

But you're right about the tribal group thing. Throw a bunch of random people in a room, and eventually someone will emerge as the "leader", and after sorting out inner group stuff, the "leader" is the one to look outside the group and try to figure out those loyalties (or threats).

[littlelolligagged]

There is a huge difference between being interested in and being responsible for.

Should he also have mandatory attendance? Penalize people who have no interest in listening to a lecture?

Perhaps he should never deviate from repeating exactly what his textbooks say. After all, that will give students the greatest chance of making high grades in his courses.

Never mind the fact that he'd bore to tears any student who actually has half a mind, lets lower college classes to the same pathetic level public schools already have.

[Nessus]

I don't really think as a college professor Icky will need to "be responsible for" his students learning. They may despise him and give him terrible reviews, but a college professor who treats his students like dopey children is doing no one any favors. Making allowances for separate learning styles is completely ridiculous in the situation he will be in. He's not teaching children, he'll be teaching adults. Who are enrolled in college by choice.

I disagree. Or I suspect the difference between our nations skews my perspective. Either way, once Low-key's responsible for people doing their theses and so on, which here is a natural part of the job for even lesser posts than professor, he'll be (or should be) in contact-teaching with a small group of people (do humanities folk have research teams? I don't know), and he'll have to direct their work both scientifically and as part of their learning. Just because they're learning in higher edumacation rather than kindergarten doesn't mean they have to be treated like paper boys in a Rockefeller slave office.

(Actually I hear that is the atmosphere in Murika but I think it's fairly diseased. Like most things about your culture! There's a reason so many grad students there are Orientals who are literally willing to slave away until they keel over from exhaustion.)

And it's a red herring anyway. My original point was that leadership by Perkele encourages the worst in people, causes stress and leads to a hostile workplace. If you're afraid of your boss and their inane rants, you don't want to work, you feel you have to. This poisons relations, destroys future collaboration, and so forth.

Management in practice is very analagous to tribal behavior. If you've noticed, people have a thing for grouping into tribes and beauracracies are no exception. In fact, they're practically the rule. Managers are like tribal leaders and departments struggle with each other for no other reason than loyalty to their tribe and their leader. Its fucked up. But its natural human behavior. One more illustration of how humans are less sentient than we think.

Oh, most definitely. But which tribe would you rather live in, the one led by Gandalf, or by Sauron?

[EyeKhan]

Oh, most definitely. But which tribe would you rather live in, the one led by Gandalf, or by Sauron?

TBH, Sauron, his powers and minions, Barad-dur, the forging of the rings, the balrog in Moria, and all that good stuff was definitely the most fascinating part of the LoTR. Now, I'd only want to BE Sauron, not one of his minions. Working for that dude would not be a picnic. Gandalf, otoh would probably make a good boss. Actually, he's more like a father figure.

BTW - just watched RotK again the other day and I fucking hate what dip shit did to the story. Things I didn't like:

a. Arwen's dying as the power of Sauron grows (huh???)

b. Denethor refuses to light the beacons and for some reason the dumbass hobit has to. Why do that???

c. Denethor sends Faramir out to die. Come on.

d. Gollum undermines Sam by throwing the food away so Frodo sends him home, from the steps of Cirith Ungol, no less. Totally unnecessary.

e. Frodo almost tries to go down the road to Minas Morgul. Why put that in there?

f. The Eye of Sauron looks right at Frodo who freezes right in front of it but gets distracted when Aragorn lops off the Mouth's head. We are not IDIOTS. We can understand why they go to certain defeat in front of the Black Gate without having it spelled out to us word for fucking word. Jesus.

g. Frodo almost falls off the cliff into the lava after knocking Gollum off. Why add this nonsense? The coolest part about that scene was gollum winning and being so happy that he accidentaly falls to his death, destroying the ring. In the end, the power of the ring to control and pervert was its own undoing! That was perfect. But not for Jackson's presumed idiot audience.

h. The dead army defeats the assault on Minas Tirith. Why? After all that fighting, the magic ghost army wins the day. Clearly it was absolutely unnecessary for Rohan to show up and sacrifice its king and all those riders. The indestructable super duper dead army got there a few minutes later and made it a moot point.

g. Gandalf gets defeated by the Lord of the Nazgul. Huh? Gandalf beats a balrog but can't stand against the leader of the Nine? Please. That pissed me off.

h. The fight scene between Eowyn and The Lord of the Nazgul - why make it a face stab? Why not do the lop the head off and helmet rolls the way it was done in the book? Huh? He had to fuck everything up.

i. Why make the Oliphaunts so goddam big? What's the point of that? Everything's bigger in MiddleEarth?

j. If Legolas was such a total badass, why did the Elf army that should have never shown up in Helms Deep get so easily defeated by a bunch of Uruk? Stupid and inconsistent.

k. Marching with the orcs in Mordor, an overseer notices the hobbits and almost discovers them but they start a fight, between each other no less, and they manage to escape. Jackson tries makes everything this do or die nail biter but it just comes off contrived.

[Nessus]

Working for [Sauron] would not be a picnic. Gandalf, otoh would probably make a good boss. Actually, he's more like a father figure.

That was my point, yeah.

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, lolli, you're the lecturer in front of class. As such you are partly responsible for the success of your students.

And if you find that some students don't learn the topics you present as well as other students, then it's your responsibility to examine if that's a fault of your teaching methods - instead of defaulting to the easy: "Well, they're stupid."

Okay, it's an idealistic approach - but it's a better one than the pessimistic one where you simply give up everyone one for lost who does not fit into your raster.

[GGT]

Actually I was thinking about guiding students as management too, Low-key. You are in a position of authority over them, as you noted, but you also have to be motivating and guide their learning process. It's still also management, at least over here. And intolerant teachers/mentors/whatever probably aren't most conductive to an open learning environment for fruitful research. Are they?

I thought Loki wanted to be the next Kissinger or something. But yeah, international relations and diplomacy are forms of 'management'.

As for teaching and education, the technique trends change a lot over here, over time. I've experienced some of the new-fangled things, from pods and mixed grade classes in elementary school, to self-guided learning labs in high school, to university where our nursing professors called themselves "Facilitators".

That probably gave me the early impression I was in charge of my education, to take it as far as I decided, to make the most of it myself (regardless of crappy staff or agenda or whatever), and I was my own manager. Not sure that's how children are being taught these days, depends on the state and district probably. Also parental input. It's been a while since I was 'reprimanded' for NOT being a helicopter parent and micro-managing my kids' homework.

[Lewkowski]

Terrible approach for any teaching role. First rule as a teacher: "There are no stupid questions." Yes, over-used, but true nevertheless. Just like there are no stupid answers (if we discount obvious jokes and trolling).

That is a pretty stupid way to look at it. There are all sorts of stupid questions. "When did you stop molesting your students?" Even going away from deliberately annoying questions there other questions over material that has already been covered that drags the entire class/auditorium longer to help one student who just doesn't get it. There ARE stupid questions and people have a finite amount of class time.

And yes there are stupid answers as well. If you ask someone what 1+1 is and they give you something other then 2 then their answer is both stupid and wrong.

Because it may just be that your way of explaining things may not be best-fitted towards this person's way of thinking.

So? Outside of government and union jobs if your boss has to explain something to you have 5 different times or constantly talk to you and explain it in your special way while all the other employees get it then you aren't going to be employed their very long.

[earthJoker]

That is a pretty stupid way to look at it. There are all sorts of stupid questions. "When did you stop molesting your students?" Even going away from deliberately annoying questions there other questions over material that has already been covered that drags the entire class/auditorium longer to help one student who just doesn't get it. There ARE stupid questions and people have a finite amount of class time.

Well I partly agree. But I don't think stupid is the right word for the most of those kind of question, the right term is "off-topic". And it is a big distraction if a few students always try to get the focus on something else as the lecturer. On the other hand, I very rarely found any student on university level that just didn't got it, because students usually don't want to embarrass themselves and stop asking if they don't understand it the first or second time. Usually the problems are mostly if some students believe to know more than the professor.

[Veldan Rath]

Thanks Ness!

Now it's stuck in my head!

[Loki]

Let's just say there are some really stupid answers. Can't say I've faced any particularly stupid questions though. Students are usually too afraid to say anything wrong publicly to ask them (not just in my classes).

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm on the last CD of The Silmarillion (so many names, terms, and songs I couldn't pronounce), Sauron's life is hell in those stories.

[EyeKhan]

I'm on the last CD of The Silmarillion (so many names, terms, and songs I couldn't pronounce), Sauron's life is hell in those stories.

He brought it on himself. But, he's the quintissential American Boot Strap self made man. He was Morgoth's bitch then fell hard when Morgoth got wooped but managed to make something out of himself anyway. He deserves a lot of credit for that.

[']['ear]

TBH, Sauron, his powers and minions, Barad-dur, the forging of the rings, the balrog in Moria, and all that good stuff was definitely the most fascinating part of the LoTR. Now, I'd only want to BE Sauron, not one of his minions. Working for that dude would not be a picnic. Gandalf, otoh would probably make a good boss. Actually, he's more like a father figure.

The only people who would like Sauron as an immediate boss, knowing what they are going into, are those who have black slimy teeth and weird creepy scars on their faces. Oh, and the movies made Gandalf too touchy feely. The real Gandalf is the guy who says "Fool of a Took!" and makes Pippen feel crappy. Gandalf was a pretty prickly dude.

BTW - just watched RotK again the other day and I fucking hate what dip shit did to the story. Things I didn't like:

This first movie was the best, because it is the simplest story. II and III were great books, but the story was too complicated to make a good movie.

a. Arwen's dying as the power of Sauron grows (huh???)

Answer me this: how do you bring back a character at the end of III who hasn't been seen since I (if you follow the books). Movie impossibility. To keep Arwen in the story, they needed to make crap up in both II and III to keep her relevant.

b. Denethor refuses to light the beacons and for some reason the dumbass hobit has to. Why do that???

Movie lagging, they needed something other than explication.

c. Denethor sends Faramir out to die. Come on.

The Faramir story was botched throughout. They had him take Frodo to Osgiliath just so they could have another battle scene.

d. Gollum undermines Sam by throwing the food away so Frodo sends him home, from the steps of Cirith Ungol, no less. Totally unnecessary.

Disagree. It's hard to capture the subtlety of a relationship changing from loving friendship to disdain. Remember, trying to make a movie that can be understood by people who haven't read the books. {Lost cause, I know, but Hollywood needs to make their cash.}

e. Frodo almost tries to go down the road to Minas Morgul. Why put that in there?

Meh. Needed to repeatedly show the burden of the ring and his torment.

f. The Eye of Sauron looks right at Frodo who freezes right in front of it but gets distracted when Aragorn lops off the Mouth's head. We are not IDIOTS. We can understand why they go to certain defeat in front of the Black Gate without having it spelled out to us word for fucking word. Jesus.

Agreed.

g. Frodo almost falls off the cliff into the lava after knocking Gollum off. Why add this nonsense? The coolest part about that scene was gollum winning and being so happy that he accidentaly falls to his death, destroying the ring. In the end, the power of the ring to control and pervert was its own undoing! That was perfect. But not for Jackson's presumed idiot audience.

Agreed

h. The dead army defeats the assault on Minas Tirith. Why? After all that fighting, the magic ghost army wins the day. Clearly it was absolutely unnecessary for Rohan to show up and sacrifice its king and all those riders. The indestructable super duper dead army got there a few minutes later and made it a moot point.

But the dead army was there in the books, and it's a subtle point that they barely turned the tide. My complaint was that they had the dead army sweep through Minas Tirith like a mass of Scrubbing Bubbles. The point of Rohan was had they not showed up, the city would have been invaded, Faramir killed, and all lost even with the arrival of the Dead Army. And that point was missed, agreed.

g. Gandalf gets defeated by the Lord of the Nazgul. Huh? Gandalf beats a balrog but can't stand against the leader of the Nine? Please. That pissed me off.

Perhaps the point that angered me most. Gandalf the Grey would have failed, but not the White Rider. Missed the entire point of his fall and rededication.

h. The fight scene between Eowyn and The Lord of the Nazgul - why make it a face stab? Why not do the lop the head off and helmet rolls the way it was done in the book? Huh? He had to fuck everything up.

Minor detail. I found the scene well done.

i. Why make the Oliphaunts so goddam big? What's the point of that? Everything's bigger in MiddleEarth?

Because they were so awesome? Not realistic? Neither are cave trolls!

j. If Legolas was such a total badass, why did the Elf army that should have never shown up in Helms Deep get so easily defeated by a bunch of Uruk? Stupid and inconsistent.

You're assuming that all elves are created equal. Legolas rocks.

k. Marching with the orcs in Mordor, an overseer notices the hobbits and almost discovers them but they start a fight, between each other no less, and they manage to escape. Jackson tries makes everything this do or die nail biter but it just comes off contrived.

It's not Jackson, it's Hollywood. The gist of your complaint is that you are pissed off that the movies were made for a) people other than hard core Tolkien fans and b) people of average intelligence. Might as well be pissed of by the existence of Mel Gibson after 1990. But if not pitched that way, Jackson never makes the movies.

[EyeKhan]

But the dead army was there in the books, and it's a subtle point that they barely turned the tide. My complaint was that they had the dead army sweep through Minas Tirith like a mass of Scrubbing Bubbles. The point of Rohan was had they not showed up, the city would have been invaded, Faramir killed, and all lost even with the arrival of the Dead Army. And that point was missed, agreed.

To me this was a massive disappointment. The dead army was only supposed to free up those defending the coastline so they could squeak out a victory at Minas Tirith. To have them completely eradicate Sauron's army cheapened the whole thing.

It's not Jackson, it's Hollywood. The gist of your complaint is that you are pissed off that the movies were made for a) people other than hard core Tolkien fans and b) people of average intelligence. Might as well be pissed of by the existence of Mel Gibson after 1990. But if not pitched that way, Jackson never makes the movies.

#1. I think people are smarter than that. He could have made it a better move. #2. Mel Gibson? I haven't liked a single movie he did after the Road Warrior. He's as bad as Sylvester Stalone.

What a baby. Seriously if you can't enjoy RotK you really will never enjoy any adaptation of fantasy to the big screen.

Well, The Lord of the Rings is pretty special, so its a tough pill to swallow when it gets botched so badly. I've enjoyed all the Harry Potter adaptations. But that might be because the books arn't exceptional. And why do you have to lead with calling me a baby? Is that a Right Wing thing? You can't disagree with someone without hurling an insult first?

[Khendraja'aro]

Payback? Maverick? The Million Dollar Hotel? Braveheart?

Those ain't bad movies, y'know?

[LittleFuzzy]

Well, The Lord of the Rings is pretty special, so its a tough pill to swallow when it gets botched so badly.

Now, the one that bugged me was T2T. I've posted before on how it emphasized a theme of redemption for past mistakes *expressed through Theoden, Treebeard, Faramir, and Smeagol* and how Jackson dumped the theme EVERY SINGLE TIME. And then Phillipa Bowen, talking in the commentary on the power and corrupting influence of the Ring, demonstrated that she also completely missed Tolkein's optimistic note on the primacy of nobility of spirit over evil in how he wrote Faramir.