201–210 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think it would have ended the same failed exam if you did that research first and included it in your interpretation?
My thoughts exactly. He had a good intuition, but teachers want substance not opinion - as they should.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? Crudely generalising; wouldn't engineering types be more susceptible to conclude that there is only one sanctioned way interpreting some text rather than someone with a humanities background? (I happen to be both. Poetry to me seems almost by definition something that will evoke different responses and insights for each reader.)
After failing an exam, I was told by an upperclassman that the secret to a good grade in humanities classes was regurgitating the opinions of the professor. My solution to that was I never took another humanities class.
Eventually I concluded the same thing - that the purpose of the class is not to have me actually think, form opinions, structure arguments and express them - despite what they kept telling us! - but rather to find out what the established interpretation is, and express that in a way that looks like I'm convinced by it. Armed with that knowledge, I proceeded with future essays, and what do you know? They were all As.
That whole experience really soured me up on that business, though, because whatever I was submitting for my assignments, I knew it was all bullshit from my perspective. And you know what? In retrospect, some of my opinions I strongly held then may well have been wrong in part or entirely... but they were my thoughts and my opinions, the real thing, and backed by real arguments. And if I were that 15 year old kid, with the experiences and the mindset formed by them that I had, not a single thing would have changed about them.
So, instead of teaching how to think and argue and express myself, they taught me that you conform to what someone else expects from you, and hide your deviations; or else.
It's a good thing they weren't the only teachers...
But that experience definitely steered me away from humanities, and towards math and sciences. There, at least, there was clear right and wrong, and any occasional ambiguity would be clearly highlighted as such and acknowledged by everyone explicitly. And if you were right, you could be as obstinate as you wanted about it; and if you were wrong, you'd be shown a very clear and objective reason as to why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After failing an exam, I was told by an upperclassman that the secret to a good grade in humanities classes was regurgitating the opinions of the professor. My solution to that was I never took another humanities class.
I can definitely relate to that. I did reasonably well in literature classes in high school, but every now and then I'd turn in a what-did-the-author-mean essay on some subject that deviated from what we've been told to expect... and every time I got a (local equivalent of) B from the teacher for "writing well and trying to make an argument", but not an A because "you're just wrong". I had several arguments with teac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem isn't that the author doesn't know the answers, it's that the test is looking for 1 correct answer . The point of reading and analyzing poetry is in the process and being able to explain your reasoning coherently.
I uh, apologize in advance for the wall of text. It started out shorter. # TL;DR - I don't think the questions are unreasonable - I'm not surprised the poet says she can't answer them - I agree with you that the point of analysis is the process, but that gets tested in writing assessments - reading assessments get bad rap because people forget reading/understanding the questions is just as important as reading/unders…
I didnt read the article. I read question 35. I read the four lines you highlighted. I read the four potential answers. I reread the four lines, and then reread the answers. I chose B near immediately. Only after I read lines 5 and 6 did I realize C was even relevant. Even after reading C, I came to the conclusion you eloquently illustrated.
>In that structure, the concept of friends is restricted to the "scope" of the final thought, and only used to illustrate just how unattractive the speaker is.
I also agree with your general thesis. The poem is irrelevant, the test is testing your ability to parse instructions, not just poems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does the history of a culture or a nation endure? Why do children know about the civil war or slavery in the south? Why not the list of American Idol winners? I don't think your response is merely incredible, it's actually a malicious and toxic kind of sophistry.
You still haven't provided any motivation for why Shakespeare should be chosen over other poets.
Likewise you haven't provided any motivation as to why the Civil War should be taught in history class instead of last year's American Idol winners (If you tell me prominence in popular or cultural memory, than indeed Shakespeare occupies the same place).
Shakespeare endures well because he endured for the readers, theater goers, actors, authors, poets, artists, film-makers and academics after him. Of course you could say that they are all also brainwashed by schooling and wouldn't have cared about Shakespeare (this doesn't pass the litmus test though, author's that were popular solely based on being forced in schools haven't endured c.f. Chinese or Soviet education with ideologically shaped curriculums).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With zero context your comment is without meaning. The only thing that separates it from a randomly generated markov chain is context. Now, that does not mean the Author is infallible. But, discounting the authors intend is like ignoring a books sequels or even the second half of the text. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCeFbK-WEVE In the end by discounting the author you are left with the lowest form of criticism,…
probably the ability of people to supply a meaning and agree on that meaning amongst themselves with relative ease might differentiate that comment from a randomly generated markov chain.
Ignoring the author's culture includes their language. Consider handing just that text to an alien along side a few thousand similar, but randomly generated texts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Which fails as it assumes text must have inherent meaning. It doesn't assume that. It doesn't matter whether the text does or does not have inherent meaning. The essay's point is that the reader's judgement is just as valid as the writer's. As an extreme example, the phrase "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" [1] can be interpreted by the reader as having meaning even though Noam Chomsky says it's a meaningless…
With zero context your comment is without meaning. The only thing that separates it from a randomly generated markov chain is context. Now, that does not mean the Author is infallible. But, discounting the authors intend is like ignoring a books sequels or even the second half of the text. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCeFbK-WEVE In the end by discounting the author you are left with the lowest form of criticism,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With zero context your comment is without meaning. The only thing that separates it from a randomly generated markov chain is context. Now, that does not mean the Author is infallible. But, discounting the authors intend is like ignoring a books sequels or even the second half of the text. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCeFbK-WEVE In the end by discounting the author you are left with the lowest form of criticism,…
If the phrase "line noise" means something to me, why am I mistaken?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
probably the ability of people to supply a meaning and agree on that meaning amongst themselves with relative ease might differentiate that comment from a randomly generated markov chain.
That ability is based on context. Ignoring the author's culture includes their language. Consider handing just that text to an alien along side a few thousand similar, but randomly generated texts.
I'm just saying the main context I'm seeing here is goalpost moving.