🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4200@eastman.UUCP>, beaver@esl370.uucp (Robert L. Beaver (Systems Admin)) writes:
|>
|>

[deletions]

|>      For instance, while taking a literature class at RIT (yes, it
|> really isn't known for liberal arts, but my degree is in Computer Science),
|> I asked "I understand where you get that interpretation of the story.  Why
|> couldn't someone interpret it literally?  Why would that be wrong?"  His
|> answer (an approximate quote)..."You really have no understanding of
|> literature, and it's all beyond your comprehension."  That said, he
|> dismissed me and did not readily acknowledge my presense in the class again.
|> I recieved a B in the course mostly because I can interpret the way he
|> wanted me to.  I still don't agree that "his" is the only interpretation.
|>
|>      Basically, what I'm saying is that I don't think most teachers
|> today are equiped to teach.  My eight grade english teacher certainly
|> was not.  As far as I can remember, very few of my english teachers
|> were.  I was not a rebellious student either.  I find more and more
|> things I accepted in high school to be false.  I now advise my nieces
|> and nephews to question their teachers, to make them prove it.
|>
|> Bob
|>

I *hate* hearing about things like this, it really hacks me off. Not the
stuff about questioning what you learn in high school; I've done a fair
amount of that myself, just like everybody. I hate the attitude among
teachers that the subject matter they teach is obvious; that students 
who have difficulty grasping the concepts have only themselves to blame. 
Here's what it reveals about the teacher:

a - the teacher is unbelievably arrogant
b - the teacher has a limited ability to explain the concepts, or
c - the teacher an incomplete or imperfect grasp of the concepts.

The pursuit of knowledge, however, is always good. Mr. Beaver's
experiences merely suggest that the pursuit is sometimes stymied by the
very agents meant to facillitate it. That's too bad, but keep trying. 

The most important thing you can learn is *how* to learn.  Questioning
teachers is ok, so long as you question with a little research and
another valid opinion up your sleeve; this implies independent research,
reading the opinions of other scholars, thinking through the
implications of what people tell you to see if it makes sense, and
asking anyone who will answer what you don't understand. *Anybody* can 
question things unintelligently; questioning from a position supported 
by others means you've done a little research on your own. It means that 
you've taken some responsibility for your own education; that you are 
actively learning, rather than just complaining if the teacher doesn't 
hold the spoon at the right angle for you to take a bite.

Just like anything else, grammar is simple if you know it, and a
struggle if you don't. There are principles and definitions, and a
system of rules. Teachers who don't teach these correctly and simply
aren't doing their jobs, there 's no getting around that. Students who
have these teachers and use them as an excuse aren't really right,
either. If you took a class in civil engineering, but never
really understood the physics of stress or proper construction
techniques or materials because your teachers were arrogant, does that
give you the right to ignore those principles and build bridges and
buildings anyway, sort of by feel?

So why should writers ignore grammar, even if their teachers were lazy, 
incompetent, arrogant, uglier than a mud fence, and bad dressers? 
Would-be writers with teachers like that in their backgrounds merely 
have to overcome a little more than writers with good teachers; they 
have to learn grammar *on their own*. 

Yes, it can be done. No, it's not easy. No, not all teachers are like
that. Yes, a number of teachers *are* like that. Above all, *YES*,
grammar is important. For writers, it is essential. Think about hiring a
carpenter who doesn't understand carpentry to build your house, or
someone who never studied plumbing in to fix your pipes. Or a urologist
who uses creative methods to give vasectomies. Maybe they'd get it right
- would *you* pay them to find out?

Problems *are* opportunities. Ok, let me step down from the soap box. 
Everybody get back to work, now. 

|>
|> /*  Sig?  What Sig? */

Here's a Sig.

<-------------------------------^------------------------------------->
|Len Olszewski, Technical Writer| "I may be banal, but I'm not        |
|saslpo@unx.sas.com             |  juvenile." - Yours Truly           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Opinions this ludicrous are mine. Reasonable opinions will cost you.|
<-------------------------------v------------------------------------->