I actually did not intend my comment as a general criticism of the written word. I had in mind Ms Linder's relatively narrow target: students who spared themselves the effort of poem/novel/character explication by paraphrasing or even copying analysis from the web. I'm sorry I did not make that clear. I'm pro-essay, OK? But y'all are engaged in a battle every bit as futile as that waged against music file-sharing, with the difference that corrupt music industry executives are forced by profit motives to change their business model, whereas otherwise dedicated and forward-thinking teachers acknowledge no pressure to change their teaching model.
Even with the clarification that I like essays---the issue being what we write on---I don't anticipate a lot of enthusiasm for my views. That's fine; I'm happy to work in a school where traditional methods and rules are valued. But it almost doesn't matter what we think, because our views are coming with us to the grave. The future of intellectual ethics will not be determined by the tiny number of elite scholars who write original analyses of over-analyzed literary classics; it will be determined by the overwhelming majority, a majority dismissive of old lines of critical authority, a majority which evidently believes that the nearly-unhindered flow of information is some kind of natural right and absolute good, a majority that---very sensibly---takes as its starting point whatever's out there already.
If anything, the "democratization" of information makes instruction in critical thinking even more important. And that is where we teachers come in...but on whose terms? Now, I should have known not to mention FORTRAN in public, but here we go: FORTRAN is not a synonym for "dinosaur." It is not the moral equivalent of the electric typewriter I used in college or the radio ("contains seven transistors!") I owned as a boy. Some bleeding-edge physicists still use FORTRAN because for certain tasks it is the best tool available. In truth, any decent numerical methods class can teach scientists a lot. But the physicist who expects undergrads to ignore the computational revolution really needs to renegotiate her role. You all believe that a teacher who asks his students to ignore the huge and immediately-accessible volume of wisdom, commentary, even pointless blather on literary staples should not be renegotiating his role? In other words, shouldn't both instructors start asking new questions? We will agree to disagree.
In the mean time, Ms Linder is correct: stop cheating. Under no circumstances may authors steal text or ideas without attribution; even I regard this as inviolable. The hide-bound rules are changing, but they're not changing fast enough to save anyone from a dismissal hearing. Oh, and dude? I am like so old-school.
not hide-bound G
I actually did not intend my comment as a general criticism of the written word. I had in mind Ms Linder's relatively narrow target: students who spared themselves the effort of poem/novel/character explication by paraphrasing or even copying analysis from the web. I'm sorry I did not make that clear. I'm pro-essay, OK? But y'all are engaged in a battle every bit as futile as that waged against music file-sharing, with the difference that corrupt music industry executives are forced by profit motives to change their business model, whereas otherwise dedicated and forward-thinking teachers acknowledge no pressure to change their teaching model.
Even with the clarification that I like essays---the issue being what we write on---I don't anticipate a lot of enthusiasm for my views. That's fine; I'm happy to work in a school where traditional methods and rules are valued. But it almost doesn't matter what we think, because our views are coming with us to the grave. The future of intellectual ethics will not be determined by the tiny number of elite scholars who write original analyses of over-analyzed literary classics; it will be determined by the overwhelming majority, a majority dismissive of old lines of critical authority, a majority which evidently believes that the nearly-unhindered flow of information is some kind of natural right and absolute good, a majority that---very sensibly---takes as its starting point whatever's out there already.
If anything, the "democratization" of information makes instruction in critical thinking even more important. And that is where we teachers come in...but on whose terms? Now, I should have known not to mention FORTRAN in public, but here we go: FORTRAN is not a synonym for "dinosaur." It is not the moral equivalent of the electric typewriter I used in college or the radio ("contains seven transistors!") I owned as a boy. Some bleeding-edge physicists still use FORTRAN because for certain tasks it is the best tool available. In truth, any decent numerical methods class can teach scientists a lot. But the physicist who expects undergrads to ignore the computational revolution really needs to renegotiate her role. You all believe that a teacher who asks his students to ignore the huge and immediately-accessible volume of wisdom, commentary, even pointless blather on literary staples should not be renegotiating his role? In other words, shouldn't both instructors start asking new questions? We will agree to disagree.
In the mean time, Ms Linder is correct: stop cheating. Under no circumstances may authors steal text or ideas without attribution; even I regard this as inviolable. The hide-bound rules are changing, but they're not changing fast enough to save anyone from a dismissal hearing. Oh, and dude? I am like so old-school.