Re: Ideocosmology

["Rauber, Joel Phys" <RAUBERJ@mg.sdstate.edu>]

A few random replies and a heretical comment or two:

> Of course, teaching at a private
> college, we aren't about to flunk out the numbers we should (we'll give 
them
> Bs instead) lest we put ourselves out of business.  ;-(

The gentleperson's C has apparently been replaced by the gentleperson's B.

> Just because the text is encyclopedic, does that mean we have to teach that
> way?

I have never understood the criticism of texts being too encyclopedic 
(unless the criticism is based on a law of gravity and its relationship to 
weight).  Just because a book is long doesn't mean you can't omit entire 
topics and chapters in the year long presentation of the material; your 
course doesn't have to be isomorphic to the text!

An arguement can be made in favor of encyclopedic texts if you view the text 
has being a reference that the student carries with them for many years to 
come.  They are expensive enough.  And yes I know many students resell their 
books, which is something I fight and recommend against whenever I have the 
chance; particularly one's calculus, physics and chemistry text.

> I learned it [reading] from fear of flunking out though, not
> because it was taught to me.

Apparently a successful method of teaching in this instance.  I have always 
felt that you can't have decent education (at the college level, and 
probably high school level as well) without some sense of *real* standards; 
and this can only mean that there is some realistic chance of failure (other 
than by non-attendance to the testing situations) when those standards are 
not met.

Joel