So today I had a meeting with an advisor from the school of education to officially change my major and decide what path is the best one for me to become certified to teach secondary English. Yeah, I know - I should have done this before. I made the decision last year, confirmed while going through chemo and I should have met with an advisor well before now. But I didn't and I'm paying the price.
Of my 12 hour schedule this semester only one class is going to count toward my degree. Naturally it's past the drop deadline, too. I'm a post "No Child Left Behind" education student so I don't know what it was like before, but my goodness my hat is off to anyone who can complete the secondary education program. I must admit to being a bit overwhelmed.
It's a double major program - one major is education, the other English. That's not such a big deal, but it's the lower level requirements. They spell out exactly what classes you must take to fulfill your core curriculum requirements and lower level ones and no deviation is allowed. This bites, for me, because for example - I took Music appreciation as my fine art. That won't count, now, I have to take Theater instead. All in all, I have to repeat several core curriculum classes and add some other lower level ones. The English major alone is 120 hours, but with all the stuff I have to re-take, I'll be graduating with 150+ hours.
So, given all that, I asked if it would be easier to just get my degree in English and do a non-traditional 5th year program to get my master's teacher certification. The answer was no - because the 5th year program is atually 46 hours at the master's level, and before I could be admitted to it, they would review my undergrad course work and I'd be forced to re-take theater and the other classes anyway, or take them at the master's level.
All that was discouraging enough, then she told me about the portfolio I had to keep and all the certifications I had to get and medical checkups and tests I had to take before I could even be formally admitted into the teacher edcucation program. They include CPR certification, a negative TB test, and taking and passing the Alabama Prospective Teacher test.
*sigh* Again, it's my fault for not checking things out sooner and I'm not daunted - I'm still going through with it, I just wish it weren't such an ordeal. I'm a bit overwhelmed by everything at the moment. The good news is my advisor seems very competent, said she'd be my contact through my whole career there (as opposed to my former advisors in the Humanities where you get passed along from advisor to advisor and rarely see the same person twice) and that they did a good job of keeping track of things and making sure I met every deadline (there are lots to remember - deadlines for testing, for submitting your portfolios, for application for student teaching, etc.) Maybe I'd feel better about it if it weren't for the fact that all my friends who are teachers tell me their experiences in Education school at college really didn't prepare them for teaching. I hate jumping through hoops just for the sake of jumping through them.
To all you teachers who have already jumped through the hoops I'm just now lining up in front of me - I salute you.
[ October 24, 2006, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Well, you could go the way I did. Get your degree, then start subbing while you go through the Alternate Route to certification. Once you have your provisional cert, you can get a job somewhere for a year and get your actual cert.
It really does seem that NCLB has made it far more difficult to enter the profession at a time when teacher shortages are cropping up all over.
Edit:
quote:I hate jumping through hoops just for the sake of jumping through them.
LOL. Hasn't anyone told you yet that is the standard operating procedure for public school teachers?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'm doing certification to become a secondary education teacher (social studies at first, maybe adding math or science later). It was sort of ridiculous at my school. To do History + Teacher Certification, I would have had to stay here a 4th year, just to jump through the hoops that you mentioned. Luckily, there's a community college near my home that offers to do teacher ceritifcation over a summer (with the stipulation that you have an internship or a student teaching position in the fall). So I'll graduate with my BA in History this spring, do certification over the summer, and then hopefully start teaching in the fall. Hooray for shortcuts of sorts.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, no, we don't, actually. At least, people with English majors should not become teachers. They're not qualified. We want hard-science majors to become teachers; the proper hoop for literature students to jump through leads to a three-mile drop.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:LOL. Hasn't anyone told you yet that is the standard operating procedure for public school teachers?
Good point. That's another thing my best friend whose a teacher mentioned.
That, and my husband told me that college is an endurance race anyway, it's more about being able to stick it out rather than really learning anything.
Everything I've read tells me that we desperately need qualified secondary teachers in Alabama. We're fine on elementary, our elementary school actually had more than a hundred applicants for two positions last year. In contrast, our middle and high schools in the county are struggling to meet the state mandated requirements of highly qualified teachers in all the core subjects. For example, one of my daughter's teachers in the eighth grade is an elementary school teacher who isn't supposed to be teaching higher than sixth grade but they had to use her anyway because they didn't have anyone else.
Seems like if we need secondary teachers so badly, we'd make it a bit easier to become one. Focus on things that matter, and not quibble over what fine art a student took.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, we don't want our students to be able to write, debate, or critically read?
Sounds wonderful. Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I'm sorry if any of this is incorrect in your situation, but a fair amount of this just seems wrong from my recent experience.
Example: My girlfriend graduated with a BS in Biology 2 years ago, did a 1 year masters program for education in Ohio and then started teaching freshman/sophomore science last year.
Admittedly she is going through some further classes at the momemnt to get some kind of additional certification for her freshman-level class that she teaches, but either way as I understand it she is a fully qualified teacher.
as for your major, I'd try talking to your counsellor again (or possibly other counsellors) generally there is a fair amount of leeway (even when they claim there isn't) in universities, especially when it comes to electives. While often you "officially" have to take X course, if you have a good counsellor they'll generally be fine if you've already taken another course that may be higher on the food chain, cover the "official" course etc... Also, as a double major, I'd expect to have some extra credits, but especially in somewhat related fields I would also think that there would be some possibility of overlap. Try talking through what all your english classes cover, some of the issue might just be that the education counsellor doesn't know what Engl 304 actually is...
Personal Example: I got a minor in Computer Graphics Technology along with my major in Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering. While techinically this meant I took about 3-4 extra CGT classes that were not required for my major, I ended up getting to count a couple of them as "design electives" within my major (even though I just kinda stumbled into that)
Posted by HegemonsAcolyte (Member # 1468) on :
No, we do not want people to become secondary teachers.
I think that high school is highly overrated and that education should stop at middle school;-)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Well, Belle, being a secondary teacher is incredibly hard. Unfortunately, the obstacles placed in your path at the college level are wholly unlike the obstacles that will be placed in your path as an actual teacher.
There is very little overlap between education courses and actual practice, from all that I've been told.
Secondary school is hard to teach because of the personalities and values involved. It is a lot harder to motivate a teenager to be excited about school than it is to get a first grader excited. To make this harder, parents have less influence over a teenager than they do a child.
It's a very hard social environment to juggle, which is why there are so few science/math teachers. People who are drawn to the the sciences are less likely to have the social flexibility to handle the controlled chaos that are teenage lives (at least in my experience).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
It usually does Hegemon, It usually does.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Grimace, I wish that what you said offered me some hope, but it unfortunately doesn't. Since I met with her this morning, I've spent time searching through all the documents from the state dept. of education and it squares with the things she's told me. It's not the university that's causing all this, it's the state and federal requirements.
And, your girlfriend's experience is going to be different because the math and science certifications are different. A biology teacher need only be certified in biology. So, yes, what you've described she went through makes sense. There is no certification in Alabama for secondary English teachers though - it's for Secondary Language Arts which includes not only English and literature but reading education, drama/theater, speech, and mass communications/journalism. That's why all the extra classes - I'm in good shape on meeting the English requirements but I have to go back now and take classes to meet all these other requirements. Specifically, the lower level classes I have to take are the theater, mass comm, and newswriting (I already had credits in speech.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: So, we don't want our students to be able to write, debate, or critically read?
Sounds wonderful.
If being an English major imparted these skills, that would be one thing. As for critical thinking, you can't do it without a thorough grounding in arithmetic, algebra, and logical reasoning - which cannot be taught any better than the hard sciences do.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Belle, you hold your cool like nobody's business. Bravura.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:As for critical thinking, you can't do it without a thorough grounding in arithmetic, algebra, and logical reasoning - which cannot be taught any better than the hard sciences do.
Then colleges should require that even English majors take college level classes in both the sciences and in mathematics.
Oh wait, they do.
Posted by HegemonsAcolyte (Member # 1468) on :
Actually, the requirement to take college level classes in math and science depends on the school.
Also, at least in the schools I have been to, the math and science courses offered to the arts majors are not the same as the ones offered to the science and math majors. From past experience (I used to tutor some of that stuff), a lot of it was glorified high school material and much of it was actually a fair bit simpler than what I was doing in high school.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:As for critical thinking, you can't do it without a thorough grounding in arithmetic, algebra, and logical reasoning - which cannot be taught any better than the hard sciences do.
Then colleges should require that even English majors take college level classes in both the sciences and in mathematics.
Oh wait, they do.
I'm sorry, but they do not. Certainly, there are classes labeled as math and physics for non-science majors; what they are not is 'college level'.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Then colleges should require that even English majors take college level classes in both the sciences and in mathematics.
Oh wait, they do.
No, actually, many don't.
In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of a private institution that does.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
As has been said, it varies from university to university. The university I went to didn't differentiate between sciences - there was only one biology 101 in the catalog and both science and non-science majors took it. I do believe they had a different physics class for physics majors, or maybe it was that physics 101 didn't count toward the physics major, I'm not sure.
As for math, none of the three colleges I've attended had different math classes for non-science majors.
Edit: And, even an English major can't graduate without at least 11 hours in the natural sciences and mathematics - that's at UAB. At UNO, where I began my college career, you were required to have six hours of mathematics so I actually have 14 hours in the sciences and mathematics. Science majors, as well, have to take English composition and at least three hours of literature. Maybe private schools are different, I've only ever attended public universities.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
my apologies that my comments weren't very helpful. I didn't realize how much difference there was between the requirements for english versus science teachers was.
also, can someone give me a comparison for grad school in humanities courses. i.e. how many credits would a normal person be taking when doing that "5th year" program full-time?
I ask because most of the grad-level engineers I know only took 6-9 hours of classes a semester rather than the 12-18 that might have passed in undergrad. so when I see 45 credits I see 5-6 semesters, more of a "5th 6th and 7th year" program... unless you generally take 15 credits a semester.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
No, you're right Grimace - 15 graduate credit hours a semester is a lot. As far as the 5th year program goes, it looks to me on paper that it would indeed take longer than one year, if only because a semester of student teaching is required. You can get out of the student teaching if you're employed full time in a public school, which might be possible because so many schools are short secondary teachers they'll hire you without your certification as long as you're working toward it. I have a friend in the 5th year mathematics program right now who is in that situation - he's already working for a public middle school so he can forego his student teaching. But, he has already been working on his 5th year program for a year and has at least two more semesters to go. Some of the classes can be taken in workshop form during the summer and completed rather quickly, from what he's told me. I do know that most people take longer than one year to finish it. "5th year" might be a bit of a misnomer.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ack, I lost a post.
In six hours (that's hours per week over a semester, right?), you might be able to learn the rudiments of calculus, if you were any good at math. Did you?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by FlyingCow: So, we don't want our students to be able to write, debate, or critically read?
If being an English major imparted these skills, that would be one thing. As for critical thinking, you can't do it without a thorough grounding in arithmetic, algebra, and logical reasoning - which cannot be taught any better than the hard sciences do.
If you had critically read, you'd have noticed I said nothing about critical thinking.
It's not so much being an English major that imparts writing skills and whatnot. It's that the people who choose liberal arts majors already have them, which is why they chose to pursue an advanced degree in those areas.
Linear, scientific personalities have a lot harder time teaching than non-linear, abstract ones.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Critical reading is a subset of critical thinking.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Let me put it in math terms that are easy for you to understand.
A square may be a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
pwned.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Do you have a point, or are you just posting to have an excuse for using the rofl smiley? Because you are not making any sense.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I still ended up taking three math courses in college, even after I'd finished two college-level courses (one stats, one calc) in high school.
Plus the consumer somethingorother class, which was like a third stats. So..I now have four stats classes. I win.
-pH
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I just looked over our college catalog. Teachers must select from a group of science gen-ed courses, but it's almost identical to gen-ed requirements for everyone else (not updated for a new class). There are some extra English and math classes, but not that much.
It isn't ed programs or NCLB, apparently. It's the school. Bummer, dudette.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm sorry, King of Men. That's called a "metaphor" - it's when you compare two things without using the words "like" or "as".
It was unfair of me to say I was going to use math terms, but then go all English-y on you.
Let me break down the comparison.
You say that critical reading is a subset of critical thinking.
This is true.
A square is a subset of a rectangle.
This is also true.
However, this does not mean you can say that a rectangle is a square. By comparison, the first statement does not mean you can say that critical thinking is critical reading.
While critical reading is a type of critical thinking, critical thinking is not a type of critical reading.
Mathematics deals with certain subsets of critical thinking, and critical reading is not one of those.
It's like saying you're teaching "science" - you don't automatically mean you're teaching "advanced particle physics". By teaching "critical thinking skills" you don't automatically mean you're teaching "critical reading skills".
Sure, there are some critical reading skills used in mathematics. Understanding metaphors doesn't seem to be one of them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, the word 'subset' was a little badly chosen, hence the misunderstanding. I should have said 'critical thinking is a prerequisite for critical reading'. That is what I was thinking throughout the discussion, which led to your 'explanations' of which way a subset-relation goes looking rather like non sequiturs.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, it's a prerequisite.
Understanding language, grammar, and syntax is a prerequisite for solving word problems, as well. In fact, in my time as a math teacher, I found that students with poor reading/language scores often had lower math scores than their ability would indicate. It is a common concern among math teachers that if the students knew better how to critically read and understand questions, they wouldn't have as much trouble doing the math.
This also applies to science, as scientific journals and articles are nearly indecipherable to those who have a poor grasp of language skills and critical reading sklls.
All subjects go hand in hand, and to exclude one is to detract from all the others.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My school's silly requirement had to be the biology. Biology for non-science majors counted towards the gen ed requirement but biology for science majors only counted as a gened if you were in a specific list of majors. So, my friend who was a psych major needed to take biology for science students because she was premed. But, technically, she would then still need to take the lower biology. In the end, she registered as a bio major, finished her gened requirements, had that signed off, then officially switched her major back to psych. Now, that was a stupid hoop.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: People who are drawn to the the sciences are less likely to have the social flexibility to handle the controlled chaos that are teenage lives (at least in my experience).
Case in point, King of Men, who sees nothing wrong with coming into a person's thread to state, repeatedly, that her choice of vocation is worthless. Too bad they don't have a course in people skills, or, say, how to be a human being, for science majors.
Of course, if there were a "People Skills for Science Majors," it would have to be watered down for them . . .
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
Of course, if there were a "People Skills for Science Majors," it would have to be watered down for them . . .
As a science major, that's not really fair. Not all of us are socially inept- just 90%.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Of course, if there were a "People Skills for Science Majors," it would have to be watered down for them...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I'm sorry, King of Men. That's called a "metaphor" - it's when you compare two things without using the words "like" or "as".
Actually, this is a simile. It involves a comparison (x is like y), while a metaphor does not (x is y).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
Of course, if there were a "People Skills for Science Majors," it would have to be watered down for them . . .
As a science major, that's not really fair. Not all of us are socially inept- just 90%.
I know. Likewise, not all English majors are scientifically inept. For example, although she has not mentioned it, I believe Belle has taken Calculus. For myself, I majored in literature, went to grad school for it, and am certified to teach it . . . but I actually teach math, in which I also have a degree, and I have been a researcher for two different science-related jobs, and been published through each. I think I have reasonably good social skills, for a science-type, or pretty good science skills, for a literature type. I also think stereotypes like KoM's tend not to hold up in a lot of specific cases, and that turnabout is fair play. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I'm sorry, King of Men. That's called a "metaphor" - it's when you compare two things without using the words "like" or "as".
Actually, this is a simile. It involves a comparison (x is like y), while a metaphor does not (x is y).
Actually a simile is a subset of metaphors. A simile is a metaphor, while a metaphor is not necessarily a semile.
Edit to add: Belle - I feel your pain. I am currently attempting to arrange the University hoops in such a way that I can jump through them. Unfortunately my ramp isn't long enough and my motorbike is low on gas.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That's not how I learned the terms, vonk.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Actually a simile is a subset of metaphors. A simile is a metaphor, while a metaphor is not necessarily a semile.
That is my understanding as well.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
I teach LSAT (law school admission test), GMAT (business school admission test) and MCAT Verbal (subject on the medical school admission test) test prep. The town I teach in is upper-middle class affluent. By far the number one reason I see students stymied in their attempt to improve their scores and get into graduate school is their lack of English skills. The math required for the GMAT and the memorization and regurgitation on the MCAT don't get them. The ability to correct sentences or read four paragraphs in less than five minutes does.
So I suppose English may be irrelevant for those who do not wish to attend graduate school, which is certainly most of the US population. However, for those who do want to become doctors or lawyers, English goes from being ignored to all important.
I feel very sorry for my students. I can help them to bring their scores up quite a bit, but if you don't know what a noun is or have a poor vocabulary, I can't work miracles in six weeks. It seems to me that solid English skills are, to some extent, linked to class and home life. You either got it young or you didn't. Determined individuals can engage in self study to rectify this, but qualified English teachers would make a tremendous positive difference as well.
While I agree that science education is sorely lacking in public and private schools at all levels, I would never encourage elevating one core subject over another in importance. If scientists were more skilled with the written and spoken word, we would not be as susceptible to the media and politicians spinning scientific fact. English is as important as science or mathematics, because while graphs and numbers may help to illustrate these fields, we must first be able to explain their meaning to the uninitiated, and to do that we must be able to use language fluently. To learn a new word is to have a new idea beating against the inside of your skull, and that is how societal advances are made. No one ever inspired men to march onto a battle field by showing them a chart or a proof; no one ever won an election and subsequently passed a bill that changed the color of the faces in our universities by handing out copies of their senior thesis on the distribution of mutations in frog oocytes.
There's a reason why science is poorly understood and appreciated; it's because most scientists don't know how to communicate with people outside their field. Part of the solution is to ensure a solid grounding in science for students. But the other side must reach out as well, and that's why English teachers are so important.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Wow. I am deeply ashamed. That is definitely how I learned it in school. I can vividly recall the discussion in middle school. Yet a cursory internet search tells me I'm wrong. This hurts. Yet again I am disappointed by my education.
Edit: this was in response to Icarus, but if mph agrees, I might stick with my original understanding, I don't know. Can we get a vote? Edit 1a: Ok, after more searching it seems like the internet is in quite a contention as to whether a simile is a metaphor. I'll stick with my original understanding and defend it 'till death now. 'Cause that's just what you do when the internet can't make up its mind.
Edit 2: Sorry, I clicked quote instead of edit.
Edit 3:"A simile is like a metaphor is a simile, but a simile is a metaphor is a metaphor." <-- This amuses me.
[ September 19, 2006, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Both definitions seem to be used.
From Wikipedia:
quote:Metaphor and Simile
Metaphor and simile are two of the best known tropes and are often mentioned together as examples of rhetorical figures. Metaphor and simile are both terms that describe a comparison: the only difference between a metaphor and a simile is that a simile makes the comparison explicit by using "like" or "as." The Colombia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, explains the difference as:
a simile states that A is like B, a metaphor states that A is B or substitutes B for A.
According to this definition, then, "You are my sunshine" is a metaphor whereas "Your eyes are like the sun" is a simile. However, some describe similes as simply a specific type of metaphor (see Joseph Kelly's The Seagull Reader (2005), pages 377-379); in this case, metaphor is the umbrella term for making comparisons between unlike concepts, and simile describes the figure where one makes the comparison explicit.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Actually a simile is a subset of metaphors. A simile is a metaphor, while a metaphor is not necessarily a semile.
It's a subset if you're using a narrow definition of "simile" and a broad definition of "metaphor."
But actually, it looks like I missed the all-important word "without" in FlyingCow's post.
[/footinmouth]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yeah, Porter. I once taught out of a geometry textbook that claimed that parallelograms were a subset of trapezoids. I reckon there's no accounting for stupid textbooks. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
btw, Belle, that really sucks. My undergraduate program was much more flexible, but I guess in a backward and perverted way they're helping you, because I know that right now, people coming out of Florida's universities are not considered highly qualified to teach language arts.
(Requiring specific electives or core classes is still stupid, though. )
I agree with those who say it's all just jumping through hoops.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Um . . . isn't that true? I suppose it depends how you define trapezoid.
(Checked some definitions. Some say "exactly one pair of parallel sides," but some say "having two parallel sides," and I also saw "at least one pair of parallel sides." )
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I believe that under the definition we used in geometry, a paralellogram is in fact a type of trapezoid (four sided polygon, at least two paralel sides).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I once ate a donut hole and still had a whole donut left, whereas if you eat a whole donut, will no longer have a donut hole.
There is a message hidden here for KoM. Can you find it?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You mean not all words have fixed and unambiguous meanings?
*head a splode*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course, if there were a "People Skills for Science Majors," it would have to be watered down for them . . .
To what molarity?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: You mean not all words have fixed and unambiguous meanings?
*head a splode*
My work here is now complete.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Too bad they don't have a course in people skills, or, say, how to be a human being, for science majors.
But I became a science major so I wouldn't have to deal with people! That's what salespeople are for!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Threads like these make me want to change my major.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: People who are drawn to the the sciences are less likely to have the social flexibility to handle the controlled chaos that are teenage lives (at least in my experience).
Case in point, King of Men, who sees nothing wrong with coming into a person's thread to state, repeatedly, that her choice of vocation is worthless.
It's not my fault if Belle insists on making bad choices of major.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Too bad they don't have a course in people skills, or, say, how to be a human being, for science majors.
But I became a science major so I wouldn't have to deal with people! That's what salespeople are for!
I have a professor who loves to rant about how engineers should never be allowed to talk to the customers.
He tells hilarious stories about engineers missing the forest for the trees.
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Icarus, I've not taken calculus, but I had my husband (the math major) teach it to me because I always wanted to learn and felt a lack that I hadn't ever taken it. Plus I wanted to set a good example for my daughter who was in a "math is for boys and I'll never be good at it" stage. Which fortunately she seems to be outgrowing. I did plan on taking calculus, but that was when I thought I'd have electives to spare and now I do not.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
My people skills are fine. I just don't like having to use them.
Hey, Belle, sorry about having to jump through all those hoops. Bureaucracy is a pain to deal with. I often wonder if higher education is less about learning and expanding one's horizons and more about filling out paperwork and going through the motions. I wish you the best, and I'm glad you want to be a secondary school teacher. I had a good experience in high school because of my awesome teachers.
Oh, and tell your daughter that math is NOT just for boys. I can run annuli around most of the boys in my math classes.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I once ate a donut hole and still had a whole donut left, whereas if you eat a whole donut, will no longer have a donut hole.
There is a message hidden here for KoM. Can you find it?
Donut be a hole?
----------
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: ... [snipped out lots of good stuff, just to reduce length for quote] ... There's a reason why science is poorly understood and appreciated; it's because most scientists don't know how to communicate with people outside their field. Part of the solution is to ensure a solid grounding in science for students. But the other side must reach out as well, and that's why English teachers are so important.
Samarkand, I think that was an absolutely brilliant post, and I'm saving it for future reference. Thanks.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote: As for critical thinking, you can't do it without a thorough grounding in arithmetic, algebra, and logical reasoning - which cannot be taught any better than the hard sciences do.
I would hope that people in college already have a thorough grounding in atirthmetic and algebra... and hard science classes do not excel at teaching logical reasoning. Soft sciences, math, economics, engineering, and philosophy are much better at teaching logical reasoning - because they rely less on direct experimentation and more on inferences.
In addition, critical thinking is most useful when paired with communication skills - which the English major excels at teaching. You need to understand what someone is telling you in order to approach it critically. You need to be able to express yourself in order to tell anyone else what you have critically thought. For a teacher, this is especially important, because their job entails understanding and communicating with students and parents.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I agree with 100% of what Tres just said.
:faints:
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's because of people like that that I have a job. Really, we shouldn't need technical writers at all because ideally the technical people could communicate it themselves.
They often (usually) can't. Their attempts are amusing but unhelpful.
Knowledge that cannot be communicated may as well not exist.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I agree with 100% of what Tres just said.
:faints:
I know!
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
What's the resemblance between an engineer and a dog? You can see the intelligence in their eyes, but neither of them can communicate it.
/proud to be(come) an engineer
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I gave a presentation to my peers where I included a few jokes as well as an attempt to make sure everyone understood it. We receive feedback and one of the comments I got was that including jokes was an insult to their intelligence, as well as explaining certain concepts. My talk was not "sciencey" enough for them. I figured, well, no one fell asleep during my presentation and during that person's presentation, several people fell asleep and frankly, that means more to me then coming off as smart.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I would hope that people in college already have a thorough grounding in atirthmetic and algebra...
Yes, wouldn't you?
quote:and hard science classes do not excel at teaching logical reasoning. Soft sciences, math, economics, engineering, and philosophy are much better at teaching logical reasoning - because they rely less on direct experimentation and more on inferences.
How many hard-science classes have you in fact taken? You trying doing quantum mechanics without drawing inferences.
quote:In addition, critical thinking is most useful when paired with communication skills - which the English major excels at teaching.
You do know what authors, surely the premier example of people good at communicating, tend to think of English majors, yes?
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Donut be a hole?
Dear CT,
I heart you.
Like, a hole heck of a lot. Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's because of people like that that I have a job. Really, we shouldn't need technical writers at all because ideally the technical people could communicate it themselves.
They often (usually) can't. Their attempts are amusing but unhelpful.
Knowledge that cannot be communicated may as well not exist.
I was asked to write documentation once. Once...
Since then my employer stated that I was to *never* attempt to write documentation again.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How many hard-science classes have you in fact taken? You trying doing quantum mechanics without drawing inferences.
12 credits - none of which was quantum mechanics, although it should be noted that I never said hard science could be done without any inferences whatsoever. All subject areas use inferences. Some just rely on the logical process more than others.
quote:You do know what authors, surely the premier example of people good at communicating, tend to think of English majors, yes?
Authors, in general, are not the premier example of people good at communicating. Many of them are poor at public speaking, and a few of them aren't even that good at writing clearly. What they ARE good at is authoring books that people will buy and/or enjoy. They are usually skilled in the art of creating ideas.
The premier examples of people good at communicating would probably be journalists, teachers, corporate spokespersons, politicians, and technical writers. And I suspect many of these are English majors.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:You do know what authors, surely the premier example of people good at communicating, tend to think of English majors, yes?
Seeing as most of the published folk I know were English/History/Communication/Theater majors, I'm not sure where you're going there. Are you claiming that people who major in the hard sciences are better writers?
Plus, as was just mentioned, authors are not necessarily great communicators, and great communicators are not necessarily great authors.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
I see this problem all the time. The education standards have gotten out of control and the Education Departments can barely keep up with the YEARLY changes in requirements. NCLB is a joke.
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
quote:I was asked to write documentation once. Once...
Since then my employer stated that I was to *never* attempt to write documentation again.
Nicely done.
Part of the problem is that the rewards for writing good documentation are:
1) You'll be asked to produce more of it. 2) It'll be easier to replace you now that you've turned one of your quasi-magical powers into a set of instructions that anyone can carry out.
The incentives to improve just aren't there.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I wonder if KoM has ever diagrammed a sentence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not since I was in the first year of high school, but yes, I have. Why?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
If your point, Glenn, is that diagramming requires critical thinking skill, then I believe you are missing KoM's point. He is not saying that language skills are unimportant, or that critical thought is unimportant in the language arts. When he says nobody should become a secondary school language arts teacher, his point is not that language arts should not be taught. Heck, look at how often he posts simply to point out that somebody has made a grammatical mistake--clearly, he is no hater of language. No, KoM's purpose seems clearly to be to put down not the discipline but the people. He is crapping in this thread because it makes him feel good about himself to call people stupid.
In other words, he's trolling.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must disagree, for the good and simple reason that what is taught at college-level English departments is hardly the rudiments of grammar. (At least, I hope it isn't!) Hence, I see no contradiction in dissing both English majors and people who can't, or won't, learn to spell.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I feel absolutely no shame in the fact that I don't care enough to learn how to spell "correctly" all the words I use.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You're dissing people who want to become high school English teachers, who do teach grammar.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Since when does one need a four-year degree to teach kids the difference between the subejct and the object? It's important, but it's not difficult.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
What should the requirements be to teach high school kids how to write? A high school diploma?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:what is taught at college-level English departments is hardly the rudiments of grammar. (At least, I hope it isn't!)
That depends on the college, the class, and/or the students.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
One of my graduate courses includes, partly, grammar. I don't mean subject/predicate. I mean making sure that everyone knows where to put commas, the difference between active/passive voice, positive vs. negative voice, who vs. whom, when to put hyphens...the little nitpicky things that many people either never knew or have forgotten.
-pH
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
Actually I didn't forget how to use hyphens and commas, who vs. whom etc it was deliberately trained out of me by a well meaning 'advanced' English teacher in 11th grade who gave us packets upon packet upon packets of worksheets for every rule. After doing essentially the same 'correction' 200 times I no longer could understand what was correct and incorrect, I only knew how to to automatically plug and chug through the english problems presented to us by the worksheets. Ever since that class I've had the worst trouble with commas and apostrophes. I have to carefully think about it to get it right. My grammer doesn't come with the casual ease it once did.
This teacher also thought it was a good idea to teach the concept of 'frame story' by making the class read aloud the beginning and ending frames, then she yammered on and on about how wonderful a device it was, then we reading the middle chunk to ourselves. She foisted this outrage upon Mark Twain, to a story I dearly loved. I was furious.
quote:What should the requirements be to teach high school kids how to write? A high school diploma?
The only safe mentors of children are certified experts with state-licensed conditioning; children must be protected from the uncertified.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*shrug* And what's your non-facetious answer?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Last I checked, high school English teachers taught significantly more than grammar.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What should the requirements be to teach high school kids how to write? A high school diploma?
I would think mainly just the ability to write, an interest in writing, and the ability to teach it effectively to kids. That last part would be one most people can't fulfill.
In truth, however, I haven't seen much reason to believe that doing advanced studies in English makes one better at teaching writing to kids. In high school at least, I probably learned more writing skills from non-English classes than from my English classes. It was those teachers that taught us what was actually useful in practice (what you'd need to do to communicate effectively, rather than what you needed to do in order to satisfy strange grammatical rules.) They understood writing from the perspective of using it for other disciplines, rather than from having studied it for its own sake.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its important to note high school English is usually more about teaching students how to read than how to write.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: One of my graduate courses includes, partly, grammar. I don't mean subject/predicate. I mean making sure that everyone knows where to put commas, the difference between active/passive voice, positive vs. negative voice, who vs. whom, when to put hyphens...the little nitpicky things that many people either never knew or have forgotten.
-pH
Positive and negative voice? There's no such thing.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Since when does one need a four-year degree to teach kids the difference between the subejct and the object? It's important, but it's not difficult.
First, a parallel argument could be "Since when does one need a four-year degree to teach kids the difference between multiplication and division?" See how silly that sounds? Math is far more than that, and English is far more than subject/object differentiation.
To tear an entire field of study down to a simple component does not make a valid argument. Creating valid theses and arguments is another element of English as a field of study, btw.
Further, even with something as simple as subject/object difference, you claim it's not difficult.
Have you taught a class of 30 twelve year olds the difference between a subject and an object? Have they all learned the concept enough to understand and apply it? Do they all know when to use me v. I, or us v. we, or other common subject/object misconceptions?
It's not a difficult concept. Then again, neither is division. However, students struggle with division more than anything they've been taught previously, and failures in understanding send ripple effects through their understanding of decimals, fractions, and algebra.
It's not "easy" to teach students anything, KoM. Some things go more smoothly than others, obviously, but whenever you present something new to a group of children/teenagers who may or may not care one iota about a word you say, there's far more than just presenting the material.
If it was as easy as you make it, we could just hand out books with all the information in them and expect the students to figure it out themselves.
Edit to add: It's also normally the hard science majors who make statements starting with: "I'm supposed to teach math/science, not..."
They then proceed to finish the sentence with "...be a counselor" or "...be a therapist" or "...be a parent" or "...be a role model" or "...be an advocate."
It's nice to think that teaching just means presenting material, and many hard science folk come in thinking it's just that. However, presenting material is only a component of the job (and often a small one). If you can't gain the trust of the students, help them to get past the barriers they've created, help them feel safe in the classroom both physically and socially, help them feel part of a community that values academic success... if you can't do any of that, you can present the material all the live long day without your students learning a thing.
It causes a lot of hard science folks to wash out, realizing it's a lot more than they bargained for and retreating back to a more linear career.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So in that bit of text, which part is the one where you argue that an English major helps you teach?
And before you ask, hard science helps you teach because, essentially, it teaches you how to debug. You cannot do math, lab, or programming without learning how to go back to your assumptions and figure out which part is giving you trouble.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
KoM, If what you were saying is true, then one would expect that expertise in hard science would translate automatically into excellence in teaching, which it obviously does not.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Its important to note high school English is usually more about teaching students how to read than how to write.
Not in my experience. The emphasis was on essay writing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Interesting. I'd say most of the time in class was spent reading or doing something related to understanding the reading.
Writing was also a good part, but was generally less than the reading.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by pH: One of my graduate courses includes, partly, grammar. I don't mean subject/predicate. I mean making sure that everyone knows where to put commas, the difference between active/passive voice, positive vs. negative voice, who vs. whom, when to put hyphens...the little nitpicky things that many people either never knew or have forgotten.
-pH
Positive and negative voice? There's no such thing.
In managerial communications, they teach you a lot about how to word things in a way to get people to do what you want. So instead of saying "Don't do this," you have to turn it into "Please do such-and-such." Which can actually be a pain.
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: KoM, If what you were saying is true, then one would expect that expertise in hard science would translate automatically into excellence in teaching, which it obviously does not.
Necessary, not sufficient. Possibly not even necessary, just 'more-likely-to-lead-to'.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I disagree. I've had many science teachers who were, in fact, very very poor teachers. I've also had many teachers in the so-called "softer" subjects who were absolutely marvelous. I don't think science is any more likely to lead to excellence in teaching than any other field.
My English class experience was like fugu's--lots of reading and analysis of reading. I did have one teacher who focused a great deal on writing and communicating effectively (and there's MUCH more to that than good spelling and grammar). Our writing in her class, however, was heavily focused on writing analytical critiques of literature.
Incidentally, I attribute much of my writing skill to that teacher.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: In managerial communications, they teach you a lot about how to word things in a way to get people to do what you want. So instead of saying "Don't do this," you have to turn it into "Please do such-and-such." Which can actually be a pain.
-pH
And that's why I will never be a manager.
Well, that or my insistance of adding the word "moron" to the end of the sentence.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:No, KoM's purpose seems clearly to be to put down not the discipline but the people. He is crapping in this thread because it makes him feel good about himself to call people stupid.
I understand that part. It's quite clear that KoM is very insecure.
No, the point I was making was not merely that diagramming a sentence requires critical thinking skills, but that a thoroughly diagrammed sentence is an exercise in pure logic, which is at least (if not more, due to nuance) as rigorous as a mathematical proof.
BTW I'm a math major, not an english major. But I remember seeing a set of diagrams that detailed the differences between the sentences "I've been to the store," and "I've gone to the store" that knocked my socks off.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:So instead of saying "Don't do this," you have to turn it into "Please do such-and-such."
That's problematic in other ways. It may be a neat trick, but by telling people what to do rather than telling people what to avoid, you are drawing artifical boundaries, often resulting in people thinking that there is only one way to perform a given task.
If my opinion mattered, instead of saying, "Don't do this," say, "We want (the desired result.)," and if need be, show how the behavior is not consistent with producing the desired result, that way, you are getting rid of the bad behavior and discouraging group think.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Very little is more frustrating than a manager who doesn't understand what you're doing, can't do what you're doing, and tries to tell you how to do it.
You pay me good money to do my job, let me do it and go enjoy your higher pay for doing nothing. Managers are worthless, most of the time.
Edit: My girlfriend, who is a manager, has instructed me to say that bad managers are worthless, but good managers are super awesome and sexy. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Irami, that's also part of it. I was simplifying.
Wait, I forgot, you hate MBAs and think they exist solely to bring down the rest of the human race.
Carry on.
-pH
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:So in that bit of text, which part is the one where you argue that an English major helps you teach?
Which part is the one where you show any evidence or experience leading you to believe that being a hard math/science major helps you teach?
Fact is, your major doesn't help you teach. Even if (especially if?) you major in education. But saying "At least, people with English majors should not become teachers. They're not qualified." is wrong on so many levels as to make it difficult to argue against.
It's like someone arguing that the sky is plaid, or that humans have gills. If you truly believe that, you have gone down some weird logical road that I have trouble following, and I can't really help you.
What makes you think that an English major is not qualified to teach? What makes you think that, say, a Physics major is better qualified to teach?
You're not saying anything that isn't just mean-spirited rhetoric from a pro-science, anti-english major point of view.
Say something of substance please, with some support. So far, your thesis seems to be "English majors are unqualified to teach" - can we see some support for that? Because it seems like a pretty ignorant and inflammatory statement without any backup... or, as we call it on forums, trolling.
So, come out from under your bridge, please. Stop sniping and start crafting a rational argument.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Wait, I forgot, you hate MBAs and think they exist solely to bring down the rest of the human race.
No, leading the world to perdition is merely a negative externality.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Say something of substance please, with some support. So far, your thesis seems to be "English majors are unqualified to teach" - can we see some support for that?
Well, look you, what does an English major actually know that is of any value? I think we've agreed that neither grammar nor basic algebra requires a college degree. So the difference lies in critical thinking, and perhaps the ability to learn. For critical thinking, I would note that the scientific method is nothing but critical thinking. Now, you may argue that you need it also for what OSC calls 'critickal' thinking; but the difference is that such thought is never tested against reality. Any two explanations of, say, what Shakespeare was going for in a play are equally valid, within broad limits. The critical thinking is never whetted against a hard test. Next let me look at the ability to learn. A physics student will need to learn (in addition to the actual application of equations to problems) quite large amounts of calculus, matrix-vector mathematics, computer programming (with its offshoot of numerical theory), vast amounts of statistics, and above all, how to play around with a problem. This last is particularly important; I do not think you can cite any equivalent approach in literature. In my work as a grad student, the phrase I hear most often (apart from "time for lunch") is "Let's try it and see what happens". There is no better way to learn something about a problem, and I recall from recent threads how the people who actually work in schools have been complaining about kids wanting instructions for every little step. Plainly, they need a physics teacher to tell them to figure things out on their own.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well, look you, what does an English major actually know that is of any value?
Well, if it's any consolation, it's worth noting that English majors regularly exhibit the exact kind of mental flexibility that you argue we should expect from physics majors, so much so that it's actually one of the most popular arguments for an English major.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Obviously, King of Men, you've never been an English major if you believe that there is insufficient critical thinking. Try writing a 30 page paper supporting one side of an argument, and another 30 page paper supporting the other, and make both compelling.
Literature does indeed have ample opportunity to "play around with a problem." What are a character's motivations in a chapter, what is being lampooned in a story, what message is the writer trying to get across? You make a guess, work through it, and see if it fits. If not, you use the knowledge you've gained to make another guess. At least an English major is dealing with real world situations, human interactions, social identity, and so forth.
It could be argued, for example, that science or math degrees lead to rigid thinking, because there is only one right answer to any problem, and one right method to find that answer. All the other attempts end in failure, and are wasted effort.
An English major might see many possible correct methods to arrive at a correct conclusion, and view each attempt as an opportunity to broaden ones horizons and experience a new viewpoint.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:English majors regularly exhibit the exact kind of mental flexibility
How do you know?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Try writing a 30 page paper supporting one side of an argument, and another 30 page paper supporting the other, and make both compelling.
You're sort of missing my point here. If both sides of an argument can be equally well supported, then there is no critical thinking involved; only debating tactics.
quote:Literature does indeed have ample opportunity to "play around with a problem." What are a character's motivations in a chapter, what is being lampooned in a story, what message is the writer trying to get across? You make a guess, work through it, and see if it fits.
Two points : First, who cares? Or to put it a little less arrogantly, why is this important? Second, since there is no external standard for when you've got the answer, this does not teach 'playing around with the problem until you see the way to solve it', it teaches 'play around with it until you're tired of thinking'.
quote:At least an English major is dealing with real world situations, human interactions, social identity, and so forth.
You do know what the word 'fiction' means, yes?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think it's worth noting that Belle is going for a double major—an English major and an education major. The English major by itself is not designed to teach someone how to teach.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I think we've agreed that neither grammar nor basic algebra requires a college degree. So the difference lies in critical thinking, and perhaps the ability to learn.
So, the only division in your mind between an English degree and a Physics degree is differences in critical thinking and the ability to learn?
Seeing as individuals with excellent critical thinking skills and extraordinary learning ability can be found in both liberal arts and hard science fields, this statement is meaningless.
quote:For critical thinking, I would note that the scientific method is nothing but critical thinking.
And again you ignore critical reading. You know, you use different skills to read an opinion article than you do to read a brownie recipe, or a science textbook.
quote:Now, you may argue that you need it also for what OSC calls 'critickal' thinking; but the difference is that such thought is never tested against reality. Any two explanations of, say, what Shakespeare was going for in a play are equally valid, within broad limits.
I would argue no such thing.
However, I would argue that it is important to read important works with a more critical eye than one would read, say, the back of a cereal box. For instance, there's more to Animal farm than just a story about pigs.
quote:The critical thinking is never whetted against a hard test.
Nor is most critical thinking one needs in day to day life. Assessing the motivations and meanings in the words of others. Determining how best to respond to social stimuli in the environment. Any form of persuasive writing or the reading of the same.
How are any of these "whetted against a hard test"?
So, why is something that can be "whetted against a hard test" more intrinsically valuable than something that cannot be?
quote:Next let me look at the ability to learn. A physics student will need to learn (in addition to the actual application of equations to problems) quite large amounts of calculus, matrix-vector mathematics, computer programming (with its offshoot of numerical theory), vast amounts of statistics, and above all, how to play around with a problem.
None of that deals with the ability to learn. It may deal with prerequisites to learning, but has nothing to do with ability.
Are you saying that Physics is more intrinsically important because it requires more prerequisites? Does number of prerequisite knowledges define value?
To bring it back to the discussion at hand, knowledge of calculus, matrix-vector mathematics, computer programming, and vast amounts of statistics do not help you communicate with teenage students, teach them to value learning, or allow you to even relate well to other human beings.
The ability to solve a differential equation has nothing to do with the ability to motivate a child to learn. The ability to program a computer to solve any number of math problems has nothing to do with the ability to encourage children to improve themselves and expand their minds.
So, that said, none of those things make someone any more or less qualified to be a good teacher.
quote:and above all, how to play around with a problem. This last is particularly important; I do not think you can cite any equivalent approach in literature.
Seeing as you are very vague in explaining the use of "play around", I'll venture to say that you mean attempting to solve a mathematical or scientific problem by approaching it from many angles and applying prior knowledge in an attempt to arrive at a solution.
Is that too far off?
If you don't think you can play around with word meaning, word choice, authorial intent, historical perspective, sociopolitical motivation, or any number of other factors when critically reading a poem, novel, or other piece of literature in an attempt to better understand it in a greater context, then you didn't pay attention much in your liberal arts classes.
quote:In my work as a grad student, the phrase I hear most often (apart from "time for lunch") is "Let's try it and see what happens". There is no better way to learn something about a problem
And you can't do this in any area other than science? It seems you're taking a very narrow view of the world.
People try all manner of things in a literary context to "see what happens" - and to say they don't is being narrowminded.
quote:I recall from recent threads how the people who actually work in schools have been complaining about kids wanting instructions for every little step. Plainly, they need a physics teacher to tell them to figure things out on their own.
Yes, I'm one of those who actually work in schools, btw.
Students do want instructions for every single step, but this is not because they need a physics teacher. It seems that you think non-science teachers never ask students to figure things out on their own - when, in fact, those teachers who are complaining about students' difficulty in this area are doing so because they *are* asking students to do things on their own, and observing students' struggles in this area.
Again, though, you haven't given any support to these arguments:
quote:people with English majors should not become teachers. They're not qualified.
What qualifications to teach are you aware of that English majors intrinsically do not possess?
quote:It's not my fault if Belle insists on making bad choices of major.
What makes her major bad? This is a pretty strong opinion, backed up only by your opinion of what makes a physics major good.
quote:You do know what authors, surely the premier example of people good at communicating, tend to think of English majors, yes?
Please enlighten us with quotes from abundance of authors that have denegrated English majors.
quote:Since when does one need a four-year degree to teach kids the difference between the subejct and the object? It's important, but it's not difficult.
Also, please enlighten us with your in-depth understanding of what makes teaching difficult or not difficult. How many students have you taught the difference between subject and object to?
[ September 25, 2006, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Having been generally shut out of religious discussions because no one takes him seriously anymore, King of Men goes after something else important to people in order to get attention.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I just want to point out I appreciate everyone's supportive comments and I don't look to KoM to validate my career choice.
Edit to add: I actually feel really good today, my English professor walked with me after class, he was headed back to his office and I was headed to my next class and we started talking and he asked what my plans were. I told him to teach, preferably in the middle schools, my ideal job would be 7th or 8th grade Language arts teacher. His response was "Oh thank goodness. I was hoping you would become a teacher. I don't suppose you'd consider coming to work at the middle school my kids will be attending?" My answer was sadly, no, because he lives on the complete opposite side of town. Still, it felt good to hear. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Tough out the ridiculous requirements and the seemingly meaningless hoops, Belle. They're just obstacles put in your way to quantitatively measure teacher quality or qualifications.
Unfortunately, teacher quality is not a measurable value, despite civil servants who desperately try to label it as such.
A coworker of mine was once asked to speak with a group of education majors at Montclair State University. She told them: "Don't worry about what they teach you here - 95% of it goes out the window the first day of school, anyway." She was totally on the money, but it shouldn't surprise you that she wasn't asked back.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Try writing a 30 page paper supporting one side of an argument, and another 30 page paper supporting the other, and make both compelling.
You're sort of missing my point here. If both sides of an argument can be equally well supported, then there is no critical thinking involved; only debating tactics.
quote:Literature does indeed have ample opportunity to "play around with a problem." What are a character's motivations in a chapter, what is being lampooned in a story, what message is the writer trying to get across? You make a guess, work through it, and see if it fits.
Two points : First, who cares? Or to put it a little less arrogantly, why is this important? Second, since there is no external standard for when you've got the answer, this does not teach 'playing around with the problem until you see the way to solve it', it teaches 'play around with it until you're tired of thinking'.
quote:At least an English major is dealing with real world situations, human interactions, social identity, and so forth.
You do know what the word 'fiction' means, yes?
Thanks for making my point perfectly. To you, if it isn't provable in some formula, it must not be real. An English major would have taught you not to be so narrow minded.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Belle, I love that feeling your professor gave you saying you should be a teacher.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Thanks for making my point perfectly. To you, if it isn't provable in some formula, it must not be real. An English major would have taught you not to be so narrow minded.
And to you, apparently, if you can't respond to the points made, it is perfectly acceptable to reach for your little box of ad homs. A physics major would have taught you to stick to the issues.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Having been generally shut out of religious discussions because no one takes him seriously anymore, King of Men goes after something else important to people in order to get attention.
And it works, too! Gotcha! Actually, though, I'd participate in religious discussions if there were any.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I like this thread. It has all the things I need for entertainment: some excellent posts, some flaming, KoM baiting people into arguing with him, porter and JB discussing semantics, some funny, some TomD, CT, Ic, etc.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:A physics major would have taught you to stick to the issues.
But not to support them, it seems, with fact. At this point, all I'm hearing is a lot of "English is icky, so there!" and "Science is teh awesome!"
Care to offer some factual support for why English majors are unqualified to be teachers by their very nature? Care to offer some direct evidence of what "authors" in the general sense think of English majors? Care to offer some direct experience based anecdotal evidence on how teaching is "not difficult"?
We're waiting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:I think we've agreed that neither grammar nor basic algebra requires a college degree. So the difference lies in critical thinking, and perhaps the ability to learn.
So, the only division in your mind between an English degree and a Physics degree is differences in critical thinking and the ability to learn?
Seeing as individuals with excellent critical thinking skills and extraordinary learning ability can be found in both liberal arts and hard science fields, this statement is meaningless.
There's such a thing as a correlation; but anyway I would dispute the bit about finding such people in both fields.
quote:And again you ignore critical reading. You know, you use different skills to read an opinion article than you do to read a brownie recipe, or a science textbook.
As I said, a subset of critical thinking. Learn to think, and you automatically get reading along with it.
quote:However, I would argue that it is important to read important works with a more critical eye than one would read, say, the back of a cereal box. For instance, there's more to Animal farm than just a story about pigs.
Yes, but you can hardly argue that it takes any particular training to spot that level of satire!
quote:Nor is most critical thinking one needs in day to day life. Assessing the motivations and meanings in the words of others. Determining how best to respond to social stimuli in the environment. Any form of persuasive writing or the reading of the same.
How are any of these "whetted against a hard test"?
They aren't; which is precisely why they cannot be used to teach critical thinking, which is what we were discussing.
quote:So, why is something that can be "whetted against a hard test" more intrinsically valuable than something that cannot be?
Because we were discussing how to learn critical thinking. You cannot learn the right way to do something if there's no negative feedback for doing it wrong!
quote:None of that deals with the ability to learn. It may deal with prerequisites to learning, but has nothing to do with ability.
I think you misunderstood my point. A physics major has to be able to learn the subjects I listed; therefore, he'll get a lot of practice at learning different things.
quote:To bring it back to the discussion at hand, knowledge of calculus, matrix-vector mathematics, computer programming, and vast amounts of statistics do not help you communicate with teenage students, teach them to value learning, or allow you to even relate well to other human beings.
Granted, but I still don't see you arguing that the ability to read Shakespeare with an eye to his flattery of King James does this either. So the two subejcts are equal on this score, but physics is ahead on the ones I mentioned.
quote:So, that said, none of those things make someone any more or less qualified to be a good teacher.
Again, you appear to be missing my point. The idea was not that calculus is important to being a teacher (though actually, I think it is, simply because it's a powerful model for looking at the world, and additional models are always good), but rather that the experience of learning calculus is beneficial to developing your ability to learn at all. Practice makes perfect, in learning skill as in anything else.
quote:Seeing as you are very vague in explaining the use of "play around", I'll venture to say that you mean attempting to solve a mathematical or scientific problem by approaching it from many angles and applying prior knowledge in an attempt to arrive at a solution.
Is that too far off?
If you don't think you can play around with word meaning, word choice, authorial intent, historical perspective, sociopolitical motivation, or any number of other factors when critically reading a poem, novel, or other piece of literature in an attempt to better understand it in a greater context, then you didn't pay attention much in your liberal arts classes.
I already dealt with this argument, so I'll just quote myself:
quote: since there is no external standard for when you've got the answer, this does not teach 'playing around with the problem until you see the way to solve it', it teaches 'play around with it until you're tired of thinking'.
Again, though, you haven't given any support to these arguments:
quote:What qualifications to teach are you aware of that English majors intrinsically do not possess?
Critical thinking; ability to learn anything; playing around with a problem until it is solved; logical, step-by-step debugging; mathematical view of the world.
quote:What makes her major bad? This is a pretty strong opinion, backed up only by your opinion of what makes a physics major good.
Lack of all the stuff in my previous paragraph.
quote:Please enlighten us with quotes from the abundance of authors who have denigrated English majors.
quote:Also, please enlighten us with your in-depth understanding of what makes teaching difficult or not difficult. How many students have you taught the difference between subject and object to?
Three, and they all got it, too. You should please note, though, that my 'not difficult' was intended to refer to the subject-object distinction, not the teaching of it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: [QB]Care to offer some factual support for why English majors are unqualified to be teachers by their very nature?
Once again, I would direct you to my previous post that you have not yet answered:
quote:If both sides of an argument can be equally well supported, then there is no critical thinking involved; only debating tactics.
This is an assertion about facts. You are certainly at liberty to disagree, to say that it ain't so. That's fine. But I don't think it's quite honest to classify this as mere opinion.
quote: Care to offer some direct evidence of what "authors" in the general sense think of English majors?
Our posts here seem to have crossed; see my OSC link in the previous post.
quote: Care to offer some direct experience based anecdotal evidence on how teaching is "not difficult"?
I believe you have misunderstood me; I did not say that teaching is easy, I said the subject-object distinction is easy.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And to you, apparently, if you can't respond to the points made, it is perfectly acceptable to reach for your little box of ad homs. A physics major would have taught you to stick to the issues.
Did you learn about ad hominem in Physics? Sounds like valuable liberal arts educations rearing its ugly head.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, I learned about ad homs in evo/creo 'debates'. Hard science, at least on the right side.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As an incidental aside, are FlyingCow and MightyCow the same person? Very similar user names, but posting side by side. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If you spent more time in English class, you'd realize that "Flying" and "Mighty" are actually different words Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And if you'd spent more time learning biology, you'd realise that when you've seen one cow, you've seen 'em all.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I accept your apology.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I did not intend one.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Then I shall send a friend to wail on you ;P
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I would dispute the bit about finding such people in both fields.
Proof, please. Support, please. We're still waiting.
quote: Learn to think, and you automatically get reading along with it.
Proof, please. Support, please. We're still waiting.
quote:you can hardly argue that it takes any particular training to spot that level of satire!
Which level of satire in that book are you talking about? There are many.
quote:teach critical thinking, which is what we were discussing.
If you think, after reading three pages of posts, that that is what we're discussing, then you really don't have any idea what critical reading skills are.
quote:Because we were discussing how to learn critical thinking. You cannot learn the right way to do something if there's no negative feedback for doing it wrong!
Again, try reading for understanding, rather than just reading for what you think someone might be saying.
No one said anything about there being no negative feedback. There's plenty of negative feedback that isn't "whetted against a hard test" in the sense that there are right and wrong answers.
But, as a science-dominant person, it's not surprising you think this way.
quote:A physics major has to be able to learn the subjects I listed; therefore, he'll get a lot of practice at learning different things.
And someone studying medieval literature must learn french, latin, greek, arabic, history, etc, etc... they have practice learning different things, too.
You just don't value those things - this is not the same as their being valueless.
quote:Granted, but I still don't see you arguing that the ability to read Shakespeare with an eye to his flattery of King James does this either. So the two subejcts are equal on this score
If you note, I'm not saying English makes someone *more* qualified to teach - I'm trying to understand why you think it makes one *unqualified* to teach.
Of course, being able to read and interpret authorial intent from context is very helpful when, say, reading memos from your boss, campaign literature for candidates, or op/ed pieces in the newspaper or online - or when listening to pundits or politicians speak.
But, of course, none of that has hard and fast answers, so it must be valueless.
quote:'playing around with the problem until you see the way to solve it', it teaches 'play around with it until you're tired of thinking'.
But, in your little world, there are no problems that are inherently unanswerable.
quote:Critical thinking; ability to learn anything; playing around with a problem until it is solved; logical, step-by-step debugging;
If you honestly think that an english major does not teach critical thinking, ways of approaching problems from different angles until you come up with a solution (or, wonder of wonders, a compromise!), or logical progression (have you ever taken a philosophy class?), then you obviously don't have clue one as to what an English major entails.
As for ability to think, if you feel any collegiate major choice somehow imparts an ability to think, you're deluding yourself.
But, based on what I've been reading, that seems to be a hobby of yours.
These misconceptions about the world shed a lot of light on your bizarre points of view. But you go on believing the world is flat (warning! metaphor alert! warning!) - who are we to stop you.
quote:Here's OSC on deconstruction, for example.
I'm sorry, I forgot. You don't read well. There was a plural there you missed.
Then again, if you feel a single example is representative of truth, you must also feel that a single point makes a line.
quote:Three, and they all got it, too.
I'm glad all our teachers only have three students to deal with every day.
quote: I did not say that teaching is easy, I said the subject-object distinction is easy.
Actually, you said that teaching the subject-object distinction is easy. Was it your writing skills or your reading skills that fell down on that one?
Also, as a grad student, you can say a great many things are easy. Say, 8 divided by 2, or the square root of 16. To a student just learning them, even easy concepts can be daunting.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If both sides of an argument can be equally well supported, then there is no critical thinking involved; only debating tactics. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an assertion about facts. You are certainly at liberty to disagree, to say that it ain't so. That's fine. But I don't think it's quite honest to classify this as mere opinion.
So, ignoring the rest of what is wrong with your statement, you really feel that debate doesn't require critical thinking? What exactly is critical thinking in your flat little world?
quote:As an incidental aside, are FlyingCow and MightyCow the same person?
No, we're not. Just as Storm_Saxon and johnsaxon aren't the same person, and Bob_Scopatz and Bob_the_Lawyer aren't the same person.
Incidentally, Calculus I and Calculus II aren't the same class - but, I guess if you've taken one Calc class, you've taken them all. Nice logic and critical thinking, there.
And as an aside, if you had critically read, you'd notice our writing styles are different. However, this seems to be a skill you do not possess.
I think I've grown tired of the troll under this particular bridge. It may be time to take my billy goats gruff elsewhere.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, really, if your entire post is going to boil down to 'You are an idiot, nyah-nyah', why not just say so and save a bunch of typing?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
There's definitely more said in that post than "you are an idiot, nyah-nyah."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yes, if you look at the first letters of the sentences, you can see they spell out "poopyhead."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why is anyone talking to KoM? It's not worth it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*mildly
Having studied graduate-level sciences and graduate-level humanities courses, I can say for sure that I was definitely stretched by my humanities work. (I am not going to comment on which is better or worse, just on the worth of one even in contrast to the other.)
Even in graduate level sciences courses, there tends (not always, but tends) to be one right answer to a question on a test. That is, there is both the tacit assumption that doing it right will get you a consistant answer and the conditioned response of satisfaction at having found the answer sought. (I am speaking of test questions here, although a more general point also applies, in my view.)
This is in contrast to the less clear-cut world of the humanities, where there are "better" and "worse" arguments even in the absence of a single right answer. That is very hard to cope with for some people, me included, although I found it intoxicating as well. In applying the sciences to real-world situations, I found that my humanities background prepared me (much better than some of my pure hard sciences-trained colleagues, I think) to deal with ambiguity, lack of surety, and ill-defined problems.
Foe example, one of the biggest problems in bioethics is in noting when something is, in fact, a potential ethical problem. And even when it is flagged for you (such as having medical students practice their pelvic exam skills on unconsented, unconscious women in the pre-op room), there tends to be in my experience a strong element of of black-and-white thinking, an either/or, right answer/wrong answer approach by my colleagues.
"Well, we have to learn sometime."
"They are knocked out anyway, so they will never know."
"Who's to say it isn't for the good of the patient? We do all sorts of things they don't know about, like stick in urinary catheters while they are out." (this from an attending physician)
"Do you not want there to be another generation of physicians? Everyone has to start somewhere."
etc.
But of course, there are other options. The literature about pediatric resident training is pretty clear that if one identifies oneself as a trainee and promises a limited number of attempts at a new procedure, most parents will agree (e.g., 1 or 2 tries at an IV). However, their anger at being deceived into thinking you have done this many times before is pretty much unparalleled. I imagine one might see something similar for women who were approached with a full and honest acknowledgment of their right to bodily privacy.
Or how about at least an acknowledgment that this is not a good thing, even if it were necessary (which it isn't, but nonetheless for illustration's sake)? It doesn't have to be automatically good just because there are no other choices. It can be bad but still necessary, and acknowledging that badness can encourage us to be more creative in finding alternatives and more likely to embrace changes as they become available.
Maybe there is an element of self-selection in this. Maybe people drawn to the humanities are just naturally more tolerant of ambiguity and the need for lateral thinking, or maybe it is the precision (at least, at the introductory level) of the hard sciences that draws certain students there. I do recall that I had a math TA who remarked that he liked math because "you can know you are right, no matter what anyone else says." (He was speaking of doing a formal proof in geometry on a test.)
And surely just because one is drawn to humanities doesn't necessarily mean that one is good at it. There is a range on all these things. However, I would definitely say that my humanities training made me a much better critical thinker than I would have been without it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why is anyone talking to KoM? It's not worth it.
I've wondered that for months.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:(such as having medical students practice their pelvic exam skills on unconsented, unconscious women in the pre-op room)
Tangental to the discussion, but this makes me feel nauseous. I'm one of the people who isn't particularly bothered by pelvic exams, although they're certainly not fun. If asked, I would happily allow a student to do a practice exam on me. We need doctors, and they need to know what they're doing. But the thought that it might have happened without my consent or knowledge while I was out for surgery? Ugh. I understand somewhat more people who never want to be knocked out.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
At least in my training, it was more the given than the rare. That is, I can't count the number of times I've been "invited" to practice my pelvic exam on a woman I'd never met and whom I'm pretty sure had not been asked in advance. It was considered "a good learning experience," and (in a certain sense) it is -- the total relaxation of abdominal muscles and the pelvic floor makes the other structures so easy to identify. Like night and day.
However, *shudder.
It may just have been my personal experience, but from other readings and conversations, I expect not. I think (at least as late as the mid-90s) that this was taken for granted by many in the profession to be business as usual.
I've always hesitated to talk about it,*** in large part because I don't want people to avoid things that need to be done. And yet it should be talked about, you know? It has to be talked about in order for that habit to change, wherever it may be practiced.
Hopefully it is much more rare than I think.
---
***Edited to add: Although I still do mention it, obviously. I just mean to say that I always have to think about whether or not to bring it up and what sort of response there will be. It isn't an easy decision, but I think it is always an important one.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Things like that are why I do not go to teaching hospitals. I mean, yes I appreciate everyone has to learn too, but I want someone who knows what they're doing taking care of me. And, in the hospital I use, even the experienced nurses only try twice at an IV before getting someone else. I should know. I've got terrible veins and it often takes more than one try.
I've been to a teaching hospital once, to a dermatologist when I had suspicious mole. A student examined me, with full disclosure that she was a medical student, and she was allowed to watch and assist the doctor in removing the mole. But I knew she was a student and I gave consent, and I also didn't mind, it was a very minor thing. For my surgeries and more serious treatment, no thank you, I'll use a private hospital.
If I were asked and people were honest with me, I'd let someone try and iv on me. Once only, because I know my veins are troublesome even for people with experience. It's my understanding from my friends who are nurses and my husband's paramedic training though, that no one tries their first iv ever on a patient. They try on each other in training first.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: If I were asked and people were honest with me, I'd let someone try and iv on me. Once only, because I know my veins are troublesome even for people with experience.
I think there is a lot more altruism amongst people than many in my profession may give them credit for. [Good on you, Belle! ]
quote:It's my understanding from my friends who are nurses and my husband's paramedic training though, that no one tries their first iv ever on a patient. They try on each other in training first.
That has been my experience, too. However, I didn't really start to feel comfortable doing them until I'd done a few dozen. There is a learning curve to the skill, especially since there is so much variation between different people's skin and veins.
----
Edited to add: Ah, Belle, on reread I think you may be referring to where I said "deceived into thinking you have done this many times before. " Doing pediatric IVs is different from doing adult ones in many ways, and by the nature of the beast, we can't practice pediatric IVs on each other. (Doogie Howser's colleagues excepted. *smile) You pretty much have to learn on the pediatric patients, one way or another.
[ September 26, 2006, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
When I had surgery, among the consent forms was one where you could sign off if it was okay for students to observe/participate in the procedure. It never even occured to me that they might be observing/participating in something that had absolutely nothing to do with why I was in there, just because I was a handily available unconcious body.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Things like that are why I do not go to teaching hospitals. I mean, yes I appreciate everyone has to learn too, but I want someone who knows what they're doing taking care of me.
On the other hand, at teaching facilities, we often get the cases where things were missed or not done properly at outside facilities. At teaching hospitals you tend to have the people who are the cream of the crop in their fields (which is why they are teaching, and it is how they bring in grants for research). There is also very stringent oversight on continuing medical education and quality improvement (also in part because of research constraints -- there are additional oversight protocols, etc.).
Had I the choice, I'd go to a teaching hospital any time, even if I could (or did) not disclose my own medical background. But different people can and will make different choices, and that isn't a bad thing in itself.
I do think there was a recent study in the works about comparing medical errors between teaching and non-teaching facilities. I will try to find that for you all.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Why is anyone talking to KoM? It's not worth it.
It is worth it, you just have to understand that KoM's conversational style starts with a kind of throwing the gauntlet down with a vaguely hyperbolic statement and proceeds from there.
As this thread shows, he is perfectly able to have a polite exchange of views, even if he doesn't read critically sometimes. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: When I had surgery, among the consent forms was one where you could sign off if it was okay for students to observe/participate in the procedure. It never even occured to me that they might be observing/participating in something that had absolutely nothing to do with why I was in there, just because I was a handily available unconcious body.
I know. *quietly
For what it's worth, I refused to participate and specifically questioned the practice, although I don't think that made me very popular.
I did do pelvics on unconscious women when I was part of the surgical team for a gyne-related surgery, and I could justify the procedure as being helpful to the patient (checking the placement of equipment, finding landmarks for me to use while holding retractors, etc.). But that's another ballgame, in my opinion.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I wonder if the increasing numbers of female doctors will lead to a reduction in this practice, as they are more likely to consider how they'd feel about it being done to them. Or if it will just continue to be how things are done, and only exceptional students will question it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I can't find the most recent study (may not have made it to publication yet).
Here's an older one covered secondarily in the Harvard Gazette: Overworked interns prone to medical errors. Not surprisingly, there was a dramatic decrease in medical errors when the ACGME (American College of Graduate Medical Education) mandated a change in the extreme working hours of residents just a few years ago.
But the sad thing is, the number of medical errors in non-teaching hospitals may tend to be higher than those in teaching hospitals, if I recall correctly. I will continue to dig for the data once I'm off the clock here at work.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I wonder if the increasing numbers of female doctors will lead to a reduction in this practice, as they are more likely to consider how they'd feel about it being done to them. Or if it will just continue to be how things are done, and only exceptional students will question it.
I hope it is changing. I'm not close enough to the frontlines to know for sure, although I am currently working to train medical students (albeit in Canada).
Part of the problem is that it isn't identified as a problem; i.e., it seems to go unquestioned. Again, I think it's part of the black-and-white, either/or mentality. And in addition, there is such extreme pressure to conform and "suck it up," "be aggressive," etc. It was a specific part of my training (at least by one MD) that "even if you don't know what you are talking about, you have to sound like you do" in order to make it in medicine. Image is key, both the image you present to yourself as well as to others.
Sometimes those who have the most to lose by questioning the system are the last to do it. There should be a lot of appropriate questioning of self and one's own skills during this training, but (I think) it is so tempting just to play the game and avoid that self-doubt. Just about all of the social pressure skews that way, too. Women, who start out at a disadvantage, may feel even stronger pressure to conform -- to be better than the men, as it were.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I was thinking about some of that, particularly that women questioning it might be seem as weak. I wouldn't expect the first ranks of women through the process to be the ones to make a big stink. . . but as women become more accepted and reach a critical mass, particularly as ob/gyns, that might be when more feel comfortable enough to speak up.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I thought women were about 50% plus of the students in medical schools now?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think it would be a good idea for anyone consenting to general anesthesia in a teaching hospital to clarify their wishes with their primary MD for the procedure. This can be done in a non-confrontational way, such as:
"You know, I know that you may be having students and residents working with you on the procedure, but it's really important to me that nothing weird be done unecessarily while I'm out. I mean, I know you'd never let this happen, but I've read about women getting practice pelvics from students and stuff like that when they are out."
To which the MD should respond with reassurances that "of course nothing like that would happen. That's crazy!" And regardless of whether it would (or wouldn't) have happened, at least another red flare was shot up into the sky for awareness that Hello, This is a Bad Bad Thing.
I think that would be totally cool.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Edit: To Storm.
I believe you're right, but if 75% of the attending physicians telling the students that this is how they learn to do pelvic exams are still male, it's still not a place where a female student is going to have a real easy time saying "hey, this is wrong."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I thought women were about 50% plus of the students in medical schools now?
But not 50% of the attendings, and certainly not 50% of the attendings who were trained under newer rules and enlightened attitudes. For:
quote:Sometimes those who have the most to lose by questioning the system are the last to do it. ...Women, who start out at a disadvantage, may feel even stronger pressure to conform -- to be better than the men, as it were.
---
Edited to add: Or, what ElJay said. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Heck, CT, I'm thinking about writing letters now to the ethics committees of any teaching hospitals in the area asking if this is their common practice and if they get informed consent from the women in advance. *grin* I'm sure that as I'm not a current patient, my concern won't be given too much weight, but anything that can get it on the radar helps.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
The idea of that sort of procedure being done without my consent while I was unconscious is creepy in the extreme. However, if I had been asked beforehand, and met the person who would be doing it, at least part of me would be all for it ("Hey, I can get the required pelvic exam done AND not have to experience it!").
I haven't yet had occasion to be under general anesthesia for anything. I'm kinda glad right now. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know, that's pretty much a textbook battery. The only defense I see is consent, which generally includes consent for procedures not on the form deemed "medically necessary". It'd be interesting to see if a medical custom that patients don't know about could serve as a form of implied consent and if a doctor would even try to say that these exams were medically necessary.
I would suspect the custom would be a bigger help in a criminal battery case than a tort battery case.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I believe you're right, but if 75% of the attending physicians telling the students that this is how they learn to do pelvic exams are still male, it's still not a place where a female student is going to have a real easy time saying "hey, this is wrong."
To be honest, I don't like the idea that in order for women to speak out about something, there has to be some kind of critical mass of women in leadership in order for them to feel 'comfortable' to do so. The underlying (to me) assumptions--that men either won't 'get it' because they're men, or that women only feel comfortable talking to other women--are questionable to me.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
ElJay, do it! Do it!
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You know, that's pretty much a textbook battery. The only defense I see is consent, which generally includes consent for procedures not on the form deemed "medically necessary". It'd be interesting to see if a medical custom that patients don't know about could serve as a form of implied consent and if a doctor would even try to say that these exams were medically necessary.
I would suspect the custom would be a bigger help in a criminal battery case than a tort battery case.
See, for example, the comment by the attending I mentioned earlier:
"Who's to say it isn't for the good of the patient? We do all sorts of things they don't know about, like stick in urinary catheters while they are out."
Which is very unclear thinking and non-rigorous catergorization, but there you have it. I think it's just that sort of thinking that some 8+ years of black-and-white answers on tests in training can leave you with.
Like I said, for many of the people I trained with, this wasn't even on the radar as an ethical issue. And when the concern was brought up, it was justified by the attitude that "if we don't do it this way, there will be no more trained doctors, so it's okay."
We need more lawyers in medicine. And more philosophers, linguists, historians, and the like. *grin
Okay, that's it. I gotta go, 'cause I'm being paid for work I'm not doing. How's that for unethical?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: I believe you're right, but if 75% of the attending physicians telling the students that this is how they learn to do pelvic exams are still male, it's still not a place where a female student is going to have a real easy time saying "hey, this is wrong."
To be honest, I don't like the idea that in order for women to speak out about something, there has to be some kind of critical mass of women in leadership in order for them to feel 'comfortable' to do so. The underlying (to me) assumptions--that men either won't 'get it' because they're men, or that women only feel comfortable talking to other women--are questionable to me.
(I don't think you realize what the pressure of this culture is like. I will try to explain in more detail later. )
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: Why is anyone talking to KoM? It's not worth it.
It is worth it, you just have to understand that KoM's conversational style starts with a kind of throwing the gauntlet down with a vaguely hyperbolic statement and proceeds from there.
As this thread shows, he is perfectly able to have a polite exchange of views, even if he doesn't read critically sometimes.
This thread shows no such thing. Have you forgotten that way back on page one, this thread was Belle's rant about having to jump through stupid hoops to be able to perform a valued and necessary job, and that KoM has derailed it into a discussion of whether or not her ambitions are worthless? Have you glossed over such nice statements as him saying that English majors are not qualified to teach anything?
Frankly, I'm baffled by the people who defend KoM.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
My point wasn't so much that men wouldn't "get it" once it was explained to them as that they may be less likely to think, on their own, that this is an issue. Just like women in general don't really "get" why some men feel that having a vasectomy makes them less of a man. I mean, I've had half a dozen guys explain their feelings on the issue to me, and intellectually I understand what their arguments are. They still seem pretty silly to me.
In a field where women have been told that they can't cut it and that they don't belong, I think it can be hard to rock the boat. The question to me isn't about women only feeling comfortable talking to other women. It's about women feeling they're going to be persecuted for standing up for (women) patients. CT said that when she questioned the practice it didn't make her popular. If I'm going to address a woman's issue in a group that's 50/50 gender split, I'm going to expect that I'll get more support than a group that's almost all men. Same with if I'm going to bring up a religious issue. . . I'll expect more support from a group that has others of my religion in it than a group that is almost all a different religion.
Do I think women medical students should speak up anyway? Damn straight I do. I've spoken up in similarly uncomfortable situations. And it's hard, but in my mind it's the right thing to do. Will I condem them if they don't? Not really. It makes me sad, but I understand it.
So, I reject both of your underlying assumptions, but still think that more women in teaching positions and hospital leadership will help this particular problem.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Who's to say it isn't for the good of the patient? We do all sorts of things they don't know about, like stick in urinary catheters while they are out."
7-12 people who are more likely to be patients than doctors. The thought of the doctor saying that on the stand would sound like a cash register to some MM attorneys.
Ultimately, it would come down to the willingness of the doctor to deceive during the deposition. "Would you have performed that exam if the student hadn't been there?" would be where it starts.
Backing this into the derailing discussion, I think critical thinking requires investigation of issues when the best answer can't be known. Ultimately, the most important decisions in life involve criteria that can't be measured and answers that can't be checked in the back of the book.
I think it also requires investigation of issues when the best answer can be known. There's enough uncertain out there that we ought to obtain certainty when it's possible.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: This thread shows no such thing. Have you forgotten that way back on page one, this thread was Belle's rant about having to jump through stupid hoops to be able to perform a valued and necessary job, and that KoM has derailed it into a discussion of whether or not her ambitions are worthless? Have you glossed over such nice statements as him saying that English majors are not qualified to teach anything?
Frankly, I'm baffled by the people who defend KoM.
Oh, I totally agree it was seriously crappy of him to attack Belle on this thread. However, I do think that my statement is truthful--his assertion was hyperbolic but his exchange with Cow and others in this thread afterwords has been essentially polite.
As to being baffled, it just goes back to the fact that people see things differently. As other discussions about KoM have shown, I see him as a lot more harmless than apparently others do.
Likewise, there are people on this and Sakeriver that people apparently think the world of that drive me up the wall to have a conversation with.
quote: So, I reject both of your underlying assumptions, but still think that more women in teaching positions and hospital leadership will help this particular problem.
Thank you for the clarification, but I don't see that your reply totally refutes the underlying assumptions that I thought might be inherent to those posts previous.
quote: In a field where women have been told that they can't cut it and that they don't belong, I think it can be hard to rock the boat. The question to me isn't about women only feeling comfortable talking to other women. It's about women feeling they're going to be persecuted for standing up for (women) patients.
See, statements like these kind of rub me the wrong way. I get that maybe some men and women might say this, but in this day and age, I can't for the life of me think that it must be a small minority that actually would say that 'women can't cut it' in medicine and actively keep them from becoming doctors. Certainly, there have been women in medicine on television and the movies for at least a couple decades.
I get that in medicine, people who train others often don't want to hear what the students have to say and there is a large pressure to not rock the boat, but is there really such a pervasive sexism as your post seems to imply? It's hard for me to believe.
So, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that 'It's about people feeling they're going to be persecuted for standing up for patients'. This I could get behind. Narrowing it down to just women has all kinds of implications to me. (And, yes, I know you didn't specifically exclude men in your statement, but I think the implication is there.)
I totally, 100% agree with you that there needs tobe a dialogue between men and women. However, as part of that dialogue, I think that it behooves *both* sides to not assume that they're correct.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I don't have any experience at all in the field of medicine, but I do have some experience as a woman in a field that was, until relatively recently, very heavily male. In my field, while women are gaining more and more of a place, many, if not most, of the authority positions are held by the "old guard"--older men, who did their training in the 50s and 60s. While many of them have no problem with the sudden abundance of women in the field, some of them show a definite difference between their treatment of male and female students. Sexism exists in fields formerly dominated by men. It (usually) isn't blatant, but it's definitely there.
ElJay, I like your vasectomy analogy. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I haven't gone through medical school, recently or otherwise, so I can't speak to how pervasive the sexism currently may or may not be. My statement was meant to have an implied "historically" in it that doesn't seem to have come through. I do believe that when stuff like that has historically been made explicit that after the explicitness is no longer acceptable it still gets conveyed implicitly for a long time.
I would be surprised if many women are told they can't cut it in medicine because they're women. I wouldn't be surprised if more women than men are told they can't cut it for any given other reason that may actually apply equally to men and women. (i.e., two students are struggling with something, and the man is told he needs to work harder or is given extra help, and the women is told maybe she should consider a different career.) Naturally this is a lot harder to judge. . . maybe the woman was having more severe problems than the man, or really is better suited to something else.
TV and movies portray an idealized world, where sexism is only involved when it's essential to the plot. Mixed gender situations make for better stories, because you can include sexual tension. In every situation I do have experience in, there is more sexism in real life than in the movies or on television. And I have been told that I can't cut it because I'm a woman, and that I've only succeeded in various things because I'm cute. (By men and women.) So it's not that difficult for me to believe that it's not yet a level playing field in medicine.
I agree with you that no one should assume they're correct in a discussion, particularly one where they don't have direct experience. But in gender relations it often eventually comes down to he said/she said, and in those cases I'm going to tend to lend more weight to the man in issues a woman can't experience and the woman in issues a man can't experience. Assuming an equal level of credibility, of course. And in this case, where CT has said that when she went through medical school women still started out at a disadvantage. . . well, she's about the most credible person I have the pleasure of knowing, and has direct experience. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Sexism exists in fields formerly dominated by men. It (usually) isn't blatant, but it's definitely there.
It's pretty blatant in the construction industry, especially in the South. *sigh*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: ElJay, I like your vasectomy analogy. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Actually, I didn't much care for that analogy, because it portrayed as analogous to the situation of men not "getting" that performing pelvic exams on unconscious women without their consent is wrong (a position where the men in question are, we seem to agree here, clearly in the wrong) with the situation of men feeling that a vasectomy makes them less of a man (a position where the men in question are, I think most of us would agree, being ridiculous). So we have men's unlikeliness to understand women because the men are stupid contrasted with women's unlikeliness to understand men because . . . the men are stupid. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*sigh*
I see the winkie, but I still feel the need to say that I wasn't trying to say men are stupid in either of those situations.
My first thought was to compare women not getting how men felt about being kicked in the balls, but there were just way too many holes in that one.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I haven't gone through medical school, recently or otherwise, so I can't speak to how pervasive the sexism currently may or may not be. My statement was meant to have an implied "historically" in it that doesn't seem to have come through. I do believe that when stuff like that has historically been made explicit that after the explicitness is no longer acceptable it still gets conveyed implicitly for a long time.
Possibly, but what does that mean? However, it might be worth noting that sometimes 'sexism' is good in that it's not bad to discriminate in treatment between the sexes, as this thread underlines. It's also worth noting that sexism may very well be the wrong word and that, as you mentioned, it's a problem of perception and understanding rather than sexism. That is, what may seem reasonable to men, may not be reasonable to women.
One of the things that I find useful is to not approach problems between X group and Y group as power issues, because this often detracts from discussion of the problem because there is a derailing into who has the power, which is often not productive.
I think sexism has large connotations, quite often, of power issues. I think, too, it is a vague word and so its use must be prefaced with a lot of elaboration, when it is used at all.
quote: I would be surprised if many women are told they can't cut it in medicine because they're women. I wouldn't be surprised if more women than men are told they can't cut it for any given other reason that may actually apply equally to men and women. (i.e., two students are struggling with something, and the man is told he needs to work harder or is given extra help, and the women is told maybe she should consider a different career.) Naturally this is a lot harder to judge. . . maybe the woman was having more severe problems than the man, or really is better suited to something else.
Anecdotally, in my experience, women are given more help than men by other men when they ask for it. My perception from when I was a student/at work, is that men in positions of authority give more help and attention to women beneath themthan they do men, both because of sexual attraction and because it's more o.k. for women to be given help, and men should suck it up and work things out on their own.
quote: TV and movies portray an idealized world, where sexism is only involved when it's essential to the plot. Mixed gender situations make for better stories, because you can include sexual tension. In every situation I do have experience in, there is more sexism in real life than in the movies or on television. And I have been told that I can't cut it because I'm a woman, and that I've only succeeded in various things because I'm cute. (By men and women.) So it's not that difficult for me to believe that it's not yet a level playing field in medicine.
But media does have something to say about how a society views certain situations as acceptable and unacceptable. Inasmuch as network executives are men and find it perfectly fine to present women in medicine; and that they must take into account the tastes of society, they must think that society finds women doctors acceptable. This speaks to your point about how prevalent sexism is in medicine and society.
quote: I agree with you that no one should assume they're correct in a discussion, particularly one where they don't have direct experience. But in gender relations it often eventually comes down to he said/she said, and in those cases I'm going to tend to lend more weight to the man in issues a woman can't experience and the woman in issues a man can't experience.
I agree that dialogue where we approach things without assuming is key.
I think it's also important to understand that certain paradigms are more useful than others in how we frame discussions, and that sexism may not be very useful in how we approach some problems.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
To elaborate real quick, one of the things that bothers me in discussions of sexism is that there is a tendency to stack things as all good or all bad. That is, the sexism that men exhibit always hurts women, and vice versa. Sometimes sexism helps women, and vice versa.
But it's hard to keep perspective in discussions of sexism, isn't it. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: *sigh*
I see the winkie, but I still feel the need to say that I wasn't trying to say men are stupid in either of those situations.
My first thought was to compare women not getting how men felt about being kicked in the balls, but there were just way too many holes in that one.
I didn't think the winkie could quite convey what I wanted it to, because what I was trying to convey was not that I was kidding, but that I wasn't really all that annoyed. I got, and agreed with, your underlying point, and I just took exceptions to some particulars of your analogy. So the winkie was maybe to say that I didn't really think you meant to call men stupid.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:It's also worth noting that sexism may very well be the wrong word and that, as you mentioned, it's a problem of perception and understanding rather than sexism.
Which would be why I didn't use it until I was repling to you using it.
I don't really have much else to say on the matter, I don't think we are disagreeing about very much, and what we are disagreeing about, as far as I can tell, isn't what I would consider the important bits.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: To elaborate real quick, one of the things that bothers me in discussions of sexism is that there is a tendency to stack things as all good or all bad. That is, the sexism that men exhibit always hurts women, and vice versa. Sometimes sexism helps women, and vice versa.
See, here's the thing. Even in the examples you gave where you see sexism as helping women, I think it's hurting women. I think it hurts women to be given more help by a teacher or boss due to sexual attraction. I think it hurts women to be let off on a speeding ticket because they look like they might cry. That individual woman might think that they are better off at that moment because of it, but I believe it hurts gender relations and women's place in society in aggergate in the long run.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Megan: ElJay, I like your vasectomy analogy. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Actually, I didn't much care for that analogy, because it portrayed as analogous to the situation of men not "getting" that performing pelvic exams on unconscious women without their consent is wrong (a position where the men in question are, we seem to agree here, clearly in the wrong) with the situation of men feeling that a vasectomy makes them less of a man (a position where the men in question are, I think most of us would agree, being ridiculous). So we have men's unlikeliness to understand women because the men are stupid contrasted with women's unlikeliness to understand men because . . . the men are stupid.
Bear in mind that ElJay's analogy was referring specifically to doctors who don't actually see anything wrong with performing pelvic exams on unconscious women. I don't think it was (or at least, I didn't take it to be) aimed at men in general. All I think she was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong, ElJay) is that a female doctor might be more likely to question the custom of performing that procedure than a male doctor is (knowing from personal experience how invasive a pelvic exam is).
As for the whole vasectomy thing, I would venture to guess that there are a few men here who would say that the premise isn't at all ridiculous. Unsupported by logic, perhaps, but not ridiculous. And (having had long conversations with a guy who feels that way), while I can't understand it, I can acknowledge that feeling as something that holds a guy back from getting a vasectomy.
Edit: Look at all those replies. I type/think too slowly. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I got, and agreed with, your underlying point, and I just took exceptions to some particulars of your analogy. So the winkie was maybe to say that I didn't really think you meant to call men stupid.
Okay.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*cough* Yes, well, um, implying a word is worse than being vague in the use of a word. Or something.
I need to go. Thanks for the conversation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: See, here's the thing. Even in the examples you gave where you see sexism as helping women, I think it's hurting women. I think it hurts women to be given more help by a teacher or boss due to sexual attraction. I think it hurts women to be let off on a speeding ticket because they look like they might cry. That individual woman might think that they are better off at that moment because of it, but I believe it hurts gender relations and women's place in society in aggergate in the long run.
Some things just are, and it's no use getting all het up about it. In the case of sexism, I doubt that men and women will ever be able to deal objectively with each other, and it's going to be a series of back and forth, two steps forward and one step back in how we deal with each other.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*grin* Hey, I thought I was talking about problems of perception and understanding, that in this case may have a relation to gender.
You're welcome. Always a pleasure.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Some things just are, and it's no use getting all het up about it. In the case of sexism, I doubt that men and women will ever be able to deal objectively with each other, and it's going to be a series of back and forth, two steps forward and one step back in how we deal with each other.
When it's happening as often in the other direction, I'll agree with you. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Bear in mind that ElJay's analogy was referring specifically to doctors who don't actually see anything wrong with performing pelvic exams on unconscious women. I don't think it was (or at least, I didn't take it to be) aimed at men in general. All I think she was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong, ElJay) is that a female doctor might be more likely to question the custom of performing that procedure than a male doctor is (knowing from personal experience how invasive a pelvic exam is).
As for the whole vasectomy thing, I would venture to guess that there are a few men here who would say that the premise isn't at all ridiculous. Unsupported by logic, perhaps, but not ridiculous. And (having had long conversations with a guy who feels that way), while I can't understand it, I can acknowledge that feeling as something that holds a guy back from getting a vasectomy.
Edit: Look at all those replies. I type/think too slowly.
I don't see where you have refuted my criticism of the analogy.
Would you say that the situations are analogous? That the position of a woman who does not want to have a pelvic exam without her knowledge or consent while she is unconscious is, in fact, "unsupported by logic"?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I've never been in an operating room where students were invited to do pelvic exams on unconscious patients. EXCEPT when the surgery was a gynecological surgery in which a pelvic exam was an expected part of the procedure. Expected by doctors, anyway, I don't know if patients were told all the little details of the planned surgery, but if it was done it was always done as a rational and important aspect of the surgery.
It never occurred to me that that was wrong, but it NEVER occurred to me that anyone would be invited to do a pelvic exam on a random woman having a surgery on some other part of her body.
I do suspect that the rules are stronger against such practices now. Maybe because of more women in medicine. I graduated in 1998, btw.
It always amazes me when people think negatively about teaching hospitals. The best doctors are there. The up to date research is there. And the expertise can't be beat for complicated/unusual cases.
Other people expect to go there specifically to get all of those wonderful benefits but then insist on excluding the students/residents from even entering the room. I always find that so ironic.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
No, I don't think I said that. All I was saying was that in the case of a situation that is particular to women, a female doctor is more likely to have a visceral "that's not right" reaction to that custom than a male doctor is, in the same way that a man is more likely than a woman to understand in a visceral sense when another man says, "A vasectomy would make me feel like less of a man." Are the two actual situations analogous? No. Are the possible feelings of the potential parties involved in the hypothetical situations similar? I think so.
I do think that it is possible (likely, even) for a male doctor to question the custom. I just agree with ElJay (if this is what she's actually saying) that a female doctor's reaction is more likely, and more likely to be immediate. The female doctor has the personal experience of feeling how invasive a pelvic exam is, in a way that a male doctor cannot.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't disagree that the analogy is not perfect. But it's the best I could come up with at the time. And I can't come up with a better one now, either. As long as people got my point, I'm satisfied with it. . . no analogy is perfect.
--
Theca, I'm conforted to know that you never encountered this practice. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
FWIW, a google search on <"pelvic exam" "general anesthesia" practice> brings up as its top result the University of Toronto Pelvic Exam Policy, including the following:
quote:Both the medical literature and public media have detailed the controversy surrounding medical trainees performing pelvic examinations on women under general anesthesia. 1,2,3
citing the following references (British Medical Journal (BMJ) and American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology):
quote:1. Hicks LK, Lin Y, Robertson DW, Robinson DL, and Woodrow SI.Understanding the clinical dilemmas that shape medical students' ethical development: Questionnaire survey and focu group study.BMJ 2001;322:709-710.
2. Wall LL and Brown D.Ethical issues arising from the performance of pelvic examinations by medical students on anesthetized patients.Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:319-323.
3. Ubel PA, Jepson C, and Silber-Isenstadt A.Don't tell, don't ask: A change in medical student attitues after obstetrics/gynecology clerkships towards seeking consent for pelvic examinations on an anesthetized patients.AJOG 2003;188:575-579.
I haven't read the cited articles, but I will. Of note, these three were published between 2001 and 2003, likely reflecting changes in the years somewhat prior to those dates. [And I am delighted to see that it has been debated in the lay and professional literature! That is fabulous.]
I finished my training time in the core electives in 1996, if I recall correctly. I spent time after that in graduate school (philosophy) and doing electives primarily in pediatrics, where things tend to work differently. Similarly, my pediatric residency training reflected the mores of the world of pediatric medicine, which works differently in many ways than the world of adult medicine (and this is one of the reasons I chose it, frankly).
-----
Edited to add:
There is a free full text article delineating the scope of the general problem (sensitivity to ethical issues, the "hidden curriculum") in re: a lit review published in the 1997 Canadian Medical Association Journal, written by a third-year medical student: Medical education must make room for student-specific ethical dilemmas
[ September 26, 2006, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It always amazes me when people think negatively about teaching hospitals. The best doctors are there. The up to date research is there. And the expertise can't be beat for complicated/unusual cases.
And if I had a complicated or unusual case, that's where I'd be. The main reason I'm negative about teaching hospitals is the inconvenience. You have to do everything twice and/or it always takes longer. First the student comes in and takes your medical history. Then you have to give the exact same history, again, to the attending physician. Your procedure is longer because the attending is explaining everything as he/she goes.
When my son needed diagnosis for his genetic disorder, we went to the local university hospital and I wound up having to go through his medical history three times in one visit. My visit took over two hours, and a lot of that was repetition. I did want the expertise, but I just don't see why I have to tell the exact same stories three different times - four if you count the fact that it was all detailed in the paperwork I'd already filled out. Not to mention all the paperwork my pediatrician had already sent over. I was a nervous, frightened parent scared about her son's future, and I resented being put through all that just so two medical students could each practice taking histories. Why not let them take the history with the attending in the room, so he could hear it all too and not have to make me repeat it? That's the kind of stuff that bugs me about teaching hospitals.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I was a nervous, frightened parent scared about her son's future, and I resented being put through all that just so two medical students could each practice taking histories. Why not let them take the history with the attending in the room, so he could hear it all too and not have to make me repeat it? That's the kind of stuff that bugs me about teaching hospitals.
Belle, I do think there are fairly clear answers to your question, but I'm not sure if trying to piece through it would be helpful or harmful. That is, I can't tell if you are wanting answers, or more to vent, or if it is some mix of the two.
Would it come across as invalidating of your (very real and understandable) frustrations and concerns to go into this in more detail?
For what it's worth, I do respect your ability and responsibility to make such decisions for yourself and your children, regardless of whether I would come to the same conclusion. We aren't the same people, and I trust you are in the best position to make those decisions for you and yours.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
As regards the question of unconsented pelvic exams, apparently this issue had really come to a head while I was buried in other things.
- snopes.com discussion board thread on People Against Non-Consensual Pelvic Exams with lots of links to mass media (some now defunct) and some good discussion from many perspectives
- Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses' response to a Wall Street Journal article, "Using the Unconscious to Train Medical Students Faces Scrutiny" (March 12, 2003) -- very well-written, in my opinion, although I can't find an online copy of the WSJ article. Excerpted:
quote: It was with great surprise and dismay that we read the article, "Using the Unconscious to Train Medical Students Faces Scrutiny" (March 12, 2003) - surprise that this procedure was ever considered an acceptable practice, and dismay at the lack of unilateral and forceful condemnation of the practice by all OB/GYNs, hospital administrators, and representatives of institutes of higher learning who train medical doctors. ... ... women have a right to expect that they will be informed of any planned procedures while they are under sedation, that they will know who will be performing such procedures, and that they will have the option to decline a pelvic exam by a medical student that is unrelated to their primary reason for being there. ... Make no mistake: an "overall consent form" filled out with other routine forms at the time of admission is no substitute for explicit, informed consent for a pelvic exam by a medical student while under sedation - teaching hospital or not. ... In fact, we can thank the medical students who felt uncomfortable performing these exams when consent was questionable, both at Harvard Medical School and the University of Toronto, for bringing this troubling practice to light.
The fact that some doctors defend [the practice] as harmless and say asking for consent would make it more likely that patients would say no only emphasizes the need for a patient's considered response. The fact that physicians know that some women may be uncomfortable with the practice does not defend its use; rather, it articulates the necessity of informed choice. Besides, fears that asking for consent would reduce the number of women who would agree to have the procedures performed may be unfounded. ...
quote:Nursing Groups Protest Pelvic Examinations Without Consent
AACN joined 13 other national nursing organizations in a March 25 letter to the Association of American Medical Colleges to protest the practice of medical students performing pelvic examinations without consent on women who are under anesthesia. This practice was reported in the March 12, 2003, Wall Street Journal article titled “Using the Unconscious to Train Medical Students Faces Scrutiny.” The groups maintain that individuals, have a right to expect that they will be informed of planned procedures while they are under sedation; that they will know who will be performing such procedures; and that they will have the option to decline the participation of a student or anyone else unrelated to their primary reason for having the procedure. The letter calls on the AAMC to condemn the practice and move to have member schools cease the practice immediately.
Apparently this practice was less rare than we might have hoped, but it looks like the climate may have changed dramatically. The more transparent these things, the better -- if it is right, it should withstand scrutiny under the light of day. If not, it should be changed, and we should get as creative and energized as possible if we need to in order to get the job done in ways that are able to be faced in the light of day.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's too bad that they don't do useful procedures. It would be great to go in for a ruptured appendix and come out with a free tooth whitening, pedicure, and and facial.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It's too bad that they don't do useful procedures. It would be great to go in for a ruptured appendix and come out with a free tooth whitening, pedicure, and and facial.
*grin
If I recall correctly, at least at one point recently, the US military was offering free plastic surgery to personnel in order to keep the skills of its surgeons up to par. More than a little morbid as a recruiting strategy, in my book.
However, you can get discounted services at some dental schools and other training facilities, if one is so inclined.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: If I recall correctly, at least at one point recently, the US military was offering free plastic surgery to personnel in order to keep the skills of its surgeons up to par. More than a little morbid as a recruiting strategy, in my book.
Many (most?) medical procedures in the military are free, but the quality of care in the military is legendary for being, uh, less than perfect. I can attest to this.
I'm pretty sure it's never been used as a recruiting strategy (at least I've never heard of it), but one of my acquaintances in the military had plastic surgery on his ears which, let's say, was not unneeded.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*smile
It sounds like you've had a story or two to tell, Stormie.
quote:...As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview the other day, “We’re perfectly capable of increasing the incentives and the inducements to attract people into the armed services.” For years, the military has offered its recruits free tuition, specialized training, and a host of other benefits to compensate for the tremendous sacrifices they are called upon to make. Lately, many of them have been taking advantage of another perk: free cosmetic surgery. ... It is true: personnel in all four branches of the military and members of their immediate families can get face-lifts, nose jobs, breast enlargements, liposuction, or any other kind of elective cosmetic alteration, at taxpayer expense. (For breast enlargements, patients must supply their own implants.) ... A Defense Department spokeswoman confirmed the existence of the plastic-surgery benefit. According to the Army, between 2000 and 2003 its doctors performed four hundred and ninety-six breast enlargements and a thousand three hundred and sixty-one liposuction surgeries on soldiers and their dependents. In the first three months of 2004, it performed sixty breast enhancements and two hundred and thirty-one liposuctions.
Mario Moncada, an Army private who was recently treated for losing the vision in one eye in Iraq, said that he knows several female soldiers who have received free breast enlargements: “We’re out there risking our lives. We deserve benefits like that.” ... The Army’s rationale is that, as a spokeswoman said, “the surgeons have to have someone to practice on.” ... There has been talk lately among soldiers that this benefit is indeed being used as a recruiting tool, but there is no mention of it in any of the recruiting literature. “The Army does not offer elective cosmetic surgery to entice anyone,” Dr. Lyons said. “I would be disappointed with the maturity of the young women in this country if they’re joining the service with the thought of getting breast augmentations.”
Indeed.
----
***Edited to add: URL was tinyurled for formatting purposes. It's a direct link to the New Yorker "Talk of the Town" piece.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
CT, I guess it's more venting. I suppose my view on it is - if I can get good quality care without going through the hassles that the teaching hospital makes me put up with, I'm going to go to the private hospital. I have excellent insurance, and I can afford to do that. I'm blessed, I know - not everyone can. But I can afford to be able to make the choice, and I'm going to choose what's best for me and I do include convenience as one of the aspects of my decision making process. Have you been to UAB lately? Tried to find parking downtown to see one of their physicians? Forget free parking and expect to walk several blocks. With sick kids? No way. Give me my private pediatrician wth ample free parking and no long waits.
Like I said, I can appreciate the need for students to learn, but it's my medical care and my kids' medical care and at that moment, my needs and my kids needs are more important to me than a student's need to learn. I will not apologize for feeling that way.
I also challenge the assumption that the best care can only be found at teaching hospitals. I think doctors vary widely, and physicians from teaching hospitals can be excellent, as can physicians at private hospitals. Just because a hospital isn't a teaching one doesn't mean the care is sub-par and just because a hospital is one of the best teaching hospitals in the country doesn't mean you're guaranteed the best of care.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, that article agrees with what I said and basically what you said, for the most part, too, CT.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: CT, I guess it's more venting.
Which you are certainly entitled to, and with which I have no desire to interfere. *smile
quote:Like I said, I can appreciate the need for students to learn, but it's my medical care and my kids' medical care and at that moment, my needs and my kids needs are more important to me than a student's need to learn. I will not apologize for feeling that way.
I wouldn't ask you to. I know you know this, but it bears repeating.
quote:I also challenge the assumption that the best care can only be found at teaching hospitals.
I'm not sure whether this is also venting, or whether you are throwing it out for discussion. I'm happy to pull together my thoughts as well as what is in the literature, but I can understand if that would be either irrelevant or unsuitable at this point. (Just checking -- either way is fine by me.)
And hey, you're up early! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: The more transparent these things, the better -- if it is right, it should withstand scrutiny under the light of day. If not, it should be changed, and we should get as creative and energized as possible if we need to in order to get the job done in ways that are able to be faced in the light of day.
Amen!
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I think doctors vary widely, and physicians from teaching hospitals can be excellent, as can physicians at private hospitals. Just because a hospital isn't a teaching one doesn't mean the care is sub-par and just because a hospital is one of the best teaching hospitals in the country doesn't mean you're guaranteed the best of care.
Of course going to a teaching hospital doesn't guarantee the best care. But even you went to the teaching hospital for help with an extremely rare diagnosis and saw a specialist that you can't see down your street. That's what university hospitals do best. They are like a huge concentration of resources. People go there to benefit from those resources. And the reason the resources are there are because it is a teaching/research hospital.
I don't remember seeing too many families like yours at teaching hospital clinics. The clinics are either set up for the chronically, complicated ill patients seeing the specialists, (usually grateful to be there) or are set up to see regular patients who are poor and don't mind the hassles of teaching clinics because of the free care, or they have insurance that requires that. In other words, people that are more desperate for the care and don't have easier options.
That doesn't mean that the local hospital is sub-par or that the local doctors are sub-par.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Bumping the thread and (trying) to steer it back to its orginal topic:
I have an update. After thinking about what some of you said about your experiences and re-reading the requirements in the college catalog, I raised the issue of whether or not it would be more beneficial to graduate with an English degree and then go to the 5th year certification route, rather than do the double major with all the annoying requirements.
I think I finally got to talk to the right person. I spoke with the director of the secondary English language arts program who told me that she would need to sit down with all my information first, but she does think that the 5th year program is a good fit for me, because I'm so far along with my English degree. Turns out some of the information I was given may not have been correct for me. The advisor gave me the information on the 5th year program that would apply to someone who had a bachelor's degree in something other than education or the teaching field. Since I will have a degree in my teaching field, it's a different program for me. Much shorter, much easier. Looks like that may be the way to go after all. There is a secondary education minor program that would allow me to take some of the education classes I need, which would also cut down on the number of master's level classes I'd be required to take. Plus, she said there's the possibility that I could get hired before my certification was complete, which would mean I could forego student teaching altogether.
I have an appointment with her next week to go over everything in detail, but I'm very excited - if this goes the way I think I'll graduate two semesters earlier than I anticipated and I will be certified at the master's level when I start teaching which is an additional pay grade. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good for you for pursuing this and exploring your options! Good luck. Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Excellent. I thought there had to be a better way.
I know there are lots of hoops along the path to becoming credentialed, but it seemed like a bit much.
I hope the new info is correct. If it isn't, it should be. :-)
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Sounds like you have a good plan, Belle. Glad to hear it. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Good luck.
I'm glad you didn't just accept the first answer you were given. Way to go!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
In education (as a career) it's often important to not accept the first answer you are given.
-o-
I'm so glad I never had to student teach. I did teach as a Teaching Assistant in grad school, and then I started my teaching career before getting my certificate (with a temporary certificate). If there isn't any question in your mind about whether or not teaching is really for you, then I recommend avoiding student-teaching if you can. It's slave labor, basically. TA-ing is indentured servitude, but at least they do pay you some.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
So first comes the elation....then the crash back down to earth.
quote:In education (as a career) it's often important to not accept the first answer you are given.
But sometimes the first answer is right. The director of the secondary English program encouraged me to finish my degree in English, then come into the fifth year program. Except the fifth year program is a definite misnomer that implies one extra year of college - it's more like 2.5 years. You CAN do it in 1.5 if you get special permission to pursue the "fast track" but that requires heavy courseloads of graduate classes, and she said most of the time the classes don't fall out like you need them and it takes 2 years anyway.
Oh, and yeah, that bit about having to take all the pre-requisite classes in the different areas like theatre and journalism? Still gotta do that. So the advisor was right - you would have to finish all that stuff before you were admitted to the fifth year program. So, you may be asking, how would finishing my degree and entering the fifth year program help me get my teaching certificate any faster? The answer is it won't. It will take longer, and cost more (graduate hours being more expensive than undergrad hours).
So I'm back to the double major in English and Education. Actually I haven't left it, but now I know for sure the other route won't help me get done quicker or avoid classes I didn't want to take. And it is good to know for sure, and to have the final word from the program director.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Alas! Well, good for you for looking into other options anyway. It's better to know for sure, neh?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Lyin', cheatin' program name...how long is it going to take you now, Belle? What's your class load going to be like?
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Right now...five more semesters of coursework and then one semester of student teaching. That is assuming I average 18 hours per semester. Eek. I'm doing 12 this semester and handling it okay...so I'm going to try and increase to 18 hours next semester and see how it goes.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Depending on the classes, 18 can be really tough if you have a lot of other responsibilities. Are you planning on summer classes? I know we weren't allowed to take more than 12 credit hours in the summer...
-pH
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
When I was in college, 15 was a heavy enough load. I could handle it--but I also didn't have a family. 18-21 per semester was reserved for those crazy people who lived at the school. Yes, I remember we had someone who took 21 hours--they had to get special permission. *shudders* The horror.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I would always sign up for 18 credits, with the thought in mind that I would drop whatever I liked least within the first couple of weeks. I had two or three semesters that I actually got through with eighteen, several with fifteen, and at least a few with just twelve. Of course, I was a full time student. I had a job, but being a student was still at the center of my life. I couldn't imagine doing eighteen hours with a spouse and children and all sorts of other responsibilities. Good luck.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
We actually have three sessions in the summer, so it's possible to take 18 hours, because they won't all be at the same time. That made no sense.
Let me explain. No, let me sum up.
There is a session that runs from May to July 4. Then one that runs from July 4 to mid-August. And one session that runs the entire summer from May to August. So depending on how the classes fall out, you can manage 18 hours in one summer.
I think I can handle 18 hours in the spring semester better than in the fall. Fall is extraordinarily busy for us - with Emily competing in gymnastics and next year Natalie hopes to be on the color guard or dance line at the high school so I'd have to manage gymnastics meets and Friday night football games (and yes, some gymnastic meets are on Fridays, we'll just have to split up I guess.)
I'm going to try the 18 hours in the spring, like Icarus said I can always drop something. The only thing that concerns me, being an English major, is writing time. I'm planning on two 400 level lit classes next semester, fortunately one is on Beowulf and the other is Shakespeare. And I *love* both Beowulf and Shakespeare. In addition to that I'll have a 200 level survey course, so we'll see if I can handle the writing requirements of three English classes in one semester. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
One trick I learned too late was to not bother reading the assigned reading. Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Yeah, Icarus, I hate to admit it but I actually got better scores on my essays in my Shakespeare class when I wrote on just the Cliff Notes rather than reading the plays. I had the world's worst professor and he didn't really want our actual opinions anyway.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
Naturally it's past the drop deadline, too. I'm a post "No Child Left Behind" education student so I don't know what it was like before, but my goodness my hat is off to anyone who can complete the secondary education program. I must admit to being a bit overwhelmed. ![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
I salute you.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Since I met with her this morning, I've spent time searching through all the documents from the state dept. of education and it squares with the things she's told me. It's not the university that's causing all this, it's the state and federal requirements. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
)![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)