posted
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. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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"?
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I learned about ad homs in evo/creo 'debates'. Hard science, at least on the right side.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an incidental aside, are FlyingCow and MightyCow the same person? Very similar user names, but posting side by side. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you spent more time in English class, you'd realize that "Flying" and "Mighty" are actually different words Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you'd spent more time learning biology, you'd realise that when you've seen one cow, you've seen 'em all.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, if you look at the first letters of the sentences, you can see they spell out "poopyhead."
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
