Logic
Someone who was probably quite angry over a recent midterm test wrote a lengthy email to all students taking the module (which includes me), levelling some charges against the lecturer of the module as well as calling for a petition to 'systematically grade this module on a S/U basis'.
I find this debacle very interesting. Firstly it is unprecedented, at least for me. Secondly, this angry student wrote in sound English but failed to capitalise the subject header of the email. Why? How did someone who probably spent a while articulating his thoughts clearly fail to capitalise the subject header? I think it is very important that the subjects of emails be capitalised even when one is very angry. I mean what do you do when you open your nus outlook inbox and see an email with the subject 'irresponsibility, sadism and misrepresentation in the logic module'? I would think that it is irresponsible to not capitalise the first letters of those words and that it misrepresents the otherwise soundly written body, and sadly I can't think of a way to weave sadism into this sentence as well, because I think it would be quite a stretch to say that not capitalising the subject of one's email is sadistic.
Thirdly, I find this interesting too because of the strong language used:
...Some of us have part-time jobs. Some of our parents are retrenched. We take on student loans to support professors by taking their modules. If they teach us, we will learn and study hard. If they don't teach us and can't even answer the questions they set, what do they expect us to do?...
...The philosophy department has lied to us, failed to teach us, and given us the wrong directions during the midterm test...
...They are causing unnecessary stress in us, at a time when the economic crisis is robbing our parents of their jobs, robbing us of our career prospects and causing some NTU student to stab a professor before committing suicide. We base our choice of electives on the module description and past year papers, and they've lied to us when they are supposed to be the bastion of truth.
It is also interesting to observe that while such sentences are coolly expressed, others are not. For example in an earlier paragraph some words are capitalised in WHOLE, like that, which is not just inconsistent in terms of writing style but also reflects an inconsistency in the writer's temperament. While such a technique may be employed in literary writings it should be noted that a petition email is in no way part of the literary genre, and that it is quite disconcerting to see THAT in a formal email.
Fourthly, it is interesting how he signed off as 'fellow cheated logic student'. He/she is making the assumption that other people feel cheated too, probably to make him or herself feel better.
Anyway, I think this angry student probably alienated a number of supporters with his proposed course of action. Little wonder in a later email he/she added that alternatives would be considered.
It's also interesting how as I was reading the email and related ones I assumed that the writer must be a male. Did you subconsciously make that assumption as well? If so, why do we automatically assume people who write such things are males?
What am I going to do now? To be honest, I feel tempted to put my name down because I would like to gain more details and possibly sit in the discussion sessions with the deanery, for no other reason than to satisfy my curiosity. But that would be doing something against my conscience. I cannot put my name to something I do not sincerely support. For all my cynicism about ethical principles I cannot bring myself to do it, even though I rationally think that I can further my interests in doing so. I think that one's name, one's signature, has a sacred value I cannot quite specify now, which is incidentally why I did not give my real signature in pledging my cause for the nation, or whatever we were compelled to sign our names against, during national service; and which is why I wouldn't put my name to this petition even though I got a burning interest in observing how things are going to unfold.
We may want to note that, paradoxically, people who are opposed to the petition may actually want to sign the petition because it allows them greater access to the ongoing discussions which puts you in a better place to defend the lecturer, the test, and the module in general. People who sign the petition are those who would tend to be on the offensive, so if they are the people who get to talk to the deanery then there is a certain bias there.
Then again I can always weigh in on the other side by sending an email to the deanery. I think that's what I'm going to do. For the record, some of the accusations against the lecturer are not unreasonable. Overall though I think he's a good guy and things are pretty decent and I actually enjoyed the test because it was quite interesting. The first few questions, for example, involved analysing the following argument:
If I believe in God and God exists, then I will go to heaven. If I believe in God and God doesn't exist, then at least no harm is done. Therefore, if I believe in God then either I will go to heaven or at least no harm is done.
I find this debacle very interesting. Firstly it is unprecedented, at least for me. Secondly, this angry student wrote in sound English but failed to capitalise the subject header of the email. Why? How did someone who probably spent a while articulating his thoughts clearly fail to capitalise the subject header? I think it is very important that the subjects of emails be capitalised even when one is very angry. I mean what do you do when you open your nus outlook inbox and see an email with the subject 'irresponsibility, sadism and misrepresentation in the logic module'? I would think that it is irresponsible to not capitalise the first letters of those words and that it misrepresents the otherwise soundly written body, and sadly I can't think of a way to weave sadism into this sentence as well, because I think it would be quite a stretch to say that not capitalising the subject of one's email is sadistic.
Thirdly, I find this interesting too because of the strong language used:
...Some of us have part-time jobs. Some of our parents are retrenched. We take on student loans to support professors by taking their modules. If they teach us, we will learn and study hard. If they don't teach us and can't even answer the questions they set, what do they expect us to do?...
...The philosophy department has lied to us, failed to teach us, and given us the wrong directions during the midterm test...
...They are causing unnecessary stress in us, at a time when the economic crisis is robbing our parents of their jobs, robbing us of our career prospects and causing some NTU student to stab a professor before committing suicide. We base our choice of electives on the module description and past year papers, and they've lied to us when they are supposed to be the bastion of truth.
It is also interesting to observe that while such sentences are coolly expressed, others are not. For example in an earlier paragraph some words are capitalised in WHOLE, like that, which is not just inconsistent in terms of writing style but also reflects an inconsistency in the writer's temperament. While such a technique may be employed in literary writings it should be noted that a petition email is in no way part of the literary genre, and that it is quite disconcerting to see THAT in a formal email.
Fourthly, it is interesting how he signed off as 'fellow cheated logic student'. He/she is making the assumption that other people feel cheated too, probably to make him or herself feel better.
Anyway, I think this angry student probably alienated a number of supporters with his proposed course of action. Little wonder in a later email he/she added that alternatives would be considered.
It's also interesting how as I was reading the email and related ones I assumed that the writer must be a male. Did you subconsciously make that assumption as well? If so, why do we automatically assume people who write such things are males?
What am I going to do now? To be honest, I feel tempted to put my name down because I would like to gain more details and possibly sit in the discussion sessions with the deanery, for no other reason than to satisfy my curiosity. But that would be doing something against my conscience. I cannot put my name to something I do not sincerely support. For all my cynicism about ethical principles I cannot bring myself to do it, even though I rationally think that I can further my interests in doing so. I think that one's name, one's signature, has a sacred value I cannot quite specify now, which is incidentally why I did not give my real signature in pledging my cause for the nation, or whatever we were compelled to sign our names against, during national service; and which is why I wouldn't put my name to this petition even though I got a burning interest in observing how things are going to unfold.
We may want to note that, paradoxically, people who are opposed to the petition may actually want to sign the petition because it allows them greater access to the ongoing discussions which puts you in a better place to defend the lecturer, the test, and the module in general. People who sign the petition are those who would tend to be on the offensive, so if they are the people who get to talk to the deanery then there is a certain bias there.
Then again I can always weigh in on the other side by sending an email to the deanery. I think that's what I'm going to do. For the record, some of the accusations against the lecturer are not unreasonable. Overall though I think he's a good guy and things are pretty decent and I actually enjoyed the test because it was quite interesting. The first few questions, for example, involved analysing the following argument:
If I believe in God and God exists, then I will go to heaven. If I believe in God and God doesn't exist, then at least no harm is done. Therefore, if I believe in God then either I will go to heaven or at least no harm is done.
5 Comments:
ok, this has nothing to do with me, but i must say that i have a very negative impression of people who would write such a raucous email and then not sign off with their true names.
and i also think it's very nonsensical that he/she's using economic crisis/NTU-student-stabbing-prof-committing-suicide to support his/her case. what has that got to do with the test?
and if you're feeling activist enough and really want to sit in on the discussion, you can always start a counter-petition....
It is sadistic because it greatly offends my linguistic sensibilities and mutilates the English language.
I think anyone who actually tried this in the first place (instead of maybe first a one-to-one consultation with the lecturer) would probably have written the email in an emotionally-charged state. So I'm not surprised if the email would have things that seem informal. He/she probably stormed home and immediately wrote the email.
People spurred to activism in a fit of the moment aren't always rational.
Aquila
Rofl, "We base our choice of electives on the module description and past year papers, and they've lied to us when they are supposed to be the bastion of truth."
I didn't know your school promises past year paper consistency. On that note, the above is not even an example of a good example of a argumentative statement at all.
Send me sounds like a good read! Though as mentioned above she/he is a loser for not signing off with a real name.
Post a Comment
<< Home