kallend 1,672 #176 January 30, 2007 QuoteKallend, I'd really rather not get this thread locked. Suffice it to say that you have both stated that it's not appropriate to make specific political views known in the course I'm taking (somewhere in the first 30 post...iirc), and also that there are some instances where you believe that political commentary is appropriate. I hold a different view, especially in regards to this specific course, and the comments made specifically. I can't fathom a way that the 2000 election had any thing to do with the basic chemistry I'm currently taking; if you can explain that, I'd appreciate it. In re: general political commentary, yes, there are some comments that are appropriate; I've discussed GW (global warming) and stem cell research with two professors; the difference being that it was in the bio department. I would not expect my poli sci prof to comment on my math class's pertinence, and unless I was in economics, I wouldn't expect any political commentary from the maths professor on politics. Funnily enough, they didn't. In any event, there is no correlation between the 2000 election and Chemistry for Dummies... C'mon, Kallend, stop with the PAs. Ciels- Michele There is clear relation between, say, the Antarctic ozone hole and chemistry, and control of CFCs is a political decision. There is a clear relation between acid rain and chemistry, and control of SO2 emissions is a political decision. There is a clear relation between fuel efficiency and chemistry, and fuel efficiency mandates are political decisions. These are all fair game for a discussion in a "gened" chemistry class, IMO. That's why we have geneds - to create well informed graduates. Discussing the 2000 election is out of place. I VERY clearly stated that for it to be appropriate there had to be relevance to chemistry. BTW, (this for Rehmwa) while geneds may have been a random selection of this that and the other a decade or so ago when you were in college, the accreditation rules now mandate a structured gened program designed to produce graduates who are well informed about contemporary issues in society (regardless of what their major may be) and that the college must be able to provide evidence to prove that it does so. We don't make the accreditation rules, we just have to live by them. Most schools are still struggling with the new rules, particularly the bit about providing evidence... I am my university's accreditation coordinator, and I can quote you chapter and verse from the criteria, but I suspect you would fall asleep before you got to the bottom of the first page.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #177 January 30, 2007 Ahem...Michele: If the Prof is allergic to cats, bring the entire herd to class, have him try to pick up and restrain Penguin...Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #178 January 31, 2007 QuoteIf the Prof is allergic to cats, bring the entire herd to class, have him try to pick up and restrain Penguin... ROFLMAO.... Great idea...but I wouldn't do that to Pengy. I love that cat, even though I've not touched her, and I wouldn't do that. Now, the rest of the herd? Rather possible. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #179 January 31, 2007 QuoteThere is clear relation between, say, the Antarctic ozone hole and chemistry, and control of CFCs is a political decision. There is a clear relation between acid rain and chemistry, and control of SO2 emissions is a political decision. There is a clear relation between fuel efficiency and chemistry, and fuel efficiency mandates are political decisions. These are all fair game for a discussion in a "gened" chemistry class, IMO. Especially if it involves indoctrination consistent with your prefered ideology. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #180 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn order for ANY undergraduate program to be accreditable, it must have a general education component. The universities and colleges have no option if they want to be accredited. The purpose of GenEds is NOT the same as the purpose of major courses. I'm surprised that you are ignorant of this. No, on reflection, I'm not surprised at all. General Education - you mean like some basic coursework in math, physics, economics, psychology and chemistry? I think it's odd that a professor of hard sciences doesn't consider something like chemistry to be of enough value (all by its little lonesome), that it would only be considered good enough as a single topic in a curriculum of basic general education only if we dice in the personal political views of the professors..... Before you guys make more complete asses of yourselves on a subject on which you apparently know nothing, I suggest you educate yourselves on accreditation criteria for colleges and universities in the USA and the purpose and assessment of the (mandatory) gened programs. General education requirements aside, why don't you explain why POLITICAL concerns need to be addressed in a SCIENCE class, and not in a political science class (which would, it is to be presumed, fulfill part of the General Education requirements). I've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,271 #181 January 31, 2007 QuoteI've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. But Kallend has shown very clearly how chemical reactions can affect politics....Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #182 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteI've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. But Kallend has shown very clearly how chemical reactions can affect politics.... Is this like that "if a butterfly flaps it's wings in Illinois, winter hurricanes hit the UK" analogy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #183 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIn order for ANY undergraduate program to be accreditable, it must have a general education component. The universities and colleges have no option if they want to be accredited. The purpose of GenEds is NOT the same as the purpose of major courses. I'm surprised that you are ignorant of this. No, on reflection, I'm not surprised at all. General Education - you mean like some basic coursework in math, physics, economics, psychology and chemistry? I think it's odd that a professor of hard sciences doesn't consider something like chemistry to be of enough value (all by its little lonesome), that it would only be considered good enough as a single topic in a curriculum of basic general education only if we dice in the personal political views of the professors..... Before you guys make more complete asses of yourselves on a subject on which you apparently know nothing, I suggest you educate yourselves on accreditation criteria for colleges and universities in the USA and the purpose and assessment of the (mandatory) gened programs. General education requirements aside, why don't you explain why POLITICAL concerns need to be addressed in a SCIENCE class, and not in a political science class (which would, it is to be presumed, fulfill part of the General Education requirements). I've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. You second comment has already been addressed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #184 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteGeneral education requirements aside, why don't you explain why POLITICAL concerns need to be addressed in a SCIENCE class, and not in a political science class (which would, it is to be presumed, fulfill part of the General Education requirements). I've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. What is your point? That because there are some overlaps, professors should lecture on subjects outside of their field of expertise? QuoteYou second comment has already been addressed. So, you liked my butterfly analogy, too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,271 #185 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. But Kallend has shown very clearly how chemical reactions can affect politics.... Is this like that "if a butterfly flaps it's wings in Illinois, winter hurricanes hit the UK" analogy? No.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #186 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteGeneral education requirements aside, why don't you explain why POLITICAL concerns need to be addressed in a SCIENCE class, and not in a political science class (which would, it is to be presumed, fulfill part of the General Education requirements). I've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. What is your point? That because there are some overlaps, professors should lecture on subjects outside of their field of expertise? QuoteYou second comment has already been addressed. So, you liked my butterfly analogy, too? No.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #187 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGeneral education requirements aside, why don't you explain why POLITICAL concerns need to be addressed in a SCIENCE class, and not in a political science class (which would, it is to be presumed, fulfill part of the General Education requirements). I've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. What is your point? That because there are some overlaps, professors should lecture on subjects outside of their field of expertise? QuoteYou second comment has already been addressed. So, you liked my butterfly analogy, too? No. What was your point? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #188 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteGeneral education requirements aside, why don't you explain why POLITICAL concerns need to be addressed in a SCIENCE class, and not in a political science class (which would, it is to be presumed, fulfill part of the General Education requirements). I've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. You second comment has already been addressed. Neither question is being answered - you have still not explained WHY politics need to be discussed in a science class. Discussions of the political considerations of global warming have NOTHING to do with the chemical reactions involved and everything to do with a bully pulpit and is an attempt to sway the students to a particular way of thinking. Again - SHOW me how the chemical reaction is affected by ANY political or theological standpoint - as far as I know, H2O = H2 + O2 regardless of the political leanings of the experimenter. Prove me wrong.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #189 January 31, 2007 Quoteas far as I know, H2O = H2 + O2 regardless of the political leanings of the experimenter. Prove me wrong. "regardless of politics" you are wrong H20 <> H2 + O2 you have an O left over Apparently you got too much politics in your gened chem class, and not enough chem in you gened chem class. But at least the gened chem class "prepared you for the real world and helped you be aware of current events". ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #190 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGeneral education requirements aside, why don't you explain why POLITICAL concerns need to be addressed in a SCIENCE class, and not in a political science class (which would, it is to be presumed, fulfill part of the General Education requirements). I've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. What is your point? That because there are some overlaps, professors should lecture on subjects outside of their field of expertise? QuoteYou second comment has already been addressed. So, you liked my butterfly analogy, too? No. What was your point? Your analogy was crappy. Hence the "NO". Simple really.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #191 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteGeneral education requirements aside, why don't you explain why POLITICAL concerns need to be addressed in a SCIENCE class, and not in a political science class (which would, it is to be presumed, fulfill part of the General Education requirements). I've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. You second comment has already been addressed. Neither question is being answered - you have still not explained WHY politics need to be discussed in a science class. Discussions of the political considerations of global warming have NOTHING to do with the chemical reactions involved and everything to do with a bully pulpit and is an attempt to sway the students to a particular way of thinking. Again - SHOW me how the chemical reaction is affected by ANY political or theological standpoint - as far as I know, H2O = H2 + O2 regardless of the political leanings of the experimenter. Prove me wrong. Any high school chemist could point out your error there! Apparently you SHOULD have taken more chemistry. Maybe you should look up the word "interdisciplinary".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #192 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOh yes they do. As I wrote, WMD = chemicals and how the governments react. Perhaos the usable life of the chems, etc.... Bullshit - show me how religion or politics changes a chemical reaction and I'll cede the point. Who distributes the chemicals to whom? What they do with them? What teh shelf life is in relation to which countries tiring of that country. It is really a convoluted mess. A better example of politics and science would be your hero and stem cell research. So, politics and science have no correlation, huh? Never did address the Mendell or Darwin cite. Again, bullshit - religion and politics have no effect on the combination of oxygen and hydrogen to create water. Keep the politics out of the classroom unless you're teaching a political science class. And skydiving has no relationship with simply pulling your hacky out, it can be done on teh ground or any time. You can say, "bullshit" till you balls fall off, but when your hero cuts any future gov funds from stem cell research, there is a direct political influence on science. Then when you take the motivation for that influence, pandering to the moral right to keep the moral vote on the GOP, there is now a direct religious influence on science. If we polled the public on this I believe it would be clear that most people believe there are politics in science. OK, your turn, here's a start...... I say Bullshit.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #193 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGeneral education requirements aside, why don't you explain why POLITICAL concerns need to be addressed in a SCIENCE class, and not in a political science class (which would, it is to be presumed, fulfill part of the General Education requirements). I've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. What is your point? That because there are some overlaps, professors should lecture on subjects outside of their field of expertise? QuoteYou second comment has already been addressed. So, you liked my butterfly analogy, too? No. What was your point? Your analogy was crappy. Hence the "NO". Simple really. QuoteWhat is your point? That because there are some overlaps, professors should lecture on subjects outside of their field of expertise? Still waiting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #194 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOh yes they do. As I wrote, WMD = chemicals and how the governments react. Perhaos the usable life of the chems, etc.... Bullshit - show me how religion or politics changes a chemical reaction and I'll cede the point. Who distributes the chemicals to whom? What they do with them? What teh shelf life is in relation to which countries tiring of that country. It is really a convoluted mess. A better example of politics and science would be your hero and stem cell research. So, politics and science have no correlation, huh? Never did address the Mendell or Darwin cite. Again, bullshit - religion and politics have no effect on the combination of oxygen and hydrogen to create water. Keep the politics out of the classroom unless you're teaching a political science class. And skydiving has no relationship with simply pulling your hacky out, it can be done on teh ground or any time. You can say, "bullshit" till you balls fall off, but when your hero cuts any future gov funds from stem cell research, there is a direct political influence on science. Then when you take the motivation for that influence, pandering to the moral right to keep the moral vote on the GOP, there is now a direct religious influence on science. If we polled the public on this I believe it would be clear that most people believe there are politics in science. OK, your turn, here's a start...... I say Bullshit.... That's nice that you have your quaint little opinion, but we're waiting for an official university accreditation coordinator to explain it to us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #195 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuote Neither question is being answered - you have still not explained WHY politics need to be discussed in a science class. Discussions of the political considerations of global warming have NOTHING to do with the chemical reactions involved and everything to do with a bully pulpit and is an attempt to sway the students to a particular way of thinking. Again - SHOW me how the chemical reaction is affected by ANY political or theological standpoint - as far as I know, H2O = H2 + O2 regardless of the political leanings of the experimenter. Prove me wrong. Any high school chemist could point out your error there! Apparently you SHOULD have taken more chemistry. Maybe you should look up the word "interdisciplinary". Oops - corrected! Fingers operating faster than brain... You're still not proving how that chemical reaction is affected by politics... QuoteWe believe in interdisciplinary education. We believe that all subjects are intimately related, yet these relationships are often ignored by teachers who focus on their own areas of specialization and by textbooks which are written by specialists. We believe that one cannot learn science independently of philosophy, logic, literature, mathematics, economics, art, language, etc. Science, without these other disciplines is sterile indeed! Yeah...that's still not answering the question either...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #196 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOne other thing you might want to consider is apologizing to your professor. Without get into particulars, you could offer something along the lines of "I thought we had a pretty good relationship and I want to apologize for any part I played in turning it into a confrontational one". If he replies with criticisms... let them slide. NC, thanks for that. You're right...and I went ahead and emailed him a moment ago. Here is what I sent over... "Hi, Professor: Friday's episode has been bothering me, and I wanted to take a brief moment to email you this morning. I thought we had a pretty good relationship and I want to apologize for any part I played in turning it into a confrontational one. It wasn't (and isn't) my intent to have a confrontational relationship with anyone, and again, I am sorry for any part I played in developing that. With that, I am back to studying, and I'll see you this afternoon. Regards- Michele" If he responds, I'll post it up. If not, well, we'll see what happens this afternoon in class. Thanks again for the wording, and for the suggestion. Let's see how this goes. And now, I have to review pH factoring and buffer identification... Ciels- Michele YOUR FUCKING WELCOME. I suggested this on the first page as I recall, at least way back there. So you kinda support your prof's theory about political divide, as you wouldn't take the same advice from me. Just saying NClimber is a conservative, not a neo-con or anything, we don't have of those here. You know, lucky... you write your own personal treatise on conservatives on campuse and how a savy student like yourself deals with professors. Then... way down at the bottom you offer some caustic advice on apologizing. Maybe the reason my post rang true for Michele had to do with the tone and content of my post. Maybe that's the same reason your's didn't. Tone and Content. Hey, as long as I'm not being misquoted I'm happy as fuck Why not go back and read the thread, you'll see I handle different teachers differently. Some I see are fair so no BS is neccessary, some are nuts so I either drop or develop a plan. Again, only about 1/2 of the 9 appeals (don;t pipe in with 9 being an odd number as would happen in the OTHER thread) were over grade issues and only 3 or 4 went higher than the teacher. So if you read one thread I advise to actually admit he's right in a very subtle way, feeding his ego, giving you the effect of possibly upgrading. Don;t think for a moment I was combative with every or even most teachers, but some, esp tenured profs are just litterally nuts. Then there's the lesbian factor. In my dept there was a faction of man-hating lesbians that if you were a white male and unlucky enough to have taken one you were screwed. I graduated with a 3.32 and had only one mid-term failure notice from that beotch. I knew a PhD student I had as a teacher who had 1 B and all A's, got the B from her. It was eventually discovered and she was removed to do strictly research, she should have been fired but she was tenured. To this day, 5+ years after my graduation she is still doing research per 1 prof I still talk to. So no, my so called rant wasn't caustic, it was actually more apologetic than yours. As I wrote, cons stick together, I imagine neo-cons do to, fortunatley we don't have any here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #197 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGeneral education requirements aside, why don't you explain why POLITICAL concerns need to be addressed in a SCIENCE class, and not in a political science class (which would, it is to be presumed, fulfill part of the General Education requirements). I've noted that nobody can answer how politics affect chemical reactions as of yet. Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. What is your point? That because there are some overlaps, professors should lecture on subjects outside of their field of expertise? QuoteYou second comment has already been addressed. So, you liked my butterfly analogy, too? No. What was your point? Your analogy was crappy. Hence the "NO". Simple really. QuoteWhat is your point? That because there are some overlaps, professors should lecture on subjects outside of their field of expertise? Still waiting. Try reading this and come back when you know something about the way education works.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #198 January 31, 2007 John are you teaching Truck Driving after school again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #199 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOh yes they do. As I wrote, WMD = chemicals and how the governments react. Perhaos the usable life of the chems, etc.... Bullshit - show me how religion or politics changes a chemical reaction and I'll cede the point. Who distributes the chemicals to whom? What they do with them? What teh shelf life is in relation to which countries tiring of that country. It is really a convoluted mess. A better example of politics and science would be your hero and stem cell research. So, politics and science have no correlation, huh? Never did address the Mendell or Darwin cite. Again, bullshit - religion and politics have no effect on the combination of oxygen and hydrogen to create water. Keep the politics out of the classroom unless you're teaching a political science class. And skydiving has no relationship with simply pulling your hacky out, it can be done on teh ground or any time. You can say, "bullshit" till you balls fall off, but when your hero cuts any future gov funds from stem cell research, there is a direct political influence on science. Then when you take the motivation for that influence, pandering to the moral right to keep the moral vote on the GOP, there is now a direct religious influence on science. Wrong again - that stem cell doesn't care if the person that extracted it is Rep, Dem or Libertarian, OR where the money to pay the person came from. Prove me wrong.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #200 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteHow could you? That show is great. Not a PA andnot inferring you, but I could see an antisemite hate the show, but hell, now that Richards is out as a racist, hell, a racist could watch it for that!!! how can you stand up straight with so many chips on your shoulder? How do you know I stand up straight? How is that a chip on my shoulder? I'm juts explaining hiw I like Seinfeld? And then making a joke. Geez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
