Writer@Large

But isn't that what's going on here? Remember what the OP said:

"Her answer was fine - other than the disclaimer."

In other words, if this student hadn't felt the need to "speak up," we wouldn't be having this conversation. A teacher cannot, ethically, deliver an objective-based test, and then mark someone down on philisophical grounds. It just isn't right. As I've said before: what if there were three other students in that classroom who felt the same way she did? What if they just kept their mouths shut? Hell, what if a die-hard meember of the Thiaoouba cult took the course, but decided not to speak out? Does the teacher in question administer a "faith test" before grading the quizzes? Of course not.

Maybe there's a little bit of arrogance here. I feel it myself. Deep down, really, if she *understood* it, wouldn't she *accept* it? But then, I'm sure die-hard Leninists used to say the same thing about Marxism.

If we graded students on attitude, I'd be failing 90% of my students. But we don't. We grade on aptitude and retention. Regardless of her ChristBot mentality, she answered the question correctly. That is all the teacher asked for, that is all the teacher required, and that is what she delivered.

I agree 100%. Believe me. I've gotten similar attitudes before, especially from Freshman composition students. It's doubly frustrating when they cop that attitude but still perform well in the class, because there's nothing more satisfying than failing a prick who earned it ...

In theory, yes. In practice, no. You can lead a student to learning, but you can't make him think .

I totally agree. But sometimes, they just don't want it, no matter how much you try.

--W@L

ohwilleke

I think this student deserves full marks. Academia values honesty and doesn't require students to be convinced by their teachers, so long as they understand what the teacher said and can apply that in answer to a question.

Indeed, a student who cares enough to be honest about beliefs is probably a stronger student than one who never even considered it an issue.

And, while not converting someone doesn't make one a bad teacher, not inspiring doubt is a bigger problem.

simian

Just a couple of thoughts: first, the question was answered correctly. I don't feel it really matters if the student "believes" it, the student understands it suffeceintly to answer the question correctly.

Second thought: Perhaps the comment was more a "defense mechanism" for the student than defiance. It is possible the student does understand the subject being taught. The student could be going through a faith crisis because she understands enough of the world around her to see that the religious views she was raised with do not match reality. If she gives up her religious views, she goes to hell, according to the rules she was raised with.

Just thought that idea should be tossed out there. I have known a few people who have gained a more reasonable religious view (left the fundie crowd) due to events like this, and to some point they are trying to justify their knowledge and understanding of the world around them against their religion. One solution is to give the correct answer, but state the don't agree with it.

Enough rambling from me.

leonarde

The funny thing about the response(s) to my comparison with Marxism is that in a de facto sense you would encourage the same (cynical) attitudes that Communism did in communist countries: when people had to mouth the party line
and "dialectical materialism" to get ahead in education, career, etc. a LOT of them did without
believing in it.
Likewise, if it ever becomes widespread that instructors "take off" for disbelief in evolution
or [fill in blank] then you will encourage and get
a lot of dishonesty on the point: good students,
by definition, know how to get good grades. If fibbing about a given tenet is necessary, many will do it.....

Nialler

Again, thanks for all of your replies. The depth to which you have all applied yourself to this issue indicates to me that it is a good thing that I never (not quite!) entered the education profession (I *did* work as an occasional lecturer but was only really there to pass on industrial experience). Your combined cogitations have variously illuminated me, confused me and delighted me.

I still havea knee-jerk reaction to her professed lack of belief in what she was thought, but I probably accept that she should be passed - as she was. Having said that, she could have been much more diplomatic. Formulations such as: "According to TOE... " etc, might have ensured that she was not openly defying her lecturer, while still giving an expression - albeit reserved - to her doubts.

Thanks, everyone for your replies. They were every bit as cogent as I expect from this board. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Koyaanisqatsi

I don't know...a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

RufusAtticus

Question:
Does anyone here even think that the student should be docked points for her disclaimer?

As far as I can tell, there is no debate here as to what grade she should get.

-RvFvS

RufusAtticus

leonarde,

You appear to be confusing politics/philosophy with science. They are not equivalent and your analogy is flawed.

When it comes to evolution, many people think it is acceptable for someone to not believe in it. This of course is a major problem, since it is the grand unifying theory of biology. Education has been kowtowing too long to the ill-educated political movement of anti-evolution. Surely the vast majority of people consider heliocentricism and flat-earthism as unreasonable world views.

The same scientific methods that are used to determine the shape of the world are also used to determine the existance of evolution and universal common descent. Anti-evolution worldviews are just as unreasonable as anti-round-earth worldviews. Both are undeniable facts about reality.

This is not the same as political or philsophical positions which are derived from untestable axioms and social concensus.

-RvFvS

KeithHarwood

You have a point there.

leonarde

Partial post by RufusAtticus: To my mind philosophy and science are not
and NEVER have been air-tight compartments. In ancient times the philosophers and (proto)scientists were frequently the same persons. Even today philosophical outlook undergirds much of science: it is only looking in
history's rearview mirror which tips us off as to
what was really science and what was a wan hope based on philosophical rigidity. For how many centuries was alchemy pursued in Europe? (centuries, not years, not decades). How was it that men like Sir Isaac Newton, probably the greatest scientist that the English-speaking peoples ever produced, practiced for 40 or so years this (in today's terminology)"pseudo-science"??? And why did he do
this concurrently with his (still acclaimed
)work in physics and co-invention of calculus??
Could it have had anything to do with philosophical frameworks which deceived otherwise
intelligent men on the feasibility of transmuting
base metals into precious ones?
Once more about Marxism: one of the reasons
why the Bolsheviks and other Eastern European communists felt justified in imposing it on reluctant populations was: they, the Communists,
were convinced that Marxism was a science: the science which had discovered the very laws of history itself. There was a certain logic to imposing such a science, once one
casts aside all doubts.
It seems to me that even diminishing reservoirs of such doubts are an asset to anysociety: so the non-believers in evolution serve a function as well.

Cheers!