Is it my imagination or does this discussion look like a debate on hazing?
The idea that toughening up students is a way to prepare them for the "real
world"....give them a taste of what they are going to face so that they can
handle it better etc. One feature of hazing is that those who went through
it and survived are likely to advocate it as a good system and use it
themselves. I think the number of anti hazing postings shows that there
are many of us who don't believe in this system at all, and resent being
subjected to it or seeing bright and able people falling through the cracks.
Judy Stone hit the nail on the head when she said that it was a
matter of giving students confidence - for some hazing achieves this I
suppose, but certainly not for all. It was amusing that some posters in
the somewhat pro-hazing side are considering themselves misinterpreted and
at the same time posing the question of "shouldn't I tell my student when
they are wrong or if they are lazy?". This is a classic defense of hazing
(I live in SC so we get to hear this stuff a lot) by making it sound like
the only alternative to hazing is to never reprimand or criticise!
