> >an excuse for abuse, whereas I have tried to draw the distinction
> >between constructive criticsim as a tool for learning
> >and bloody-minded negative-for-the-heck-of it criticism.
I think you have done a good job drawing this distinction in someof your later
posts. However, from some of the earlier posts it
sounded like you (and Deirdre and Bharathi) felt it was
your duty to rip apart your students so they could get used
to it. I think it was terms like "confrontation," "ugly underbelly,"
and "negative feedback" that gave me the impression that you
felt it was a necessary part of graduate training to engage your student
in at least one ugly, demoralizing, mean-spirited, destructive kind of
question and answer session, just so they'd have some practice.
I was very surprised by this since it seemed completely out of
character with the tenor of your other postings (although I don't
contribute very often, I follow the group pretty closely).
Anyway, in later posts you cleared up that matter, and your
training methods sound pretty ideal. Your students are lucky.
> >But, apparently that makes me a hazer, so I will now withdraw from this
> >thread and go beat my graduate students.
Well, just remember that this is all being done by e-mail and newsgroup
postings, it's not a real conversation. Maybe Caroline wrote the hazing
note before she read the later postings by you and Deirdre, where
your positions were clarified. I know I've gotten into trouble by
reading and responding to e-mails out of order.
Valerie
