pnorton at hendrix.JCI.TJU.EDU (Pamela Norton) writes:
><walkerc at CLEMSON.EDU> wrote:
>>> Is it my imagination or does this discussion look like a debate on hazing?
> I disagree with the analogy.
I think the analogy itself is poor but I do think it looks like a debate on
hazing. In part because of apparent misinterpretation.
>The intention of hazing is to subject the individual's identity to
>that of the group. The intention of scientific training is to produce an
>individual who thinks independently, exactly the opposite.
The professed intents of at least some hazing and of ?pointed? questioning
of a protege/student are the same, to toughen up the student.
>Not personal attacks, not public humiliation, but constructive criticism.
good.
> I can't understand why anyone thinks that it is preferable to give a
>seminar in front of an outside audience without first giving it before
>colleagues who are expected to ask the tough questions. The latter process
>exposes the holes (everyone's work has weak spots) and allows you to think
>up appropriate answers. The same rationale applies to drafts of papers and
>grants.
But where in the educational process are you doing this? At what
intensity? Intense pointed questions? For a 3rd year grad student?
Sounds reasonable to me. For a first year grad student from an undergrad
program you aren't familiar with? Maybe not.
>Sure, some people are idiots, but you just have to ignore them :).
Amen.
Robert
