Feminist Professor Thinks "Rigor" is Evil

[Cerebus]

This is written by one of her students in the Thermodynamics class Donna Riley was teaching at Smit College (an all women college)

http://ashish-dss.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/critical-pedagogy-in-engineering.html

In this post, I will discuss some of the critical pedagogy practices employed by Dr. Donna Riley (currently a professor at Virginia Tech) while teaching a class called “Engineering Thermodynamics” as Smit College, an all women college, during Spring and Fall semesters of 2002.
...
Democratic classroom practices.
Students were assigned teaching roles to teach parts of the course to the entire class. They were not only asked to develop modules to teach the class but also encouraged to relate them to their own lives. Also, the seating arrangement reflected the democratic classroom practices. Instead of sitting in rows facing the instructor, students were asked to sit in circles with each student facing and talking to the entire class instead of just the instructor.

Translation: She managed to avoid much of her work by getting us to learn it ourselves and then lecture the rest of the class.

Somehow I find giving the label "democracy" to getting your students to do your work for you oddly misplaced. Did they get to vote on accepting this work, or was it dictatorially assigned to them?

Given her woeful understanding of what "rigour" means in terms of science and engineering (she seems to think it means "complex maths"^* and hard labour) do we, perhaps, wonder if she wasn't quite up to teaching a class entitled "Engineering Thermodynamics" and came up with, an admittedly impressively crafty, way of winging it?

Reading further I think I may have answered my own question:

Normalizing mistakes.
By normalizing mistakes in the process of learning, Riley fostered a classroom environment in which students were comfortable attempting problems (sometimes even on the black board) in class and learning from their mistakes. Another strategy used by her for normalizing mistakes was acknowledging when she herself did not know something.

^* I just realized that I ought to qualify this. Riley uses the phrase "complex maths" when she properly means "complicated or difficult maths". She does not mean exclusively the mathematics of complex numbers, which nevertheless I suspect fall into that category for her.

[ataradov]

Yes, it was hard to stump real professors with questions. Really, they've been teaching for ages, they know all the stuff students will ask, and actually just include it in the course. But hey, democracy, I guess.

Two of the best classes I've taken (analytical geometry and calculus) were taught by women, but somehow their gender did not matter at all. And it certainly did not influence curriculum.

[Cerebus]

Two of the best classes I've taken (analytical geometry and calculus) were taught by women, but somehow their gender did not matter at all. And it certainly did not influence curriculum.

My mate Jo(anne) was the only person who seemed to walk out of "Complex Analysis" without a headache and a glazed look in her eyes.

[Mr. Scram]

Yes, it was hard to stump real professors with questions. Really, they've been teaching for ages, they know all the stuff students will ask, and actually just include it in the course. But hey, democracy, I guess.

Two of the best classes I've taken (analytical geometry and calculus) were taught by women, but somehow their gender did not matter at all. And it certainly did not influence curriculum.

Maybe I'm falling off the bandwagon here, but it sounds healthy to admit you don't know everything or not to hide mistakes. That's an attitude I've seen in various sectors where the stakes are high and I don't expect any engineering to be different, though pride is a fickle thing.

[ataradov]

Maybe I'm falling off the bandwagon here, but it sounds healthy to admit you don't know everything or not to hide mistakes.

Yes, if you really don't know. But the fact that you don't know the answer to a question in your area of expertise, when you've been teaching for a while, is surprising. It is not inventing new stuff, it is teaching the same well established things.

And how often that had to happen to actually make a note of it?

[Mr. Scram]

Yes, if you really don't know. But the fact that you don't know the answer to a question in your area of expertise, when you've been teaching for a while, is surprising. It is not inventing new stuff, it is teaching the same well established things.

And how often that had to happen to actually make a note of it?

Of course there will inevitably be a lot of things you don't know, even in your area of expertise. Not to mention all the areas surrounding your expertise you know a lot of, but not quite everything. Look at Dave's videos. He obviously knows his stuff, but regularly runs into something not quite knowing what he's looking at. That's how you learn. The bulk of the stuff will be familiar, but there will be enough that you don't know. Not even the most knowledgeable person on Earth escapes that.

Your attitude worries me a bit, if I'm honest. Doctors look up things on a daily basis. Pilots are pushed to keep learning and developing every day, even after 20 years of flying. Why would teaching or engineering be any different? An important part of being an expert is knowing your limitations. That's why trained doctors, pilots and engineers are safer than laymen. They know what they don't know, and know what they can't do.

We're not even talking about how fields evolve and develop, which means your 20 years of experience isn't going to cut it on its own.

[ataradov]

Of course there will inevitably be a lot of things you don't know, even in your area of expertise.

In normal life or work - yes, in the course of a structured lecture - no, unless it is something really cutting edge. But cutting edge stuff rarely happens in lectures. I'm absolutely not saying that you need to know or will know everything, not at all.

It would really be nice to know the types of questions that stumbled her, of course.

[ataradov]

Also, this:

developing students into socially and politically aware individuals, helping them recognize authoritarian tendencies, empowering them to act against injustice,

has nothing to do with technical engineering. I would be very pissed if my thermodynamics included lectures on social injustice.

So I don't know what sort of qualifications she has to teach thermodynamics in general.

[Cerebus]

Let's not take it too far here. We were talking in the context of a PhD giving an undergraduate course on "Engineering Thermodynamics", whose real interests clearly lie in social politics. In that context, not knowing something that's part of the course sounds suspiciously like flubbing it. It doesn't mean that it's reprehensible to not know everything your students might ask and nobody is, I think, saying that. Just that, on this occasion, it sounds more like the former than the latter.

In professional practice? Of course there will be scad loads you don't know and it's the proper thing to humbly admit ignorance.

[Mr. Scram]

In normal life or work - yes, in the course of a structured lecture - no, unless it is something really cutting edge. But cutting edge stuff rarely happens in lectures. I'm absolutely not saying that you need to know or will know everything, not at all.

It would really be nice to know the types of questions that stumbled her, of course.

Even the most traditional lecture has room for questions and you can bet those bastards will find ways to throw you curve balls, often even without realizing it themselves. Current events in the news that somehow relate to the lecture material are a common source of questions. I'd say that the less the students know the harder the questions can be to answer, in the "a fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can answer" sense.

Obviously, it sounds like these lectures are a little less "I talk and you listen". That leaves more room for funny questions. It doesn't quite mean they're unstructured, mind you.

[ataradov]

Even the most traditional lecture has room for questions and you can bet those bastards will find ways to throw you curve balls, often even without realizing it themselves.

Absolutely. And that happened from time to time, especially if answer requires deeper understanding of the material covered later in the course. Things that are hard to explain, and outright "I don't know" are different things. Ability to recognize an invalid or incorrect question plays important role here, but again, given some knowledge in the area should be helpful here.

I'm not saying that it should not happen, I'm just asking how often that happened that it deserved recognition like that.

In that case it looks more like someone who ostensibly knows how to teach, tries to teach a discipline she is not very familiar with. Hence the result.

[Mr. Scram]

Let's not take it too far here. We were talking in the context of a PhD giving an undergraduate course on "Engineering Thermodynamics", whose real interests clearly lie in social politics. In that context, not knowing something that's part of the course sounds suspiciously like flubbing it. It doesn't mean that it's reprehensible to not know everything your students might ask and nobody is, I think, saying that. Just that, on this occasion, it sounds more like the former than the latter.

In professional practice? Of course there will be scad loads you don't know and it's the proper thing to humbly admit ignorance.

I don't know. It seems to me there's a dynamic here where people try their hardest to see things in the worst light possible, with the thread getting ever more frenzied.

[ataradov]

The real test here is to give students a real non-democratic exam, but on thermodynamics, not social justice . And if they know stuff - excellent, then it was a good way to teach. If they fail, then it does not matter how inclusive they felt in the process, they don't know the material.

[Cerebus]

Also, this:

developing students into socially and politically aware individuals, helping them recognize authoritarian tendencies, empowering them to act against injustice,

has nothing to do with technical engineering. I would be very pissed if my thermodynamics included lectures on social injustice.

Actually, if you were at Smith I think you might expect it. From a quick look at Smith's web site:

At Smith, the engineering degrees offered are based on rigorous plans of study integrated with the liberal arts and sciences. There are two possible paths for the study of engineering at Smith College. The first is the ABET-accredited bachelor of science (S.B.) in engineering science, and the second is the bachelor of arts (A.B.) in engineering arts.

If you're signed up for a Bachelor^* of Arts (yes, BA) in Engineering Arts I think you might well expect some things in your lectures that would not feature in a BSc or BEng.

^* As it's an all female college shouldn't that be Spinster?

[ataradov]

Actually, if you were at Smith I think you might expect it. From a quick look at Smith's web site:

Good point. But in that case I would ask individuals that look this course to not whine when they can't find jobs. Those jobs are taken by people that picked a bit of rigor in their education.

[Mr. Scram]

Absolutely. And that happened from time to time, especially if answer requires deeper understanding of the material covered later in the course. Things that are hard to explain, and outright "I don't know" are different things. Ability to recognize an invalid or incorrect question plays important role here, but again, given some knowledge in the area should be helpful here.

I'm not saying that it should not happen, I'm just asking how often that happened that it deserved recognition like that.

In that case it looks more like someone who ostensibly knows how to teach, tries to teach a discipline she is not very familiar with. Hence the result.

I really don't know where you get the "she is not very familiar with" from. You've somehow extrapolated that from a quote about how she feels it's important that she too admits not knowing things whenever that's relevant. As we've established, not knowing things is not only part of  being an expert, but probably part of why you're an expert. It's a common practice in rather serious fields all over the world, but when this lady does it it's all horrible.

You somehow seem to insist that an expert always knows everything, but I've personally never met an expert who would agree with that. Quite the contrary, I'd say.

[ataradov]

You somehow seem to insist that an expert always knows everything, but I've personally never met an expert who would agree with that. Quite the contrary, I'd say.

Not at all. I doubt typical student's ability to ask really-really tricky questions that would stumble a professor. Especially I doubt that this happens a lot of times during the course.

I do maintain that in a classroom with "typical students" and "typical professor", the professor should be able to answer on-topic questions on the spot in most cases.

You obviously are not expected to know everything in the course of active research.

Or may be, I'm just projecting my experience. But all my technical professors were knowledgeable enough to answer the questions coming up during the lecture. And that's what I come to expect from them.

[Cerebus]

I don't know. It seems to me there's a dynamic here where people try their hardest to see things in the worst light possible, with the thread getting ever more frenzied.

I keep on trying to be fair to Dr Riley, and in doing so I've tried to look at original material as far as I can. The problem is that every time I get half way through a video, or whatever, I throw my hands up in disgust and walk away. The woman clearly has an agenda, clearly has little understanding of engineering or, worse still, deliberately conflates the scientific/mathematical/engineering concept of rigour with the many other meanings of the word to cast it in a bad light.

What has clearly happened is that people have been critical of her work and conclusions on education and said her work lacks "rigour". Rather than fix any weaknesses in her research she has gone on the offensive against her critics and moved on to an offensive on rigour in science and engineering. Either every scientist, mathematician and engineer is wrong on the merits of rigour (probably blinded by being white, western and having willies), or she is just a political animal pushing a political agenda with scant regard for any underlying facts or the consequences if she is successful.

[Mr. Scram]

Not at all. I doubt typical student's ability to ask really-really tricky questions that would stumble a professor. Especially I doubt that this happens a lot of times during the course.

You agree, only to imply the opposite immediately after. That's enough circles for today

[Mr. Scram]

I keep on trying to be fair to Dr Riley, and in doing so I've tried to look at original material as far as I can. The problem is that every time I get half way through a video, or whatever, I throw my hands up in disgust and walk away. The woman clearly has an agenda, clearly has little understanding of engineering or, worse still, deliberately conflates the scientific/mathematical/engineering concept of rigour with the many other meanings of the word to cast it in a bad light.

What has clearly happened is that people have been critical of her work and conclusions on education and said her work lacks "rigour". Rather than fix any weaknesses in her research she has gone on the offensive against her critics and moved on to an offensive on rigour in science and engineering. Either every scientist, mathematician and engineer is wrong on the merits of rigour (probably blinded by being white, western and having willies), or she is just a political animal pushing a political agenda with scant regard for any underlying facts or the consequences if she is successful.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think she and I would be friends. It just seems that people are so busy looking for fabricated objections that the real ones get neglected. While there seem to be enough actual objections to discuss, which could actually be quite interesting.

Then again, I saw it coming and still stepped on that landmine. I guess this would be a good time to figure out how to remove a thread from the "replies to your post" list.

[daqq]

... I'm honestly interested (in the same way I'd be unable to turn away from a train wreck and just stare in horrified fascination) what kind of society we'd be if people like this nutjob were in charge... We'd probably still be arguing about whether fire is not of an offensive color and trying to come up with a less phallic transportation system than a wheel. Or we'd all be dead, because chemistry and medicine would be considered bad because they do not involve minorities as much...

[Moshly]

She must be a B-Ark Golgafrincham. 



Golgafrincham was a planet, once home to the Great Circling Poets of Arium. The descendants of these poets made up tales of impending doom about the planet. The tales varied; some said it was going to crash into the sun, or the moon was going to crash into the planet. Others said the planet was to be invaded by twelve-foot piranha bees and still others said it was in danger of being eaten by an enormous mutant star-goat.

These tales of impending doom allowed the Golgafrinchans to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population. The story was that they would build three Ark ships. Into the A ship would go all the leaders, scientists and other high achievers. The C ship would contain all the people who made things and did things, and the B ark would hold everyone else, such as hairdressers and telephone sanitisers. They sent the B ship off first, but of course the other two-thirds of the population stayed on the planet and lived full, rich and happy lives until they were all wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.

[TerraHertz]

It's strange to see people trying to grasp what the dear professor is on about, and whether she's serious. It's as if you have no idea of the context, and what these methods are for. Which is this:

On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.”

 1. U.S. should accept coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

 2. U.S. should be willing to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of "moral strength."

 4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

 5. Extend long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

 6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

 7. Grant recognition of Red China and admission of Red China to the U.N.

 8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

 9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

 10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

 11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

 12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

 13. Do away with loyalty oaths.

 14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

 15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.

 16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

 17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

 18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

 19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack.

 20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

 21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.

 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.

 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

 24.Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"

 29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

 30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

 31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

 32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

 33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

 34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

 35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

 36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

 37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

 38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.

 39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist goals.

 40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

 41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

 42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.

 43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

 44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

 45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.


---------------

Saul Alinsky died about 43 years ago, but his writings influenced those in political control of our nation today.
Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on his writings and Obama writes about him in his books.
Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
Education: University of Chicago
Spouse: Irene Alinsky
Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals
Anyone out there think that this stuff isn't happening today in the U.S.?
All eight rules are currently in play.

How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control– Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the government and schools.
Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent, and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as "Useful Idiots."
The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.

Cruel Hoax - Feminism & New World Order
by Henry Makow

Feminism, our official gender ideology, masquerades as a movement for women's rights. In reality, feminism is a cruel hoax, telling women their natural biological instincts are "socially constructed" to oppress them.

Feminism is elite social engineering designed to destroy gender identity by making women masculine and men feminine. Increasingly heterosexuals are conditioned to behave like homosexuals who generally don't marry and have children. Courtship and monogamy are being replaced by sexual promiscuity, prophesied in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

The Rockefellers and Rothschilds created feminism to poison male-female relations (divide and conquer.) Their twin objectives are depopulation and totalitarian world government.

http://everist.org/archives/links/__Feminism.txt

--------------
The professor blathers on. It's just noise, Game Theory obfuscation, pretending there's constructive substance to a movement that is fundamentally about the deliberate destruction of Western society.
Trying to analyze and understand the process, her position and worth, is an utter and futile waste of time. There isn't anything real there at all. It's all just mind poison. Exactly as intended. A very effective tar-baby to entangle those who refuse to consider that deep, long term and very hostile conspiracies exist.

[FrankE]

Rigour and complexity aren't the same and if she was pointing that out she's right.I wasn't really listening.

[coppice]

Rigour and complexity aren't the same and if she was pointing that out she's right.I wasn't really listening.

She says that rigour and complexity go hand in hand. She thinks complexity is exclusionary, so she thinks rigour is bad. She offers nothing to support her argument, probably because its a bogus argument.