Posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2020, at 14:04:18
In reply to Re: drunk with power, posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2020, at 13:47:21
the people who stayed in NZ who thought their goal was to get through the education system quickly quickly quickly as they could by huddling into the herd and then by getting their advisor to write their thesis for them... by being such a pain in the *rs* to the advisor that the advisor was like 'geez louise let's sign you off ASAP to get you out of my hair!!'
becuase these kids had super special insight into how the jobs... the jobs were to be found in the university administration hierarchy! that's the point of university. What you study in particular doesn't matter so much as getting through it quickly as quickly as you can and grubbity grub grub grubbing your way up the money tree that is the administration hierarchy.
and it's about keeping slaves. in the egyptian sense. having masses and masses and masses... having a volume of low paid slaves.
hard power. population size. masses and masses... expendible. low paid. low value. that was the whole dream, there, about growth. the universities grew and grew (or thought it was desirable for them to market themselves as having grown and grown)...
but they cannibalised themselves.
they are supposed to employ researchers or they aren't universities. I see why people supervising research are supposed to be productive themselves... the idea of that is that the supervisor has their own outlet so the supervisor will be less likely to take over the studnets work. a supervisor who isn't having their work get through peer review is likely to try and force their work through their studnet. then you have this awful situation whereby the studnet is being potentially failed because the internatinal community doesn't accept the supervisors work...
my examiners knew that my work was my work because they know the kind of work that my supervisor does not do. my supervisor works in critical reasoning and somehow this has resulted in her focusing on bad argument after bad argument after bad argument after bad argument. so now she goes around thinking everything she hears is a bad argument and thinking how everything she hears must be an example of this or that or the other fallacy. it's the sort of heavy handed critique that i used to get from cognitive behavior therapy when practiced by a not very bright cognitive behavior therapist who thought that it would somehow 'help' make my thinking 'better' if they pointed out the name of the fallacy they interpreted me as believing every tiem i opened my mouth.
so not very chariable. because they were trying to be helpful. and clearly my job or role in the whole thing is to make my supervisor feel helpful. clearly that's the point, there, to stroke and smooth the ego of the person who is being paid. clearly.
but the research... is all about how terrible studnets are at reasoning. how bad they are at it. how they think all these terrible fallacies are valid lines of reasoning.
and so somehow... instead of philosophy being an attractive thing... instead of people being attracted to philosophy from wonder and from beauty. from the inspiring or motivating or beautiful or creative or whatever... from the good... instead of puttig on display or showcase to the studnets all the very very best of the philosopy... somehow... critical reasoning becaomes this parade of the bad and the terrible and the very very very very worst of it. let's look at this terrible bad fallacy -- don't do that. let's look at this other terrible bad fallacy. don't do that either. in fact don't do anything. every time you open your mouth bad terrible awful reasoning falls out. just don't produce anything at all! that's the aim or meaning or purpose or spirit of it! don't produce anything at all! it's all garbage awful garbage sh*t! don't produce anything anything andyhting at all!
they pay her.
to take all the enrolmlents... as many international studnets as they can cram into the course... anyone who has english as a second language they recommend that course to them. anyone who has trouble with the course (the arbitrary grading and how working hard doesn't appear to bear any relation to performance in the course).. anyone who has trouble with the course clearly has sub-par english ability. that's the problem. they lied on their ESL or TOEFL or whatever tests! clearly. because we would only enrol the ones who had subpar scores or who cheated. intentionally. becuase the plan was to take their money and deliver courses like this one that i'm describing to you know. critical reasoning. boo yah.
sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooow doooooooooooooooooooooooooooown alex. slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooown. we haven't collected up all the money, yet. we haven't managed to ruin philosophy and ruin the university and ruin everything every thing everything... just so busy ruining all the things... ruining the things. there's nothing home. nothing to see. garbage garbage garbage. we love to revel in teh garbage and collect up all the money.
f*ck*ng awful.
shut them down.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1112433
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20200808/msgs/1112437.html