Student-to-student relations in our courses are such an important buffer, and remote teaching is very limited in providing that kind of important but under-recognized support. The chatting about what's difficult. What the prof didn't explain well enough. . . .
What you find puzzling or strange about the prof's approach. What is something to worry about in this course and what is not. What is best dealt with by staying calm and waiting until the next class. What you're ahead of in understanding, and where you're behind.
I often experience my teaching as a bit erratic. I'm slightly temperamental, and when I get excited about something during prep or in class, I often miss the signs that I should maybe be explaining something else. So, I think about how students can fill those gaps for each other.
I think I've found some ways that seem to work in my online teaching. But it's really not on the same level as those student-to-student connections before, during, after, and outside of class that are enabled by face-to-face teaching.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Pinker traces the origins all the way back to 1975 and the publication of E.O. Wilson’s 'Sociobiology,' when Wilson and other biologists 'would get shouted down' for expressing the view that genetic & other evolutionary considerations determine, in part, social organization."
What a curious thing to say.
Why not go back to the 19th century when the idea that women should be allowed to study at college or uni was shouted down? When white campus populations shouted down Black students on their campuses?
More "than ironic that a school that costs more than $40,000 a year—a school with Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett’s right hand, & Sarah Murdoch, wife of Lachlan & Rupert’s daughter-in-law, on its board—is teaching students that capitalism is evil."
"For most parents, the demonization of capitalism is the least of it."
Whoa, Bari. Careful with the oversized brushes and dripping primary colours.
I see you've been doing this thread and its various conversations for most of the day, but now that it's my spare time let me chime in and ask you a series of probing questions. What?! You don't want to talk to me?
And to foggily think I used to follow you!
1/
Now that I think some more about it, yes, maybe it was the case not only that followed you, *but also* that I stopped. It should be noted that I stopped.
You are clearly famous, if I think I followed you, and then I think I stopped. Famous enough to write an autobiography.
2/
Flattered? Just wait! You should call your autobiography, *The Arrogance of Academia.* Zing!
Now, after I've established I possibly followed you once but then probably stopped, I will hit hard one last time. Time to mute you! Kaboom!
For the edification of readers who follow Colin Wright's on Twitter: the definition of racism as involving both prejudice and power is old. If Colin had studied in a field where scholarship on racism is part of the curriculum, he'd probably know.
Attached, Paul Gilroy, 1990.
Sigh.
@Swipewright has responded, at some length, to @roderickgraham's tweet. It's useful that he did. He holds on tight to his own calculation of what racism is, how he wants it defined, and what possibilities of admonishing others flow from it for him.
Because I'm into these little details, I'll note that Colin introduces Brooklyn as "an activist." I would take a bold guess and say Brooklyn didn't introduce themself as such.
Colin's been on a simple-minded campaign to use "activist" as a take-down for folks he disagrees with.
For anyone who is not sure what I mean, Wright (along with others like Shrier, Rowling, Hilton) is keen to use the term "activist" as a label to discredit the political work that others are doing, while refusing to apply the same label to his own political work.