Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Too early to be twitterpated?

Today was review-day for Interpersonal Comm. (our exam is on Thursday). We played my favorite comm. trivia game--everyone is split into groups, and those groups then come up with seven questions which to ask the class. It goes around in a circle--with group one asking their first question, then group two asking their first, and so on. Whichever team correctly answers the question first gets a point. It was a close game yesterday--the best kind. The group that had all the slide shows from class printed out, so I may learn from them and do the same to have for the exam. I don't know how much help they'll be as compared to the book (which I'm comfortable with and have a good idea of where things are in it), but I'm sure they can't hurt.

Effective Writing was basically business as usual--although I did, as usual, move off-topic with a statement of my disgust for the "academic enterprise," which encourages students (especially in high school and college) to base their claims off evidence they find in scholarly journals and articles. But with the incredible amount of information floating around these days (via internet, etc.), the idea of having quality sources--to me--is almost laughable. There is no way, in the week and a half given for some papers, to find sources that don't quote sources that quote sources and so on. I'd argue it might someday become relatively impossible; that is, until the untamed internet has been bridled.

Professor Adamo came into Liberating Letters today to talk about the concept of time periods in history. We discussed how historians, for the same of simplifying things for lazy audiences, have inaccurately and ignorantly split history into segments, titled ridiculous things such as "antiquity, the middle ages, and the modern era"--suggesting, subsequently, that there is in fact a middle point in history, and that it has already passed--and that we are somehow the second half of all time. I admit splitting history into segments like this serves some purpose in that it gives us markers to help us determine roughly where something in time occurred. But the reality (and the essential, crucial, key facet) of history is that things are relative. All events, people, styles, and political leanings are relative. They cannot be put into a definite category--because the nature of those categories is imperfect.
Anyway, he used a slide show to display pictures of people, maps, and so forth--then had us attempt to determine if the object was medieval or modern. We caught on very early, stating that "this person is a transitional figure," and "this map could mean a number of things."
All in all, it was a thoroughly enjoyable class period (after Adamo left, we talked about the falsity and creation of beauty in different societies around the world and in various eras).

I worked from three to five, but I didn't get an extraordinary amount of work done. Mitch found out that Taylor had been given the job she wanted--but in the same way, the job she didn't want (she had been assigned to something she didn't ask for). As such, she will be required to live in Mort--which was not part of our plan at all. And so, my Luther-dreams slipped away while I tried to concentrate on filing, which I'm terrible at to begin with.

I finished my Small Group Comm. teaching presentation. My script is fairly rough, and of course, I will improvise during class--as that's easier than adhering to a script when teaching any day--but the point is I finished it and don't have to worry about positively finalizing anything until Sunday.

Tomorrow, I have a paper to write, on top of attending an hour long small group meeting to go through our presentation. This gives me low hopes for getting laundry done--and Thursday is the Step Up Gala, so laundry will once again most likely be a no-go...I'm running out of pants now, too (in addition to underwear)!

I have a QSU meeting in a little bit--so I'm going to make myself some rice, and perhaps cut up some celery and serve them with peanut butter. And tea. Mmm...my dinner choices are sounding more and more delicious by the second.

One last thing for tonight: the debate is currently raging; and, despite the press saying it has been relatively cool and calm so far, I disagree. Hillary Clinton changing the first subject the moderators bring up and then cracking a joke completely uncalled for does not infer, to me, cool and calm.

1 comment:

Kristen Chamberlain said...

I feel compelled to make two comments. First, on the subject of academic research, of course I cannot speak with any knowledge on writing assignments you have been given in OTHER classes, but I do have to defend the importance of relying on academic quality research IN SOME CASES. The sad fact is, that although the media often report on "scientific" study findings, these finding are almost always taken out of context of the study and do not pay due diligence to the extenuating circumstances and limitations that all studies are subject to (I shouldn't have ended that sentence with an infinitive). It IS true that many academic studies cite other studies in order to provide background or context - usually this is not too much of a problem. However, the importance of finding primary sources cannot be overstated because, just like in the game of telephone you play at summer camp, information gets distorted the further away from the source it travels. And while the internet and it's vast array of information may seem daunting and overwhelming, the more often you have to use it to find academic sources, the better you will become at navigating its tricky waters.

Second, I totally agree with you about the whole history thing. Our human desire to categories can lead us into some very funny and often logically incorrect labels and assumptions.