Poll: Academia vs Insight.

[Daystar Clarion]

Don't even think about hitting that report button, yes you.

As a university student, I should be good at writing essays, especially since half my subject is Law. But I'm not. I dont consider myself dumb by any means, I'm just really not an academic. The other half of my course is Criminology, which is a social science that studies things such as the penal system (lol...penal) and how society deals with crime as a whole, and in general, is based a alot on opinion and insight into things. I feel that I learn more effectively when I have to form an opinion on something, unlike Law, which is basically hundreds of years worth of texts telling me what I should, there is no room for opinion. I'd rather sit and discuss a subject, rather than read a dusty old book on ancient law.

So I ask you this fellow escapist, do you feel that you learn more through discussion or in a very rigid, text book kind of way? Or maybe a bit of both?

 

[konor77]

i'd say insight because while it may not be the same thing in debates i usually do shit unless i agree with what i'm arguing

 

[Sneaklemming]

Academia brings theories, and with theories you can gain better insights to the world around you.

 

[Heathrow]

Socratic seminar is the best way to teach anything. So discussion for me.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I've got to say... I was expecting more discussion in this thread. That makes me sad.

 

[Evilbunny]

Academia for me. I hate bs classes where everyone spouts their useless opinions and get credit for it. I have had classes where complete morons got better grades than I did because they spout their mouths off every day saying every little thought that came to their minds, meanwhile people like me who waited until they had something intelligent to say got penalized for not talking as much. You should be graded on what you know, not what you think.

 

[Sneaklemming]

I've got to say... I was expecting more discussion in this thread. That makes me sad.

You might get more discussion if you posted this in the Politics and Religion section; there tends to be more academic types lurking there.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I've got to say... I was expecting more discussion in this thread. That makes me sad.

You might get more discussion if you posted this in the Politics and Religion section; there tends to be more academic types lurking there.

I didn't think it would go under that topic... It seems more like a random off topic thing than a politics thing.

 

[El Poncho]

I'm not sure, I am ok with essays but with insight I'm not sure, I guess I can look into things but I don't have to often.

 

[Sneaklemming]

I've got to say... I was expecting more discussion in this thread. That makes me sad.

You might get more discussion if you posted this in the Politics and Religion section; there tends to be more academic types lurking there.

I didn't think it would go under that topic... It seems more like a random off topic thing than a politics thing.

Well... I say this quite often, almost anything can be considered politics. In this case it's academia vs common sense.

People could politicize that easily.

 

[Pimppeter2]

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Penal..


OT: Pretty much a bit of both. The text book way opens up discussion.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

Academia for me. I hate bs classes where everyone spouts their useless opinions and get credit for it. I have had classes where complete morons got better grades than I did because they spout their mouths off every day saying every little thought that came to their minds, meanwhile people like me who waited until they had something intelligent to say got penalized for not talking as much. You should be graded on what you know, not what you think.

You should have applied to University in the UK then. For my course, 100% of the grade is from the end of year exam, so no matter how much BS you spout in class its not going to get you anywhere. At the end of the day, it's a level playing field for everyone: you have to sit down, do the readings, write mock essays, go home and think about the subject, do more readings of your own, and prep mentally for the test. That's it. You can almost get away with not going to class or lecture for the whole year.

OT: In response to OP, I did one law class last year and was under the impression that you did have to be capable of forming opinions and insights even though most of the stuff you reference is, yes, centuries of case law. In law, it seems like you need to have a very extensive memory PLUS the ability to recall controversies and dissenting opinions in order to piece together effective arguments about things. I loved the class I took in Public International Law, but almost got a shitastic grade for it, just scraped by with my honour intact.

 

[Nickolai77]

Well, i would say that knowledge would come first, because in order to have an opinion, you must require a degree of knowledge to form a valid opinion.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

A poll over preference with an option for "both".

Well if I must choose between two tasty dishes and I get a both option that kinda, uhmmm, messes the whole choice up a fair bit...

 

[Daystar Clarion]

A poll over preference with an option for "both".

Well if I must choose between two tasty dishes and I get a both option that kinda, uhmmm, messes the whole choice up a fair bit...

stop being pedantic...

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It depends entirely upon the subject. Certain courses lend themselves well to a certain way of approaching a problem. I enjoy math for this very reason; you are given a well worn set of toos with which to solve a problem and the result is often utterly indisputable.

Other classes, such as Literature, History, Philosophy and any similar fields do not rely on rigid adherence to a rule-set but rather an interpretation of bits of information. One can often form an opinion on a subject without any real knowledge however and using an opinion as the basis of judging subject mastery is folly. When the question is entirely one of taste, it is often the case that additional information will not change one's opinion, but in most cases there is often a deeper question hidden below the surface. In the one art class I had to take in college, we were (as a class) questioned about modern art. The question, specifically, was "Should this be counted as art". My gut reaction is, obviously, no but the hidden question is WHY is it not art. Here we find the difficulty; to answer the secondary question (the important question) one is forced to define something all but undefinable. Without a significant well of knowledge to draw from, one cannot actually give a firm answer.

In either case I find that I can enjoy the experience. In the former, my Professor serves as a keeper of secrets that I am ultimately determined to discover. In the latter, the Professor serves simply as a guide so that I might safely navigate the vast seas of information so that I might at least begin to understand.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I believe I'm somewhere in the middle.

For academia, you have to be literal, "disciplined", cite sources and basically only use your own mind to gather other people's thoughts in most cases.

For insight, you have to use what you have gathered with your own mind to make new thoughts, new ways of thinking and looking, etc.

I can do both, but only when I know which one of the two I'm supposed to be doing.
Gotta know which "mode" I should be working in, sort of like how in The Witcher you need to change combat styles for different types of opponents.

For me, if I don't know the details, I can't learn anything.

 

[Dark Knifer]

A bit of both, but I tend to lean on the insight part a bit more.

 

[Sneaklemming]

A poll over preference with an option for "both".

Well if I must choose between two tasty dishes and I get a both option that kinda, uhmmm, messes the whole choice up a fair bit...

It really is either one or the other.

 

[Zedzero]

I learn 100 times better from conversations then speechs and textbooks.