If you think any of this gibberish looks interesting, you should poke around and subscribe to my RSS feed to keep up with new content.
I really dislike the idea of forcing students to find extra sources for certain papers. Some papers I understand. There are research papers, papers on events, locations, or situations. These types of papers require a broader understanding of the subject, and doing research does in fact help the end result.
But a question like this:
Rousseau claims that a person who is forced to obey the law is being ‘forced to be free’. Does this make sense?
Does not require anything other than Rousseau’s text. If I can read his argument, understand, and interpret it without the assistance of other writers, I should be rewarded for that , not punished.
The simple fact of the matter is that “finding extra sources” in a paper like this means “find smarter people who agree with you, thus validating your argument.” Bullshit. My argument can stand for itself.
{ 2 comments }
Corvus 11.04.05 at 3:52 am
My belief that my opinion stands on its own is my higher education Achilles heel. It’s also why I tend to hate arguing with academics, who often seem to feel that if someone didn’t publish it, it isn’t worth arguing.
Jason 11.04.05 at 7:02 am
It’s annoying isn’t it?
Blogging is probably the worst thing that could happen to my academic writing, because out here it’s all about the ideas…and referencing something is when you link back to them ;)
Comments on this entry are closed.