Class Discussions and Oral Exams

Post Reply New Topic

Last semester I had my first oral exam and passed, but only because my professor knew it was my first. (She even wrote that down in her remarks.) Now, I am taking a second class from the same professor because I like the material being discussed---and she sent me an email telling me that I needed to participate in class discussions because it is a major part of my grade.

Now, normally, I don't care about grades so long as I learn something, but I am trying to get my GPA up high enough so I can qualify as a transfer student to George Mason University to study economics under Walter Williams (one of my favorite columnists), and also to get as much scholarship money as I can get so as not to have to work while going to school.

This puts me in a bind because I despise, absolutely despise participating in class discussions. I usually have a completely different viewpoint than everyone in the room, plus I never know when to stop talking or when I go off on a tangent (which I am very apt to do). Also, I just cannot get my brain to think quickly enough to sound "intelligent" while discussing things. I much prefer writing about things to speaking about things.

Anyway. She also said that in order pass this oral exam (yes, another one!) I need to make eye contact with the questioner and avoid fidgiting, as well as speak up and use more than one-word/one sentence answers. In short, she said I needed to act completely different than I would in any other situation.

I am not really complaining, I'm just nervous and more than a little anxious. I really like this class, though, so I am going to do my best. I just hope I don't screw it up so bad as to lower my GPA too far.

Does anyone have any tips for how I can manage this unfortunate turn of events?

your avatar seems appropriate

Are you in the US? Are you in High School? If you're in a US public school, do they know you have AS? If yes to the former and no to the latter, inform the counselor of AS and explain why what your teacher is asking of you is impossible, and ask that an accomodation be made.

I have the same problem with class discussions. But I usually don't find that other people say particularly intelligent things either, and digressions are common. What's the problem with having a completely different opinion from everyone else? If anything, that should help enliven the discussion - it is more difficult to think of something intelligent or interesting to say if everyone is agreeing.

Must say I don't know how to deal with not being able to think quickly enough, though. If grades are your priority, the best thing to do will be probably to just blurt out whatever half-baked thoughts you have before the discussion moves on - my suspicion is that class participation grades are more about [apparent] enthusiasm than quality.[/i]

I'd be tempted to challenge the "eye contact" ruling, if that wouldn't turn into a default fail by annoying the professor (and that would be appealable).
Is this supposed to be a test of knowledge, or of social conformity? If the latter, I'd request a set of notes on the ideal dress, deportment and accent, and the score regimen for "marking down" poor "answers" in this field.

-----------------------------------------------

"Pupils 'must look away to think' "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4602178.stm

"...So when we are trying to concentrate and process something else that's mentally demanding, it's unhelpful to look at faces."

I have long known that if I want to concentrate on thinking, shutting my eyes can be very useful.

(my comment, posted in the News forum recently, on a BBC news article)
--------------------------------------------

Oral discussion is a recognised technique though.
In groups, I tend to use the method of listen, prepare, pounce, withdraw.

Any rule that you can't use a pen in oral discussions?
Make utterly brief notes, even one word keys, to what you want to say.

Listen to the comments going around:
Spot their weak points for demolition.
Spot the good points to give support to,
or use as a springboard to take your ideas further.

"Mike's idea doesn't allow for..."
"Jane's quite right of course..."
"I can take what Steve's suggested another stage..."

No, it's not easy, and I only like doing it with material I know very well.

I am going to talk to her about this whole "eye contact" issue. As far as having a different opinion goes, I am okay with that when what I am thinking is on topic, but a lot of times, it's not. Like last semester, the class was talking about how the rights of a government are the same as the rights of an individual, no more, no less. And when it was my turn to speak, I started talking about Star Wars and the Galactic Empire vs. The Republic...I thought it was on topic since Palpatine was, in effect, giving the government more power than he should have been, and that the only reason why (besides the fact that the script called for it) was because the people were completely ignorant of natural law in the first place...anyway. Apparently Star Wars does not have a place in a political science class. (It's too bad, really.)

And it's not so much a problem of not thinking quickly so much as it is a problem of not being able to verbalize the thoughts coherently. I guess I have a problem with not being able to think slowly enough, eh?

In class discussions I can use a pen, but the oral exam consists of me standing in front of my professor and the other kids in the class, and answering about ten questions based on what was discussed over the entire semester. The last oral exam I had a pen in my hand and I "clicked" it for the entire 20 minutes. (Maybe that is why she said I shouldn't fidgit, because it got on her nerves. I never thought of that before. I will ask her if I could have a pen without a click point.)

"the rights of a government are the same as the rights of an individual, no more, no less"
What an odd concept.
I have the right to declare war?
News to me, but could prove handy.

When at university we had a lecturer who wrote the most amazing incomprehensible sentences on the blackboard. We had exactly two theories:
She wrote faster than she thought, or
She thought faster than she wrote.

Do let us know how you get on with the eyeball police.
I thought the fashion police were bad enough.

Well, I guess you could declare war if you wanted to, there just wouldn't be many people for you to order about.

That's ok, in such a circumstance I would probably be prepared to be the armed forces as well.

Levying taxes, now that might be more difficult.
It's still an odd proposal that's put my brain in gear.

Ah, a tax, well, taxes are a little different. A tax is used to pay for something people decide they don't want to do themselves anymore. A tax is collected to pay for, say, a police force, so that when an individual and his friends/neighbors decide that staying up all night with pitchforks protecting their crops sucks, they hire a full-time police man and GIVE him their right to protect their property. Now, it's only fair that this new policeman gets compensated because now he can't grow corn to feed his family, since he's got to wander around all the time protecting everyone else's corn.

But as an individual, if you want a body guard to protect you, you could levy a tax on yourself to pay for those services. Of course, you'd either have to accept the fact that you're less a certain amount in spending money, or get a different job to make up the difference. You couldn't go around levying taxes on everyone else just so YOU could have a body guard. But if a group of you and your friends got together and decided that you've had enough bullying and needed to hire some muscle, then the group levys a tax and each person pays a proportion of the cost. As far as dividing it up goes, that's up to you, but that's the priniciple.

Nicely done!

Thank you.

I am working on what I am going to say to my professor. I have found that if I write down what I need to say, I stick to that topic instead of wandering off on tangents and tangents of tangents. I definitely know I need to talk to her instead of just emailing her. All in all, I really don't think I will have such a hard time of it. I am going to ask her if she could be a little more specific in her syllabus about what is going to be discussed so I can at least be on-topic. I am also going to ask her if she meant I need to maintain CONSTANT eye contact, or just make eye contact for a second because that makes a HUGE difference in my ability to concentrate. I dunno. It just seems that whenever I try to explain something verbally, I get all tied in knots, but when I am able to write it down and then rewrite it as necessary, it comes out exactly the way I want it to be.

Whether they want it or not?
"Nice stand of corn you've got there. Shame if anything were to happen to it..."
From the illegitimate castles of the 13th century and probably much earlier, through to the 1900's taxation, or at least extortion, may not have been as mutual as the logical and ideal situation you describe. Has taxation grown out of tribute and extortion, as much as consent and mutual benefit?

Well, what something has done and what it ought to have done don't necessarily agree a lot of times. It's what I find interesting about theory v. reality.

In my view, taxes should be levied when the majority of the people involved gather together and decide, "hey, we want this, but we don't want to do it ourselves because we'd much rather be at home reading or planting corn or things, just not at people trying to take our corn." So the majority rules in favor of a tax, and the tax is passed, even if there is the recalcitrant neighbor who says "Taxes! I don't want no stinking taxes! I'll protect my own corn!"

Because whether Mr. Recalcitrant Neighbor thinks so or not, having someone permanently dedicated to Corn Patrol means that anyone who wants to steal corn from Corn Town is going to think twice, which means that Mr. Recalcitrant Neighbor is needing to worry less, which is why he's been noticing a decline in the amount of times he's needed to shoot off his shotgun at the barn. (At this moment, Corn Town is creating a committe to find out whether the decline in corn thieves is connected to just having Sheriff Bob, or if it is also because the residents are allowed to have shotguns in addition to Sheriff Bob.) (No, I don't know why his name is Bob, it just is. Talk to his mother if you have questions about that.)

Or, let's say Corn Town, now that they have Sheriff Bob, decides that they have had enough of having to drive all the around the mountain in order to get to the Big City. So they gather everyone up and they decide they need a road that cuts straight through a swamp because it will save them two days of driving to get to Big City. (Now, the reason no one has built a road through the swamp is because it is and smelly and horrible and full of things like alligators and giant mosquitoes and Big Foot, and people are, understandably, afraid.)

But Corn Town has found a crew of people willing to brave the dangers of the swamp to build the road---for a fee. Once again, the majority decides that the cost of the road is worth it, and there is now the Road Tax in addition to the Police Tax. And the citizens of Corn Town decide that once the road is built, they need to maintain it, so there is a little bit of a tax left after the road has been built. (Because Corn Town is a responsible government and cuts back taxes once the road has been built.)

Now, it is still a simple , I know, but it really is that simple. What makes it not so simple is human nature.

A lot of times, taxes are just that--extortion. Because a lot the times, the public rarely sees any of the benefits a tax is supposed to create. That is why there is the conflict between reality and theory. While the extortion of King John may not be quite the same as the overtaxation of most people today, it is similar. I think the main reason it has been allowed to grow into the monster it is today is ignorance on the part of the people.

Like just recently, my city passed a tax to build a new recreational center. It's a small tax, only about two dollars more a person, but get this---even though I am financing this rec center, I do not get free or discounted admission. It is public only in the sense that I don't have to pay a "membership fee" like at a golf club. But see, I am paying a membership fee in the form of city taxes.

A government has the right to levy a tax on anything the majority of the citizens agree on...but the majority of the citizens don't always understand that government is not the answer to most of their problems.

I feel that if the city is using my money to build something, I should get to use it for free. If it's not free, it's extortion or a form of stealing because they are using my money to supplement something that I still have to pay for. (I also believe that ventures like recreational facilities should be left up to private investors.) If you want a good book to read, try Essays on Political Economy by Bastiat. It is fascinating!

Did that make sense?

Yes.
And as usual, if one doesn't stop, the ramifications head off in all directions.

As I have modified your first quote, it spreads to the place and liberties of minorities in a democracy. Where do you draw (and by what authority) the line between the compulsion to conform, and the freedom to be different?

I have no children, nor am I going to have, but I'm still taxed for schools.
(when I listen to some kids today I can hear my money going down the drain.
Sorry, slipped into "grumpy old man " mode there, for a moment)
Part of my societal duty, I take it, but it would be clearer if one formally signed up to being a citizen upon adulthood.

Rather than make the case for a rational structure of taxes spoiled by imperfect and selfish humanity, I'd prefer to argue for a more rational view of taxation *slowly* emerging from historic and barbaric practice, hindered by imperfect and selfish humanity.

It may be a subtle difference.

I am the only one in my family to go to school---all my younger siblings are homeschooled, so I understand your stance on school taxes. I feel the same way, actually, even though I don't pay them. (And when I listen to anyone, kids or otherwise--and even myself sometimes--I think that all this money being shoveled into a public school system is just masking the real problem. But that is a different discussion.)

The difference is subtle. And I agree with you. I doubt that any society started out with a rational collective tax. I'm pretty sure that it all started as coercion, and as we evolved our intellect, as we discovered different ways of doing things, then we hit upon the idea of making taxes a collective choice "for the greater good."