# 16 U of Regina Professors Oppose Scholarships for Surviving Dependants



## Shec (24 Mar 2010)

Please tell me I have lost my ability to comprehend what I read:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/03/24/sk-scholarship-1003.html


----------



## Wookilar (24 Mar 2010)

No, you read correctly.

While I understand what these eggheads are saying (not that I agree), I have to say that they are missing the point entirely.

How can people be so educated and yet be so dense? Does idealogy really blind that much in their nice shiny tower?

Wook


----------



## Greymatters (24 Mar 2010)

It also shows their tunnel vision - soldiers die from a variety of causes, not all of them involving service in Afghanistan.  The list of support to humanitarian and disaster relief operations, both nationally and internationally, still outnumbers thenumebr of military operations we have participated in.  All they are really saying is that they are anti-military, not anti-war.


----------



## mariomike (24 Mar 2010)

Shec said:
			
		

> Please tell me I have lost my ability to comprehend what I read:
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/03/24/sk-scholarship-1003.html



Makes me want to puke.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2010)

But take a look at the comments following the story on the CBC web page; a significant minority of people agree with the professors. Support for the Cf may be wide in Canada but it is not very deep.


----------



## helpup (24 Mar 2010)

What gets me is the theme, how is it we can equate a soldier dying as being differant then any other work place accident.  Oh My God, they didnt even bothering to compare a police officer or firefighter..............  Yes all death is tragic, but I am a believer that there is a differance here.  I dont have the time or scope right now to get into it further and the first page of that comment section was enough to make me shake my head.  

I only got through the first page and there were a couple of the no differant then any other death rants that stopped me.


----------



## Greymatters (24 Mar 2010)

Yes, and many of their comments show their own ignorance as well - like the comment trotting out how this is a Conservative war and its all Harper's fault...  :


----------



## MaDB0Y_021 (24 Mar 2010)

Man, that's sad.

And reading some comments there by some ignorant just disgusted me.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Mar 2010)

Then those sixteen professors need to do the honourable thing and resign. Will they? Of course not. 

We protect the right to free speech so douches like this say whatever they want.


----------



## ballz (24 Mar 2010)

For those interested, that dude's email is jeffery.webber@uregina.ca

I've been trying to write up an email now for like half an hour but I can't seem to keep my head level enough to type a coherent email. Either way, it's going to end with supporting his resignation rather than accept pay from the "war mongering capitalist at U of Regina."


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (24 Mar 2010)

The name of this thread is misleading.  16 out of 1400 faculty (about 1%) are opposed to Project Hero, not the university itself.  "U of R president Vianne Timmons announced two weeks ago the university would provide the scholarship..."


----------



## Journeyman (24 Mar 2010)

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> 16 out of 1400 faculty (about 1%) are opposed...


I wonder how many of them have tenure, and can't be fired no matter what they say/do.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Mar 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I wonder how many of them have tenure, and can't be fired no matter what they say/do.



Or moved to Regina to avoid service in the US Forces during the Vietnam War.


----------



## SeanNewman (24 Mar 2010)

Very polite e-mail sent.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Mar 2010)

Why do I think someone who's lost a parent to war may be one of the _last_ people to "glorify" war?

Remarks attached to article?  In the words of a BBC radio comedy show, "the domain of the mentals".


----------



## Northalbertan (25 Mar 2010)

Surprise, surprise most of the signatories to this despicable document belong to the sociology dept.
I honestly can't think of good reason why these nimrods should be teaching our youth anything at all.  If they enjoy socialism so much let them live in a wonderful country like China, where they might face a little more than public outrage for stating an opinion.  Absolutely clueless!

  :rage:


----------



## SeanNewman (25 Mar 2010)

Northalbertan said:
			
		

> ...I honestly can't think of good reason why these nimrods should be teaching our youth anything at all...



I don't personally have anything against teachers who anti-military.  If they want to skew the facts to say we're an occupying force or completely ignore getting along with America as out primary national interest then so be it.

However, I do have something against people teaching who have such flawed thinking processes that they associate a poor kid who had a parent killed overseas with glorifying war.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Mar 2010)

Good luck with that - this, from CanWest:


> The Conservative MP for Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre wants an apology from University of Regina professors who criticized a scholarship fund for dependents of fallen Canadian soldiers.
> 
> "To try and politicize tragedies at the expense of Canadian military families is absolutely unconscionable," said Tom Lukiwski.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeanNewman (26 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I don't personally have anything against teachers who are anti-military.  If they want to skew the facts to say we're an occupying force or completely ignore getting along with America as our primary national interest then so be it.
> 
> However, I do have something against people teaching who have such flawed thinking processes that they associate a poor kid who had a parent killed overseas with glorifying war.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Mar 2010)

Is there some reason you are quoting yourself, without further comment?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Mar 2010)

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The name of this thread is misleading.  16 out of 1400 faculty (about 1%) are opposed to Project Hero, not the university itself.  "U of R president Vianne Timmons announced two weeks ago the university would provide the scholarship..."



You are right, it's been fixed.
Bruce


----------



## George Wallace (26 Mar 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You are right, it's been fixed.
> Bruce



......and I changed an "e" to an "o"...... ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Mar 2010)

There's probably a reason that they aren't teaching at a real university   >


----------



## DirtyDog (27 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I don't personally have anything against teachers who anti-military.  If they want to skew the facts to say we're an occupying force or completely ignore getting along with America as out primary national interest then so be it.



Well I personally do have a problem with the youth of Canada being subjected to this type of thinking that seems to be quite prevalent in the post secondary eduation system.  Is this really the type of thinking you want YOUR kids subjected to?  I would like to think some students would see this for the idiotcy that it is, but these people are figures that students are supposed to look up to for guidance and wisdom.


----------



## SeanNewman (27 Mar 2010)

1.  Sorry for the double post.  I tried to modify the first one but accidentally hit "quote" and now I can't undo it.

2.  Don't get me wrong, I am all for truth conquering skewed facts.  What I meant was that it's more important for students to be exposed to both sides of an argument so they can see how each side came to its conclusion and then see how each side makes their points.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Mar 2010)

The 16 are simply part of the 1% of miserable, narrow-minded, foolish people that exist everywhere.  There seem to be two themes offered:
1) Scholarships for dependents glorify war because the parents happened to be serving soldiers.
2) If we do it for these children, why not other children?

The scholarships no more glorify war than does a remembrance ceremony.  There are no trumpet fanfares and stirring words of martial glory and national military prowess being forced on anyone; the scholarships are a measure of support for people in adverse circumstances (loss of a parent).

As for broadening the scholarship base: fill your boots, professors.  But do not pretend that public or private charity has ever been constrained by an imaginary rule that we must do nothing unless we can do everything.

They may be somewhat bright; they may have credentials to show they have passed through certain gates; but they register a zero for practical application of intelligence, education, and morality.


----------



## MPIKE (28 Mar 2010)

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/project-hero/#clip281622

Here is a good collection of Project Hero coverage.  Tom Clark makes a nice move in calling out Prof Hunter. ;D


----------



## Jammer (28 Mar 2010)

I just watched the link.
Tempest in a teacup.


----------



## mariomike (28 Mar 2010)

I would like to see the children of our heroes designated as the fifth group of beneficiaries in the Employment Equity Act.

I know times have changed, but there used to be written and unwritten rules with many employers that if the father performed good work - or was killed on the job -, that the son would be welcome to join the company when a vacancy became available. It was called a legacy. It encouraged families to do good work and take pride in the company, or department, regiment etc.

That is just my personal opinion. Labour law is not my lane. But, morally, it seems to me, a decent thing to do.
There does seem to be some support from The State of Texas ( and perhaps other levels of government in the U.S. ) :
"Wartime veterans have preference in employment with State agencies or offices, as do widows and *orphans of those killed on active duty*."
http://www.tvc.state.tx.us/VetPreferences.html


----------



## Teeps74 (28 Mar 2010)

Wow, just wow... The utter ignorance and garbage from supposedly educated people. These clowns are morons, and I would not pay one red cent to be "educated" by this lot of ignorants.

The "educated" one, Garson Hunter is so utterly out of touch with reality... He is a professor? I have seen more lucid 8 year olds who are more capable of getting their point across, and are also far more capable of researching their opinions so they actually sound intelligent.

Garson Hunter was completely unwilling to actually address the questions posed. He obfuscated, when asked about his idiotic statement on "imperialism". He was in the service? Jeebus.


----------



## Teeps74 (28 Mar 2010)

Ahh dear god... Now the bumbling professor Webber. I just threw up in mouth. Has he ever been to Afghanistan? Has he ever even talked to an Afghan? The answer to both questions is very likely no. As in, I am more likely to win the lottery then that idiot actually getting educated enough to have a clue about what he is talking about.


----------



## ballz (28 Mar 2010)

Hunter couldn't even comb his hair for the interview let alone string a sensible couple sentences together.

The best part is, out of the 16 professors that are apparently far and above the rest of the country in their ivory towers, THAT'S who they chose to represent them.

Makes me wonder how stupid the other 15 have got to be.


----------



## tristismilitis (28 Mar 2010)

I'm floored. 
I know this group is a minority in comparison to the total number of professors, but still, these individuals have access to the media and a large number of students/potential students. 

I put together a bursary for students in need who have a connection to current or former CF members at a college close to where I live that is in honour of a fallen soldier. Originally I had been considering giving it to the U of R but thankfully I chose to stay local, at a smaller college that doesn't have something like Project Hero yet. 
I'm not sure I could handle worrying about the students accepting the bursary becoming the subject of political scrutiny from professors/general public. They have a hard enough time as it is applying for and accepting funding that marks them as different, something I have learned from reading the applications and meeting the students. 

I will be sending an email as well, to the University and a few other people. I too might need a few edits before I can manage a polite message. 

For the record, I would pay to see a debate between the ill-informed Prof. Hunter and Mr. Hillier. The proceeds could go to fund Project Hero or other scholarships/bursaries in honour of our Fallen.


----------



## ballz (28 Mar 2010)

This guy that signed the letter hasn't taught a course since 2003.... http://www.johnwarnock.ca/courseoutlines.html

hence is email is "@hotmail" and not "@uregina."

Here are all 16 emails for those interested... 
Carol.Schick@uregina.ca; william.arnal@uregina.ca; Ken.Montgomery@uregina.ca; Andre.Magnan@uregina.ca; warnockj@hotmail.com; Garson.Hunter@uregina.ca; Meredith.Cherland@uregina.ca; darlene.juschka@uregina.ca; Annette.Desmarais@uregina.ca; david.webster@uregina.ca; jeffery.webber@uregina.ca; Emily.Eaton@uregina.ca; John.Conway@uregina.ca; joyce.green@uregina.ca; George.Buri@uregina.ca

But to be honest, I've realized they aren't worth anymore than a "so this means you are resigning right?" mass email to all of them.

More importantly (to me, anyway), the UofR is pretty much telling the 16 profs to suck it. 



> University spokesperson Barb Pollock said the school has received dozens of emails and even more letters and phone calls since the letter was made public. *"Only two of them supported the concerns raised by the professors,"* she said.
> 
> Pollock said that the university recognizes that the issue raises strong feelings on both sides, *but added that the Project Hero scholarships will be offered in September as planned.*
> 
> "The program is continuing," she said.



At the start of this thread, we all thought "I can't believe it," and of course felt the whole "support for the military in Canada is a mile wide but only a foot deep" thing... But, politicians, students, and every day citizens alike have been quite vocal about their disapproval of these 16 profs... so... I'm happy about all of this really.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Mar 2010)

PIKER said:
			
		

> http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/project-hero/#clip281622
> 
> Here is a good collection of Project Hero coverage.  Tom Clark makes a nice move in calling out Prof Hunter. ;D



WOW!  I just watched that and am totally floored.  What a frackin sad statement as to where our Education System has decended into.  How in the world did this guy become accredited?  He appeared to be two bricks short of a load and unable to give directions, let alone lead anyone, to a toilet.......and that is being polite.


----------



## MPIKE (28 Mar 2010)

One thing for sure is that we can thank the good socialist scholars for raising awareness and continued support for Project Hero!.  I was going to email the school etc but after I googled Prof Webber and saw how entrenched in Marxism he appears to be, I considered my part in Earth hour and saved bandwidth.

Thank you Regina 16!  
:yellow:


----------



## Greymatters (28 Mar 2010)

I was impressed with the newscaster who mediated, although I didnt catch his name.  

I was not so impressed with him holding up his Cyprus medals as 'proof' of his expertise on 'peacekeeping operations'.    

I would however have been interested to hear which countries we are supposedly currently controlling as part of the great Canadian imperialist empire - Im sure I would have found it amusing...


----------



## SeanNewman (30 Mar 2010)

In a bizarre and twisted way, these 16 have probably turned Canadian popular support incredibly against their cause and toward supporting military families even more.

That Garson Hunter is quite the weirdo, though.  He's not even being political because at least when politician-types answer a question with their agenda at least they generally answer the question (even if it's yelling).

This guy doesn't even have the sack to stand up for something he put in print; how sad.


----------



## shawn5o (1 Apr 2010)

Here is a snippit at what two of the letter writers -Joyce Green and Darlene Juschka- posted on rabble.ca:



> What followed was a media feeding frenzy that mostly misrepresented our position, and a week of the worst sort of national attention for us and for the university. Despite several of us doing numerous interviews, most media focussed on the erroneous notion that our opposition is to soldiers being considered heroes and to parentless children being given education assistance.
> 
> Those of us who signed the letter have been subjected to virulent hate mail and argument by decibels and epithet. The language of many of our critics would make a stevedore blush and a grammarian wince. Always helpful, local Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski poured gas on the fire at every media opportunity, repeating his claim that we oppose help for the bereaved and honour for the dead and demanding our public apology (boiling oil not being available) for something we didn't say and didn't intend.
> 
> ...



BTW, don't the children of tenured Profs get free (or certainly much reduced) tuition?


----------



## Teeps74 (1 Apr 2010)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Here is a snippit at what two of the letter writers -Joyce Green and Darlene Juschka- posted on rabble.ca:
> 
> BTW, don't the children of tenured Profs get free (or certainly much reduced) tuition?



Typical leftist drivel from leftist, head-in-the-sand types. "Why do they dislike us so? We only tell them what they are supposed to be thinking!? Whaaaa....".

Thank you for NOT linking to that den of idiots.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Apr 2010)

This from the _Regina Leader-Post_:


> Two groups are asking the University of Regina for an immediate public forum on Canada's role in Afghanistan.
> 
> The first group is the protesting professors from the U of R who asked that the university withdraw from the Project Hero scholarship program. The second group, the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee (CASC), has requested that the university's president Vianne Timmons publicly rebuke the professors for their "shameful" stance.
> 
> ...



_More on link_


----------



## pbi (4 Apr 2010)

Public debate would be a good thing here: there's too much screaming and righteous pot-banging on both sides. But, if the debate is to be fair and open (as opposed to being merely a "show trial" or a forum for one side's opinion), then in my opinion it needs to adress the following questions:

1) What is the meaning of "free speech" in an academic institution? Does it mean absolute freedom to say whatever you want, or only to say things that don't offend certain groups?


2) Can professors be allowed to exercise absolute freedom of speech, given their potentially influential position? (I say "potentially" because in my experience some professors have no meaningful influence on anything...)


3) If professors can't exercise absolute freedom of speech, who else should be prevented from exercising it?

In my opinion the stupidest, least effective response to these people is to act like the fascist warmongers they deem us to be, by indulging in intellectual thuggery. Hate mail and demands for resignation just reinforce their argument that the military and its supporters are trying to stifle discussion and debate. Instead, drag them out into the broad light of day and challenge them to defend their positions in open debate.  I think we'll find that they are very good at dominating ill-informed undergraduate minds, and preaching to the converted down at the tea house, but not all that good against informed, reasonable skeptics.

Cheers


----------



## Greymatters (8 Apr 2010)

The problem is that even if you have a good argument, those who believe in something fanatically enough will never belive in a differing opinmion no matetr how much truth there is - not unlike those who believe the earth is flat, supporters of these professors will never believe that they are wrong and will just find some other excuse for a failed argument (i.e. 'they cheated!' 'they just wont listen to reason' 'the conservatives manipulated the debate', etc...)


----------



## George Wallace (8 Apr 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> The problem is that even if you have a good argument, those who believe in something fanatically enough will never belive in a differing opinmion no matetr how much truth there is - not unlike those who believe the earth is flat, supporters of these professors will never believe that they are wrong and will just find some other excuse for a failed argument (i.e. 'they cheated!' 'they just wont listen to reason' 'the conservatives manipulated the debate', etc...)



Sounds like we may have a few on this site.  

Alright, who here is from the University of Saskatchewan, Regina Campus?

 >


----------



## pbi (10 Apr 2010)

I'm reminded of the lengthy (and sometimes enjoyable) debate we had on these pages a while back, with the members of the Quebec-based group who were against Canada's participation in Afgh. (Remember=they sent out the "cannon fodder" letter to families of 5ieme GBMC soldiers preparing to deploy) They (or at least, one of them...) came to this site and fought it out. Of course parts of it were like arguing with a parrot or wrestling with a pig, but the point is we do have a history of taking these sorts of people on: it can be done.

It  might be interesting. We've already built it...now, will they come?

Cheers


----------



## Tank Troll (10 Apr 2010)

Ahhh the old freedom of speech issue. I always like the fact that anyone can say what ever they want and when some one else goes against them the scream, cry, whine freedom of speech...................but us that presever the freedom aren't allowed to, and a lot of the time it is about us or affects us.


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Apr 2010)

Back in the 1970's I used to go to the U of R's Lazy Owl on accasion, as some of my friends attended thre, and this pub was at times a good source of meeting uni chicks.

I did find that many had a very bad taste for Defence members, and I later learned that the U of R was a very red school, one of the reddest around, so I am not suprised that this tradition of lefty mentality had carried on (IMHO). 

Here is a paper on campus...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carillon


----------



## SigO (10 Apr 2010)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Well I personally do have a problem with the youth of Canada being subjected to this type of thinking that seems to be quite prevalent in the post secondary eduation system.  Is this really the type of thinking you want YOUR kids subjected to?  I would like to think some students would see this for the idiotcy that it is, but these people are figures that students are supposed to look up to for guidance and wisdom.



The beauty of post-secondary education is that it encourages critical thinking, i.e. questioning ideas, even if they come from highly educated people.  I would argue that any student who agrees with these 16 individuals is clearly mis-guided, but unfortunately there is no law against subjecting "YOUR kids" to opinions that are based in a reality that we don't agree with.  University students, like most Canadians at large, can think for themselves, and anyone who bases their opinion solely on those offered by people of authority isn't worth listening to anyway.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Apr 2010)

SigO said:
			
		

> University students, like most Canadians at large, can think for themselves,



 :rofl:


----------



## mariomike (10 Apr 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Here is a paper on campus...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carillon



"The Carillon reflected the anti-war sentiment of many American intellectuals who left the U.S. to teach in Canada."

Thanks, Wes. It looks like the tradition continues.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Apr 2010)

SigO said:
			
		

> The beauty of post-secondary education is that it encourages critical thinking



To repeat CDN Aviator's thoughts, "  :rofl:  "



To explain, undergraduate post-secondary education _may_ encourage some -- perhaps a very select few -- of the brighter participants in critical thinking....despite what students think about their intellectual brilliance.

At the end of the day, however, regurgitation (with or without attendance) is all that is required to put "BA" or "BSc" at the end of one's signature block.

Sorry.


Whether such education actually diminishes intuitive "common sense" may also be open to debate...but I've probably taken this thread sufficiently off-track.


----------



## Antoine (11 Apr 2010)

> To explain, undergraduate post-secondary education may encourage some -- perhaps *a very select few* -- of the brighter participants in critical thinking....despite what students think about their intellectual brilliance.
> 
> At the end of the day, however, regurgitation (with or without attendance) is all that is required to put "BA" or "BSc" at the end of one's signature block.



Absolutely true, seen in many universities, research centres,....and sadly enough, applicable to several prof.


----------



## SigO (11 Apr 2010)

> At the end of the day, however, regurgitation (with or without attendance) is all that is required to put "BA" or "BSc" at the end of one's signature block.



I suppose that depends on the educational institution.  Critical thinking is key to success in many quality Arts programs, where argument must be developed independently.  In the Sciences, I can agree that a degree is at least in part based on regurgitation, but there is also emphasis on understanding abstract concepts and applying them to unique problems (even at the BSc level), a feat that involves a significant reliance on critical thinking.  

Alas, I digress, as I don't think the point of this thread is to discuss the quality of post-secondary education.  But I feel better anyway.  :


----------



## Yrys (11 Apr 2010)

SigO said:
			
		

> Alas, I digress, as I don't think the point of this thread is to discuss the quality of post-secondary education.  But I feel better anyway.  :



BUT you can start one !

Pretty, please ?


----------



## George Wallace (11 Apr 2010)

Yrys said:
			
		

> BUT you can start one !
> 
> Pretty, please ?



NO!  Please don't.  We have covered the poor quality of our Education System too often already.  It occurs almost daily when we get a member posting with: MSN Speak; lack of CAPITALIZATION; lack of punctuation; poor grammar; incorrect spelling; run on sentences; and/or a plethora of other poor writting skills.  We have even covered, in some topics, the ranking of our Colleges and Universities and seen their product posting on this site.  NO! Please don't start a new topic on the quality of our Post-Secondary Education Systems........It is redundant and really disheartening to see how low we have sunk.


----------



## Future Pensioner (13 Apr 2010)

While I am all for any program that assists the dependants of fallen soldiers or, for that matter, anything that benefits soldiers in general, I am wondering why the dependents of fallen soldiers would require scholarships, as VAC already provides for this.  I could be missing something though.

From VAC's website:

_Education Assistance Program
The Education Assistance Program provides post-secondary education assistance to those children of deceased Veterans or Canadian Forces members who have died as a result of military service or who were pensioned at 48% or greater at the time of death. Assistance may be provided for four years or 36 academic months, whichever is less. Qualified clients must enter the program before they are 25 and assistance cannot be extended beyond the year in which they turn 30._


----------



## George Wallace (13 Apr 2010)

Future Pensioner said:
			
		

> While I am all for any program that assists the dependants of fallen soldiers or, for that matter, anything that benefits soldiers in general, I am wondering why the dependents of fallen soldiers would require scholarships, as VAC already provides for this.  I could be missing something though.
> 
> From VAC's website:
> 
> ...



You may note the words "provides post-secondary education ASSISTANCE" in that statement.  Post-secondary educations are not cheap, and many of our brightest students are covering their expenses with more than one 'scholarship' or 'grant'.  Yes, Veterans Affairs does offer assistance, but it does not cover ALL costs.  Therefore other scholarships help the students.  If you really want to know, several Regimental organizations also offer scholarships to the children of Serving and former serving Regimental members.  It is just another scholarship that an aspiring student can apply for.  It is not a guarantee that all will receive it though, as there is only so much money to go around.

Does that help?


----------



## Future Pensioner (13 Apr 2010)

Thanks for the clarification George.

Points well taken!!!


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2010)

... according to this - I've highlighted the interesting "not happy abut the war but it's still a good idea to help those hurt by it" bit from the "staff writer" of what appears to be a CanWest publication:


> Military families enjoy few perks. They often live in sub-standard housing on sub-standard wages, their lives marked by reassignments and deployments around the country or around the world.
> 
> Since 2002, when Canada joined the American-led response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 142 Canadian Forces members have died in Afghanistan. The dead leave behind mother and fathers, husbands and wives. And in many cases, sons and daughters.
> 
> ...



The article in question is on the front page of the student-generated newspaper (linked in quote).  Interestingly handled story for a college journalism program - actually more balanced than some MSM I've read.


----------



## Greymatters (29 Apr 2010)

SigO said:
			
		

> I suppose that depends on the educational institution.  Critical thinking is key to success in many quality Arts programs, where argument must be developed independently.  In the Sciences, I can agree that a degree is at least in part based on regurgitation, but there is also emphasis on understanding abstract concepts and applying them to unique problems (even at the BSc level), a feat that involves a significant reliance on critical thinking.



I think it has more to do with what year of learning they are in - Ive lost count of the number of times Ive had 'facts' quoted at me or read of them being said because it was something a first or second year student was told to them by their professor, student union leader, local politial activist, or another classmate.  It seems like they really dont start thinking for themselves until they hit the third or fourth year.


----------



## pbi (30 Apr 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> It seems like they really dont start thinking for themselves until they hit the third or fourth year.



When I went back to get my degree under UTPO, I did it via civvy university. One thing that struck me was how little mental difference there appeared to be between most of the students up to third year, and the high school students that they felt themselves so superior to. I found precious little work ethic, not much engagement in class, and some fairly immature behaviour. There was still a lot of that high school herd-mentality thinking.

Cheers


----------

