|
were spot on with their analyses of things, had great insights into various topics, could balance the general with the specific, and who were serious scholars. But their lecture style was just about unbearable--either too boring or too preachy, or just grating. They often took themselves too seriously or thought that what they were teaching was of the most cosmological importance when clearly it wasn't. They were impassioned but just not convincing.
I had other profs. who were light with regards to the material, tied things into our daily lives, but ignored the specifics of what we were studying. They could get you hooked in what they were saying, made you think that the literature/history/science really had something to do with your daily life, but upon closer inspection of the specifics of their lectures, it really was kind of a con job. They were inspiring with the rhetoric, and I really wanted to believe that what they had to say was correct with regards to the material, but there was a definite gap (sometimes a chasm) that had to be bridged.
Others kind of combined the two. You could tell when they were just bullshitting their way along because the material wasn't important to them, but they knew it was necessary to teach it. They were on fire when they got to the stuff they liked--rhetoric and message really came together. These were the profs. who were inspiring--part of the time, kind of. And sometimes they just half-assed it. And I think I was robbed.
Yeah, well, anyway, about the 2008 election . . .
|