7 ms·

Do you think it would have ended the same failed exam if you did that research first and included it in your interpretation?

zorked 10y ago
My thoughts exactly. He had a good intuition, but teachers want substance not opinion - as they should.
- int_19h 10y ago
  It sounds like this is a case of something where substance is opinion; or at least the established and agreed-upon subset of it.
justifier 10y ago
there's more to the story.. lie by ommission the course was set up that we would read a work and then write a one page response in class here is where i voiced my distaste for chaucer 'creating', as was presented to our class, this story while appreciating shakey's subversion of the material this garnered the 'f' for my opinions about love forlorned then at the end of each four week period we would, in lieu of exams, choose one work to 'dive deeper on' and write a longer piece i chose triolus because it was the one piece i got such a low score on while 'going deeper' i ended up finding, and reading, bocaccio and sainte-maure and wrote about how all four are similar and different and how these comparisons related to my original, correct ;P, intuition i got a 'd' with complaints to the effects of 'stick to the course material' and 'just drop it' i think my axe grinding became the professor's honing stone, which is unfortunate that such a circumstance can occur in an as advertised educational environment
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  Thanks for the additional context - though it's disappointing to hear. Seems the point of teaching this kind of thing should be to encourage people to explore their own interpretations. Having a fixed path for the student to travel seems counterproductive.
- justifier 10y ago
  i went back and found this old entry from my university days and it turns out i only used the three works: shakespeare, chaucer and boccaccio; as basis for comparison in the paper, stead all four

zorked 10y ago

My thoughts exactly. He had a good intuition, but teachers want substance not opinion - as they should.

int_19h 10y ago
It sounds like this is a case of something where substance is opinion; or at least the established and agreed-upon subset of it.

justifier 10y ago

there's more to the story.. lie by ommission the course was set up that we would read a work and then write a one page response in class here is where i voiced my distaste for chaucer 'creating', as was presented to our class, this story while appreciating shakey's subversion of the material this garnered the 'f' for my opinions about love forlorned then at the end of each four week period we would, in lieu of exams, choose one work to 'dive deeper on' and write a longer piece i chose triolus because it was the one piece i got such a low score on while 'going deeper' i ended up finding, and reading, bocaccio and sainte-maure and wrote about how all four are similar and different and how these comparisons related to my original, correct ;P, intuition i got a 'd' with complaints to the effects of 'stick to the course material' and 'just drop it' i think my axe grinding became the professor's honing stone, which is unfortunate that such a circumstance can occur in an as advertised educational environment

GrinningFool 10y ago
Thanks for the additional context - though it's disappointing to hear. Seems the point of teaching this kind of thing should be to encourage people to explore their own interpretations. Having a fixed path for the student to travel seems counterproductive.
justifier 10y ago
i went back and found this old entry from my university days and it turns out i only used the three works: shakespeare, chaucer and boccaccio; as basis for comparison in the paper, stead all four