3 ms·
But, assuming we take the facts of the post at face value, there clearly wasn’t a rational cost-benefit analysis that resulted in only teaching large lecture-st
by dap 2y ago
But, assuming we take the facts of the post at face value, there clearly wasn’t a rational cost-benefit analysis that resulted in only teaching large lecture-style courses and deliberately serving only those who could thrive that way. The instructor’s claim was not that the author needed more instruction that wasn’t available (indeed, they turned her away from seeking such instruction). Rather, it was that people like her simply can’t “hack it”, which the author demonstrated to be false.
- gopher_space 2y agoI just wish I had known that o-chem gets easier if you start first thing in the morning.
- Kalium 2y agoThere was no cost-benefit analysis on offer, you are correct. This is not the same as there being none, though. Weed-out courses are a classic example implemented at the institutional level - they exist to find as early as possible who is likely to be compatible with the educational program to come. Like any system working on messy humans (who like to defy neatly delineated categories), there are marginal cases who just need a little help to flip from one category to the other. The author calculated that they were such a marginal student and invested accordingly. This should not be confused for assuming that every passionate, driven student is a marginal case who just needs a little help. The author is essentially arguing at length for a greater emphasis on benefit and less on cost. Not just in o-chem, but at every stage of medical training.