College professors can be so moronic

[DisgruntledVirus]

Yes I did read the instructions, and no they did not say no acronyms or spell everything out. The exact instructions for that specific section were "Write the correct answer", which I did. Yes I should have spelled it out, but at the same time when he uses the acronyms in class I don't see any reason we cannot use them on the test (unless stated otherwise, which in this case was not).

Yes I know its a stupid course, and far below my skill level on MS Office. The course is a very entry level course, but as I stated I needed the credits and it filled my time slot quite well.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Savij
The acronyms are correctly marked wrong. While you know exactly what they mean, he doesn't know that you know. He has to be able to tell that you know the real term, not the acronym. Sucks to be you, but follow xSauronx's advice on ALL exams.

This man is winner.

Furthermore, I know this may shock some of the younger of you out there, but college professors really aren't mandated to be fair.

You can either go discuss it with the prof, or suck it up and remember the lesson learned on your next exam. In fact, even if you do A, you might be stuck with B regardless if he/she says "tough shit" or some equivalent.

Either way, bitching on ATOT doesn't do much for you.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Yes I did read the instructions, and no they did not say no acronyms or spell everything out. The exact instructions for that specific section were "Write the correct answer", which I did. Yes I should have spelled it out, but at the same time when he uses the acronyms in class I don't see any reason we cannot use them on the test (unless stated otherwise, which in this case was not).

Yes I know its a stupid course, and far below my skill level on MS Office. The course is a very entry level course, but as I stated I needed the credits and it filled my time slot quite well.

*sigh*
so it's somebody else's fault for not following "write the correct answer", which you did not given the context of the class.

You fail to recognize that this is your fault and not "an idiot professor". I love how "I know what I should have done, but it's still not my fault!!!".

Why can't you use them on a test???!!!! Because the exact instructions were to "write the correct answer!" You did not know the correct answer, therefore you fail.

I don't mean so hard on you, but this is not the first time you will disagree with somebody that knows far more than you and they have their own method of teaching you things. Learning how to listen is a great skill.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Yes I did read the instructions, and no they did not say no acronyms or spell everything out. The exact instructions for that specific section were "Write the correct answer", which I did. Yes I should have spelled it out, but at the same time when he uses the acronyms in class I don't see any reason we cannot use them on the test (unless stated otherwise, which in this case was not).

Yes I know its a stupid course, and far below my skill level on MS Office. The course is a very entry level course, but as I stated I needed the credits and it filled my time slot quite well.

*sigh*
so it's somebody else's fault for not following "write the correct answer", which you did not given the context of the class.

You fail to recognize that this is your fault and not "an idiot professor". I love how "I know what I should have done, but it's still not my fault!!!".

Why can't you use them on a test???!!!! Because the exact instructions were to "write the correct answer!" You did not know the correct answer, therefore you fail.

I don't mean so hard on you, but this is not the first time you will disagree with somebody that knows far more than you and they have their own method of teaching you things. Learning how to listen is a great skill.

That is the worst fucking explanation ever.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Yes I did read the instructions, and no they did not say no acronyms or spell everything out. The exact instructions for that specific section were "Write the correct answer", which I did. Yes I should have spelled it out, but at the same time when he uses the acronyms in class I don't see any reason we cannot use them on the test (unless stated otherwise, which in this case was not).

Yes I know its a stupid course, and far below my skill level on MS Office. The course is a very entry level course, but as I stated I needed the credits and it filled my time slot quite well.

You can't use it on the test because it's the answer to the question. If you happened to mention LANs/WANs in writing out the answer to another question, it might have been ok. Instead, the question was asking about types of networks. You have to explicitly say Local Area Networks to show that you know that it's more than just an acronym. You could have invented ethernet, but if you can't communicate that you know what LAN stands for on a test the professor has to mark you wrong.

He can only grade you on what you put down on paper, not on what you were thinking when you wrote it.

 

[Imdmn04]

Originally posted by: Parasitic
What they have special MS or Cisco track in CIS now? How come we didn't? At school we had CS and that was it, and it wasn't even its own department (cirriculum lumped with EE -> EECS)

And I graduated just last year. Time changes real fast nowadays.

I think traditional 4 yr schools should place theory of the technology first and foremost, and provide examples on how different vendors implement that particular technology. After all, implementation can change over time, companies come and go, but the theory of technology should remain relatively the same. You have to remember, it is not the traditional 4 yr college's job to provide job training, that is what vocational schools are for. Rather, it is suppose to teach a general theory on a particular field so that the student has a general understanding on various subjects in that field. It is more of a "broaden your horizon" type of learning than work training.

For in-depth training on specific technologies from specific vendors, a certificate class from the local community college or ITT is more appropriate. This is practical knowledge tied to a specific vendor, so a vocational class is more appropriate as their sole purpose to train you for a specific job.

I guess what am trying to say is, just because you learned how to configure OSPF in Cisco class doesn't acutally mean you understand the Dijkstra algorithm behind it. This is the difference between a technician and an engineer. The engineer can write the algorithm behind the OSPF, the technician merely configures it. I think traditional 4 yr schools needs to jump off the "Cisco this, Msft that" bandwagon, and offer more theory-based classes as opposed to implementation-based classes as their core education.

 

[xeemzor]

That's what you get for going to an state run school in Ohio that isn't OSU

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Yes I did read the instructions, and no they did not say no acronyms or spell everything out. The exact instructions for that specific section were "Write the correct answer", which I did. Yes I should have spelled it out, but at the same time when he uses the acronyms in class I don't see any reason we cannot use them on the test (unless stated otherwise, which in this case was not).

Yes I know its a stupid course, and far below my skill level on MS Office. The course is a very entry level course, but as I stated I needed the credits and it filled my time slot quite well.

*sigh*
so it's somebody else's fault for not following "write the correct answer", which you did not given the context of the class.

You fail to recognize that this is your fault and not "an idiot professor". I love how "I know what I should have done, but it's still not my fault!!!".

Why can't you use them on a test???!!!! Because the exact instructions were to "write the correct answer!" You did not know the correct answer, therefore you fail.

I don't mean so hard on you, but this is not the first time you will disagree with somebody that knows far more than you and they have their own method of teaching you things. Learning how to listen is a great skill.

Jeebus, stop worshipping authority for once on ATOT. It's almost sickening. If the teacher used the acronym in class, then it's fair game on the test.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Yes I did read the instructions, and no they did not say no acronyms or spell everything out. The exact instructions for that specific section were "Write the correct answer", which I did. Yes I should have spelled it out, but at the same time when he uses the acronyms in class I don't see any reason we cannot use them on the test (unless stated otherwise, which in this case was not).

Yes I know its a stupid course, and far below my skill level on MS Office. The course is a very entry level course, but as I stated I needed the credits and it filled my time slot quite well.

That's why you got marked wrong. The class is for old people and business majors. You can't assume any prior knowledge while grading.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Yes I did read the instructions, and no they did not say no acronyms or spell everything out. The exact instructions for that specific section were "Write the correct answer", which I did. Yes I should have spelled it out, but at the same time when he uses the acronyms in class I don't see any reason we cannot use them on the test (unless stated otherwise, which in this case was not).

Yes I know its a stupid course, and far below my skill level on MS Office. The course is a very entry level course, but as I stated I needed the credits and it filled my time slot quite well.

*sigh*
so it's somebody else's fault for not following "write the correct answer", which you did not given the context of the class.

You fail to recognize that this is your fault and not "an idiot professor". I love how "I know what I should have done, but it's still not my fault!!!".

Why can't you use them on a test???!!!! Because the exact instructions were to "write the correct answer!" You did not know the correct answer, therefore you fail.

I don't mean so hard on you, but this is not the first time you will disagree with somebody that knows far more than you and they have their own method of teaching you things. Learning how to listen is a great skill.

I really hope someone with a position of power doesn't tell you to jump off a bridge one day. Something tells me we'd be finding you a-ways downstream.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Imdmn04

Originally posted by: Parasitic
What they have special MS or Cisco track in CIS now? How come we didn't? At school we had CS and that was it, and it wasn't even its own department (cirriculum lumped with EE -> EECS)

And I graduated just last year. Time changes real fast nowadays.

I think traditional 4 yr schools should place theory of the technology first and foremost, and provide examples on how different vendors implement that particular technology. After all, implementation can change over time, companies come and go, but the theory of technology should remain relatively the same. You have to remember, it is not the traditional 4 yr college's job to provide job training, that is what vocational schools are for. Rather, it is suppose to teach a general theory on a particular field so that the student has a general understanding on various subjects in that field. It is more of a "broaden your horizon" type of learning than work training.

For in-depth training on specific technologies from specific vendors, a certificate class from the local community college or ITT is more appropriate. This is practical knowledge tied to a specific vendor, so a vocational class is more appropriate as their sole purpose to train you for a specific job.

I guess what am trying to say is, just because you learned how to configure OSPF in Cisco class doesn't acutally mean you understand the Dijkstra algorithm behind it. This is the difference between a technician and an engineer. The engineer can write the algorithm behind the OSPF, the technician merely configures it. I think traditional 4 yr schools needs to jump off the "Cisco this, Msft that" bandwagon, and offer more theory-based classes as opposed to implementation-based classes as their core education.

And yet it's the people that understand the algorithm and it's implementation that are in so high demand. You can't find good networking people these days and if you do they demand a pretty penny. Supply/demand - live it, learn it, love it.

I like to laugh at eggheads who live in theory. What in the world do cisco and msft have to do with dijkstra or the protocol itself. That's really funny. I like to laugh at eggheads - HA-HA!

 

[Imdmn04]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Imdmn04

Originally posted by: Parasitic
What they have special MS or Cisco track in CIS now? How come we didn't? At school we had CS and that was it, and it wasn't even its own department (cirriculum lumped with EE -> EECS)

And I graduated just last year. Time changes real fast nowadays.

I think traditional 4 yr schools should place theory of the technology first and foremost, and provide examples on how different vendors implement that particular technology. After all, implementation can change over time, companies come and go, but the theory of technology should remain relatively the same. You have to remember, it is not the traditional 4 yr college's job to provide job training, that is what vocational schools are for. Rather, it is suppose to teach a general theory on a particular field so that the student has a general understanding on various subjects in that field. It is more of a "broaden your horizon" type of learning than work training.

For in-depth training on specific technologies from specific vendors, a certificate class from the local community college or ITT is more appropriate. This is practical knowledge tied to a specific vendor, so a vocational class is more appropriate as their sole purpose to train you for a specific job.

I guess what am trying to say is, just because you learned how to configure OSPF in Cisco class doesn't acutally mean you understand the Dijkstra algorithm behind it. This is the difference between a technician and an engineer. The engineer can write the algorithm behind the OSPF, the technician merely configures it. I think traditional 4 yr schools needs to jump off the "Cisco this, Msft that" bandwagon, and offer more theory-based classes as opposed to implementation-based classes as their core education.

And yet it's the people that understand the algorithm and it's implementation that are in so high demand. You can't find good networking people these days and if you do they demand a pretty penny. Supply/demand - live it, learn it, love it.

I like to laugh at eggheads who live in theory. What in the world do cisco and msft have to do with dijkstra or the protocol itself. That's really funny. I like to laugh at eggheads - HA-HA!

I never said implementation makes less money than the design, in fact, I know plenty of electricians that make more than EEs, and plenty of mechanics than makes more than mechanical engineers.

Money was never the point of my argument, rather, it is about the role of a traditional 4 yr school should play, and their core education philosophy. I personally feel, in a traditional university, theory/design based education in a particular field is more appropriate. Besides pure theory, they should briefly touch how popular products implement that theory. For the most part, you have certificate training programs/vocational schools for learning operation/implementation of a specific product, and they fill the gap in the education sector quite nicely.

 

[bGIveNs33]

eh, I think the whole point of a test is to see if you know the material. That is getting a bit picky... the thing is, you can't be the first one to make that mistake. He has to mark people wrong on that all the time. Not much you can do except suck it up.... and every time he writes any sort of abbreviation on the board, raise your hand as ask what it stands for

 

[IGBT]

..most of em have never worked outside academia.

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..most of em have never worked outside academia.

I had worked 15 years in industry before becoming a professor in EE. This is my 9th year teaching, of which 5 of those years overlapped teaching and working in industry. But I do agree that many of my colleagues have never worked outside the university.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Analog

Originally posted by: IGBT
..most of em have never worked outside academia.

I had worked 15 years in industry before becoming a professor in EE. This is my 9th year teaching, of which 5 of those years overlapped teaching and working in industry. But I do agree that many of my colleagues have never worked outside the university.

..well there you have it. I'm willing to bet your work experience gave you lots of practical experience that your students benefited from. Conversely a "professor" who's only experience is academia.. graduates students ill prepaired for the work place. Many a teacher forget school is a place to prepare for work so students can earn a livelyhood. Not a forum for personal agenda.