On improper education

I am so frustrated with this module that I’m not going to study for the test tomorrow. The lecturer did not tell us what is going to be tested. She probably expects us to read the entire textbook, to remember every small detail, insofar as we might be able to respond to those molecular bits of information crumpled into a question.

But what is more frustrating than that childish, haughty woman is the ridiculous nature of the textbook. For one, and I have made known some examples before, it defines “the speaker” and “the audience”; as if it was so obscured a fact that we would not be able to distinguish between ourselves speaking and the rampant chatter that flows and ebbs along the seats. 

There are many other instances where it renames the obvious with cheap terminology. It’s so stupid I can’t remember the examples… Ah yes, “there are 4 ways of listening to a person giving a speech: appreciative, empathetic, comprehensive, critical.” Tell me, how does this sort of rubbish make it’s way into a textbook for which are awarded praises by a gallery of academics? I would be hardly surprised if someone discovered that the awards were all hoaxes.

Here’s another: “types of questions for determining audience demographic: fixed-alternative questions, scale questions, and open-ended questions.” I think the author determined too hard to make the contents comprehensible. It would be far suitable to his manner of explication, and also far less insulting to those of tertiary-standard intellect, that he write books for children. There he would receive praises which no one will suspect.

I am so frustrated that the university had even allowed this module to be taught in this mundane, almost pointless, manner. This does not at all improve our skills in public speaking. What it does, and I am sure of this, is to dull the sharpness of our minds, to accustom us to the study of the superficial and the obvious. It is all wrong. This education is deplorable.

Charisma put to poor use

I had the privilege (though some might not call it that) to attend a talk by an extremely charismatic man named Joy. The content of the talk however was rubbish; thus the puzzling parenthesis above. But more about the speaker – that stout, personable fellow, whose natural eloquence and measured strides kept me in awe the entire evening. His suit too, so well-fitted and colored in just right degrees so as to not look too bland, but neither too gaudy, gave him an air of impressiveness, of respectable power. I feel like I can offer nothing more precise, nothing truly worth the empiricist’s eye, than these general descriptions. One has to see and hear him speak for oneself. Maybe one day I’ll be like him. But just the charisma, please.