EC ENGR 99
Student Research Program
Description: Tutorial (supervised research or other scholarly work), three hours per week per unit. Entry-level research for lower-division students under guidance of faculty mentor. Students must be in good academic standing and enrolled in minimum of 12 units (excluding this course). Individual contract required; consult Undergraduate Research Center. May be repeated. P/NP grading.
Units: 1.0
Units: 1.0
1 of 1
Most Helpful Review
I think I've figured this guy out. I started with three options. A. He's a sadistic sociopath who knows he's a master in his field and thus see's no reason to exercise anything more than a baseline level of civility to those he deems as insignificant. B. He's a sadistic sociopath who wishes to greatly reduce the potential for new ideas and advancement of technology by discouraging would be engineers by imposing impossible standards that only 0.01% of his students can meet. C. He's actually not a bad guy and has just realized the concept of grades has become greatly distorted and once reputable institutions of higher education have become profit driven diploma mills, and he has decided to tackle this by making it so impossible to get a good grade that grades become irrelevant and students actually stop worrying about grades and take the time to truly invest in understanding the material. I've decided it is option C. However this forced me to assume certain conditions. Primarily that this man, who admittedly is a brilliant, gifted lecturer, has intellectual weaknesses, in that though he might very well have good intentions, the manner in which he chooses to implement them is sacrificial and effectively results in the scenario of option B with respect to the students. Students who lost funding due to the grades he bestowed upon them, students who lost a chance at graduate school, students who lost jobs or internships they received on a conditional basis, and most importantly, students who, while they may have met his standards for a good grade, were by and far better than the majority of students who received better grades in the same course taught by another professor. And also sacrificial with respect to contributions to technology and humankind. I do not think he could have discouraged any of his EE115B students from being engineers but what of his EE10 students? How many will switch majors and will the world have lost a potential giant because of it? The world almost did not receive the wonderful gifts bestowed upon it by Albert Einstein because he could not write eloquently. He was imperfect. He had an abnormal brain and could not meet the standards of academia. He pleaded for acceptance and someone saw past his weaknesses to his strengths. So I have chosen option C. Like Albert Einstein, Professor Abidi has weaknesses, and like Albert Einstein, he has some phenomenal strengths. But he also must realize the same of his students. They have weaknesses, and they have strengths, and what a tragedy if he should inhibit them from making potentially monumental contributions to society. Professor Abidi, you are an intelligent, influential man. I fail to believe you can't find a way to further your cause in a constructive rather than destructive manner.
I think I've figured this guy out. I started with three options. A. He's a sadistic sociopath who knows he's a master in his field and thus see's no reason to exercise anything more than a baseline level of civility to those he deems as insignificant. B. He's a sadistic sociopath who wishes to greatly reduce the potential for new ideas and advancement of technology by discouraging would be engineers by imposing impossible standards that only 0.01% of his students can meet. C. He's actually not a bad guy and has just realized the concept of grades has become greatly distorted and once reputable institutions of higher education have become profit driven diploma mills, and he has decided to tackle this by making it so impossible to get a good grade that grades become irrelevant and students actually stop worrying about grades and take the time to truly invest in understanding the material. I've decided it is option C. However this forced me to assume certain conditions. Primarily that this man, who admittedly is a brilliant, gifted lecturer, has intellectual weaknesses, in that though he might very well have good intentions, the manner in which he chooses to implement them is sacrificial and effectively results in the scenario of option B with respect to the students. Students who lost funding due to the grades he bestowed upon them, students who lost a chance at graduate school, students who lost jobs or internships they received on a conditional basis, and most importantly, students who, while they may have met his standards for a good grade, were by and far better than the majority of students who received better grades in the same course taught by another professor. And also sacrificial with respect to contributions to technology and humankind. I do not think he could have discouraged any of his EE115B students from being engineers but what of his EE10 students? How many will switch majors and will the world have lost a potential giant because of it? The world almost did not receive the wonderful gifts bestowed upon it by Albert Einstein because he could not write eloquently. He was imperfect. He had an abnormal brain and could not meet the standards of academia. He pleaded for acceptance and someone saw past his weaknesses to his strengths. So I have chosen option C. Like Albert Einstein, Professor Abidi has weaknesses, and like Albert Einstein, he has some phenomenal strengths. But he also must realize the same of his students. They have weaknesses, and they have strengths, and what a tragedy if he should inhibit them from making potentially monumental contributions to society. Professor Abidi, you are an intelligent, influential man. I fail to believe you can't find a way to further your cause in a constructive rather than destructive manner.
1 of 1
