Nitpicky Professors

[Andara Bledin]

You don't see the point of a psychology instructor not accepting the word "insane" in a non-literal context? I'd have marked you down in that context, myself.

^-.-^

[Rageaholic]

You don't see the point of a psychology instructor not accepting the word "insane" in a non-literal context? I'd have marked you down in that context, myself.

^-.-^

lol

I hadn't thought of it that way.

[Andara Bledin]

It's always important to know your audience.

^-.-^

[senor boogie woogie]

Mr. Slovak.

When I was in 11th grade, I took Chemistry. The guy who taught the class was a man I will call Mr. C. Probably was near 50, a few years away from retirement. Looked somewhat like a cross between David Letterman and Lance Russell (a famously local Memphis wrestling announcer, who played himself in the film "Man on the Moon" with Jim Carrey.)

He was an alright guy, could be a jerk when he was stressed with his job, and was somewhat lazy, making us do busy work assignments while he sat at his desk. He claimed in class that he knew how to make LSD, but telling us would be a Federal offence. He also did a cool experiment where he poured (hydrocloric?) acid on some sugar and watched the sugar come alive and boil over making the room smell like cotton candy.

Mr. C also had a parrot he took to school. The parrot sat (or stood) on a perch with no ankle chain next to Mr. C's desk. Bird was there for several weeks, and would occasionally take diarreha like bird squirts on the floor to the consternation of most of the girls in the room. Well, we all knew what happened. The bird decided he wanted to make a run for it back to Costa Rica and flew across the room through the open door with gangly ass Mr. C chasing after it madly. We didn't see it, but the bird was caught and was never seen again. If this took place 20 years later, that could be a hit YouTube video.

Although he could be an asshat and was somewhat lazy, I remember him fondly because he gave us all candy canes (th big, baton kind) as we were taking our semester exams before XMas. But he was lazy, not the teacher I would want if I was a gifted student who was coasting his last few years to his pension

Sometime that year, Mr. C got a trainee teacher named Mr. Slovak. Slovak was a guy about 30 or so, who (he says) worked as a chemist or some position with a cosmetics company. This was probably some pilot program between the public schools and private industry. I am sure at first Mr. C was happy to see Slovak come on board as he can sit on his butt reading the newspaper or whatever and a younger person can do his work. I think under certain circumstances, this works wonderfully, however, whoever gave this clown this opportunity should have been fired.

Right away we find that this guy is a nutter and an extreme asshole. An extreme, mentally ill, raging asshole. Once he stated that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per minute. A member of the class corrected him and said that it was 186,000 miles per second which is of course correct. Slovak hated being corrected by a 10th grader and more or less denounced the student for showing him up. (and why were we learning speed of light in a CHEMISTRY class). He would sometimes be lucid and teach whatever while Mr. C sat on his ass and it worked for awhile. But he was still a raging jerkoff and we hated him. Another kid asked him, "So, when are you going to leave?", in a tonal fashion that tried not to convey that we hated him and want him gone, but he saw through that and went nuts again, saying that it was none of our concern, he will stay there forever, we are stuck with him, and that he can do what he likes. (Again, a mentally ill asshole.)

Slovak had a sense of gradiosity about him. Slovak would threaten us with punishments for misbehavior, such as In School Suspension, Out of School Suspension, or even expulsion from school. Problem was that he could not authorize such punishments. Only the principal can. hell, the principal cannot unilaterally expel a student without approval of the school board. And Slovak wasn't even a licensed teacher. He was just some dope who probably his collegues hated who thought would be better being a dictator to high school kids. I doubt that he could have made out to be a manager/boss in any situation because his personality was so grating, his workers would revolt on him. He was an angry, pathetic little man.

Like I said, Slovak was a flunkie in the cosmetics industry and it was decided that for a lab project, we were going to make either a cold cream, or a hand lotion. Yep, just what every high school kid wants to learn to make. In my high school, there were 6 classes per day and a break, which meant that a teacher would be on the floor teaching 5 periods or about 5 hours a day. Our class was next to the last class of the day and by the time we went to the lab, poor Slovak was going nuts, ranting and raving, threatening us with empty punishments, telling us how rude and insolent the previous classes were, and just yelling "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!" and crap like that. I dont remember even beginning to make whatever the hell he wanted us to make and we just wanted to get through an hour with this nutbag and go home. Soon afterwards (like a week later) Mr. C came in and announced that Mr. Slovak was no longer working in the school and we erupted into wild appoving applause (prpobably his fifth ovation of the day). Mr. C hated him too, who probably asked for his dismissal. Goes to show how awful Slovak was that Mr. C did not want him doing his job (and frankly him and us getting screwed out of a normal person to do the class that he could have mentored).

Slovak was really awful, he was like a schitzophrenic Hitler on PCP. He was a one of a kind.

[MaggieTheCat]

Let me guess -- she insisted he was spelling his own name wrong.

I don't know for certain, but her thinking was probably more like ... "John" is how it was spelled on the answer key, therefore that is the one and only correct way to spell it on the test. There is no deviating from the answer key.

[Rageaholic]

I just thought of one more thing that sucks, professors who make an assignment due at the BEGINNING of the class date. I had one for polisci who had an assignment that was worth a THIRD of our entire grade. It wouldn't have been that bad except that she bragged about failing a student for being 10 minutes late for class on the day it was due. So all that work was for nothing because of some stupid technicality.

Ironically, those with the strictest rules were the more interesting ones. The polisci one was actually really nice outside of class. I DID like these professors, but that mean teacher persona is just obnoxious, arrogant, and can actually cause you more stress worrying about doing it "just right".

[senor boogie woogie]

(Quote)

I just thought of one more thing that sucks, professors who make an assignment due at the BEGINNING of the class date. I had one for polisci who had an assignment that was worth a THIRD of our entire grade. It wouldn't have been that bad except that she bragged about failing a student for being 10 minutes late for class on the day it was due. So all that work was for nothing because of some stupid technicality.

(Quote)


If this happened to me, I am not sure I would not be violent. I'm stuck in traffic coming to class, I make it at 9:10 instead of 9:00 and the professor can just fail you because of that? She did that out of a "power trip", and (sorry) she's a bitch.

I am a pretty laid back, live and let live, fuck it kind of person with little discipline. One thing I am very disciplined about is time, because of all the anal people out there in my life who demanded punctuality under threat of sanction or physical punishment as a child. Even in my adult life, I demand people to be on time, and I hate people who are late. If I had a teacher like that, I would make damn sure to be there at 9 AM if it was that important, even if it means being on campus hours earlier, or turn it in beforehand.

What really sucks about Higher Education is that the students have very little say about the conduct and fairness of professors teaching them. We the students pay their salaries (either through tuition or taxation). The Deans, who were once professors are not going to back the student up unless the prof. was a real asshat, showing his pecker, drunk in class or something else insane. But in most cases, a professor can fail a student for any number of things, some which are extremely petty in nature.

I am probably in a minority, but I hated college. It was a waste of my time and my parents money. Most of the teachers were intellectuals who could not hack in the "real world" who took these jobs, and had power over many other people (us students) who needed a grade from them, with the worst, anal retentive ones usually teaching crap that is required by worthless like Art History or English Literature.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm just saying I've been in situations where there are real consequences that depend upon whether the person asking me questions believes me or not. Like when the police were sure I had robbed this place or at least been involved in it. Neither was true, but they didn't believe me. Eventually it all blew over, but if it hadn't, I would've treated those cops as if they had deliberately conspired to frame me. I really don't see that as so much more unreasonable than they themselves were acting.

But their job is not to believe you. Its not much different from asking for ID to prove you're of age. You would have a very good reason to lie to them, if you're not, so they need proof.

I mean, honestly, if the police assumed everyone was always telling the truth, we'd never solve any crimes ever.

[DrFaroohk]

But their job is not to believe you. Its not much different from asking for ID to prove you're of age. You would have a very good reason to lie to them, if you're not, so they need proof.

I mean, honestly, if the police assumed everyone was always telling the truth, we'd never solve any crimes ever.

Aye, but it's not their job to harass the wrong people. I don't care about the other people who are lying, and they probably don't give a crap about me. But when I'm telling the truth then I've done nothing wrong and someone had better be prepared to deal with some seriously violent, vindictive backlash if they continue to harass me when I am innocent. I don't care that they "Didn't know". Actually, they did know after I told them. They have no excuse.

[ExRetailDrone]

Aye, but it's not their job to harass the wrong people. I don't care about the other people who are lying, and they probably don't give a crap about me. But when I'm telling the truth then I've done nothing wrong and someone had better be prepared to deal with some seriously violent, vindictive backlash if they continue to harass me when I am innocent. I don't care that they "Didn't know". Actually, they did know after I told them. They have no excuse.

But if there is no other evidence of your innocence at that time other than your word, they would be stupid to believe you on just that. People lie all the time. You may know you're telling the truth, but they don't, and to believe you outright on only your word means they are not doing their jobs properly. If they turn to forms of harassment that go above and beyond what is allowed, then you have some ground to complain to their superiors and whatnot. But if they are just doing routine question-asking and such, then they're just doing their jobs and perhaps you should help them find more evidence of your innocence if they seem to have a belief that you are lying. Turning violent will not help your case in the least in any circumstance.

[Andara Bledin]

But if they are just doing routine question-asking and such, then they're just doing their jobs and perhaps you should help them find more evidence of your innocence if they seem to have a belief that you are lying.

Yeah, but it's easier to cry and act the martyr than, you know, try to understand their point of view.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

But if there is no other evidence of your innocence at that time other than your word, they would be stupid to believe you on just that. People lie all the time. You may know you're telling the truth, but they don't, and to believe you outright on only your word means they are not doing their jobs properly. If they turn to forms of harassment that go above and beyond what is allowed, then you have some ground to complain to their superiors and whatnot. But if they are just doing routine question-asking and such, then they're just doing their jobs and perhaps you should help them find more evidence of your innocence if they seem to have a belief that you are lying. Turning violent will not help your case in the least in any circumstance.

It's not my job to prove my innocence.

It's like this: They asked me. I gave my answer. That's the way it is. It's up to THEM to prove otherwise. I said I didn't rob the restaurant, therefore, I did not rob the restaurant until they prove otherwise.

It's times like this I am in awe of the total hypocrisy involved. Do I ever get to use the excuse "I didn't know" and get off scott free? Nope. Do I get to say "Well, I knew but I didn't believe you" and get off scott free? "OH I'm sorry I didn't pull over officer, I didn't know blue lights meant I had to stop and I didn't believe you were a real cop." I WISH!

Of course they're not! Because when they are unreasonable, demanding, offensive, lying assholes, they are doing their jobs. And when I'm a defensive, hostile, slightly abrasive asshole, suddenly I'm the bad guy. "OMG he's not admitting guilt to something he didn't do! He's upset that he's been falsely accused! HE'S THE BAD GUY!"

I love the absolutely fucked up state of existence our whole world is in right now. We live in a time where it's ok to harass someone. You can legally break into someone's house and if you get shot, you're the victim! You can bully a kid in the classroom! You can make fun of his dead mother and retarded sister, but if he calls you fatso, you're the victim! You can be falsely accused of something and if you deny it, you're "defensive" and that means you're guilty anyway! haha I love this shit. And people wonder why I'm so bitter.

And why should I give a shit about their point of view? Do they care about mine? Are they sitting back at the station saying "That guy is awfully defensive, that means he did it." And then officer 2 says "Naw man, try and understand his point of view. He's scared because her's innocent and yet we're harassing him like he's guilty. No wonder he's defensive!" I WISH!

[ExRetailDrone]

It's not my job to prove my innocence.

It's like this: They asked me. I gave my answer. That's the way it is. It's up to THEM to prove otherwise. I said I didn't rob the restaurant, therefore, I did not rob the restaurant until they prove otherwise.

<snip>

I love the absolutely fucked up state of existence our whole world is in right now. We live in a time where it's ok to harass someone. You can legally break into someone's house and if you get shot, you're the victim! You can bully a kid in the classroom! You can make fun of his dead mother and retarded sister, but if he calls you fatso, you're the victim! You can be falsely accused of something and if you deny it, you're "defensive" and that means you're guilty anyway! haha I love this shit. And people wonder why I'm so bitter.

In this hypothetical situation, yes, they asked you and you gave your answer. That does not mean they have to believe you. If they become abusive and coercive and such, there are regulations against that, and you could go through the proper channels to get it taken care of. Firing back with violence simply because they don't believe you will only make them think you are hiding something and lying.

It might not be your job to prove your innocence, since you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, it is on the cops to prove your guilt. However, it is well within their rights and in their job description for them to be able to keep questioning you if they think you're hiding something. They have to do it the proper way, otherwise potential evidence can easily get thrown out in court, but you saying you didn't do it is no guarantee that you didn't do it. Do you think that every guilty criminal who has been questioned throughout the history of our justice system has told the truth and said they committed whatever crime they were being questioned about? If you think so, you're supremely naive and ignorant. People lie, it's just how it is. Not everyone, obviously, but enough so that you can't just trust people at face value all the time. And for a cop, who will deal with criminals due simply to what the job entails, taking someone's word at face value could literally prove deadly in some fashion.

[Andara Bledin]

And when I'm a defensive, hostile, slightly abrasive asshole, suddenly I'm the bad guy. "OMG he's not admitting guilt to something he didn't do! He's upset that he's been falsely accused! HE'S THE BAD GUY!"

No. You're not the "bad guy" for being upset or not admitting guilt. You're the "bad guy" for acting like an asshole. Don't act like an asshole for a change and you might find that people are less likely to distance themselves and take the other side.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

Ah, but I only become an asshole once they've provoked the asshole out of me. They need to stop being dicks about it and I'll be quite agreeable.