1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!
  2. We're giving away over $1,000 in prizes this month in the Northwest Firearms Winter Giveaway!
    Dismiss Notice

Portland State University text book misinformation

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Raidingtime, May 12, 2015.

  1. Raidingtime

    Raidingtime SE Portland Oregon Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    I'm starting this thread with an essay that I wrote about a month ago. I would like to see some response from users on NWFA that may have more insight to how I should go about this. My essay and other applicable information is below-



    Marketing Public Health

    Choice Reflection #1/ Option 2

    Public Health and Firearm Safety (option #2)

    Marketing Public Health by Michael Siegel and Lynne Lotenberg has been a great read so far. Currently, I’ve read up to Chapter 4 and I believe this book explains a lot of good points regarding public health. It’s been an easy read that flows well with very informative referencing and reasoning. I have stumbled upon a few shortcomings within this book and I will explain them in better detail. Marketing and Public Health makes many references to firearm safety. Overall they use an extensive amount of referencing, which suggests to me that the authors are well versed in their topics. However, There are some topics that they may have unconsciously or arrogantly mislead their readers. Their assessment, conclusions, and referencing of firearm use and safety is incorrect. I will provide quotations of passages of their book by leaving off added wording. I will do this in a fashion that will not mislead the reader of my article as they may have done when referencing articles. I have researched several, but not all, of the references Segal and Lotenberg used. I have added appropriate references and information that is pertinent to the topics Lotenberg and Siegel have addressed. Unfortunately, thus far I have come across many references that do not correspond with the intended passage within their textbook. Let me explain in greater detail about what I’m addressing in this book.

    Siegel and Lotenberg make several attempts to discuss public safety and firearms. I will address their statements, conclusions, and references throughout this paper in a fashion that minimizes word count. Talking about firearm safety is an important topic regarding public health in the 21st century. There is evidently increased interest among U.S. citizens because of recent publicized violent acts carried out by violent people that chose to use firearms. Siegel and Lotenberg describe firearm use and violence within the United States. They assess firearms as being a base for increased violence throughout the United States.

    “….homicide rate among teenagers is nearly three times as high as it was in 1950, and the homicide rate among teenagers is more than twice as high, mostly due to the widespread availability of firearms (NCHS, 2004; Satcher, 1996).( Lotenberg, pg. 7). These references had nothing to do with correlating homicide rates with firearms. Furthermore, the date of publishing the two compared references are 8 years apart, which makes myself wonder if a quality comparison ought to be made. Stoeger does make some comments on firearm use and homicide rate within the young adult black male population because they have disproportionally higher rates of violence (FBI, 2010). Interestingly, this point seems to have left out that people of black ethnicity and of the age range of 18-29 have the lowest rate of gun ownership (Morin, 2014). This conclusion that Siegel and Lotenberg beg the reader to take on firearms is incorrect. There is no increase in violence in the U.S. due to an increase in firearm availability. In fact, there are more restrictive laws imposed upon firearm owners today than there were 20-250 years ago. I suppose they were hoping that their readers would listen more to their own insecurities about firearms than immerse themselves in gaining knowledge and understanding of the matter at hand?

    “….Violence is the leading cause of lost life in this country today…. (Applebome, 1993, p. A7)” (Lotenberg, pg. 15). This is just a blatant lie. Violence is not the leading cause of lost life. In fact, I won’t even counter reference this reference made by Siegel and Lotenberg because there is no need to. Anyone with internet or library access can come across innumerable articles, tables, graphs, etc. about the current leading cause of death within the United States. The leading cause of death in this country is heart disease by a long shot. Maybe Siegel and Lotgenberg would do a better job by telling their reader that holding your breath will make reading their book appear more legitimate.

    “… 100,000 [firearms] are carried by children to school each day (Bok, 1996) These firearms cause an estimated 30,000 deaths each year (NCHS, 2004).” (Lotenberg, 15). This is another dishonest statement. First off, the 2004 NCHS makes no attempt to put a number on firearms carried by children to school everyday. Secondly, NCHS does not estimate firearms cause 30,000 deaths in any year they’ve recorded data (NCHS, 2005). I was not able to obtain information regarding the reference made to Bok in 1996. I will assume this reference follows the other trends in referencing of firearms within this textbook.

    “… the link between the availability of firearms and the increasing homicide rate is “every bit as strong as the studies that linked cigarettes to lung cancer” (Taubes, 1992)” (Lotenberg, 15). This reference makes up a word called “eqidemiologists” in the actual reference page but I will assume they meant epidemiologist. I was not able to retrieve this reference but did come upon information that suggests this maybe, or once was, at least a semi legitimate article. However, due to the trends with referencing within this book I will regard this reference as misleading and or false. The CDC, along with anything that I’ve read, does not interpret the rise in homicide rate to the increase in the availability of firearms (CDC, 2010). In fact, firearm ownership is actually associated with a decrease in violence (Smith, 2008; FBI, 2010). To continue my point, an estimated 162,000 people claim to have deterred violence to protect the life of a loved one each year in the United States (Kleck, 1995; Agresti, 2015). I hate to say it but Siegel and Lotenberg have once again dishonestly led their reader to believe in information that is not true. If they wanted to state their opinion they ought to label their statements as such. CDC lists that there are 11,208 deaths from homicides involving firearms each year. Doesn’t specific how many were used for self-defense, law enforcement, and suicide. The CDC states that 61% of deaths from firearms are suicides (CDC, 2010).

    The quotations that I drew from Marketing Public Health were only a few that I selected by highlighting sections throughout my reading. These quotations are by no means an exhaustive list. They are simply the first few that I found which happened to be within the first 15 pages of the 608-page book. I have highlighted more quotations that I have assessed but have left them out of this paper because of the word count guidelines. I presume my point has been made regarding this book. It is surprising to me that this book has made its way to publication with such discrepancies within it. A common reader would presume that the author would use their references to accurately and honestly reflect the text within the book. This is not the case regarding firearm public safety within this text. The lack of discrepancy and honesty within this print has uttered a ramification that may prevent my concentration and respect for the further read of this textbook. I wonder how many college students, readers, and scholars have read this book and taken to heart the false information within it. I do think there is much to be learned from this textbook and believe that there is much to look forward to reading this. However, I’m appalled at what I found upon closer scrutiny of the information within Lotenberg and Siegel’s book.


    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov

    Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Uniform Crime Reporting Program, United States. 1960-2008. June 15, 2010. Retried from: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications#Crime

    Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Fall 1995. Retried from: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/86-1.html

    James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith "Gun Control Facts.". Just Facts. September 13, 2010. Revised 2/7/15. Retried from: http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

    Meg Smith and Leah Carliner. "A History of D.C. Gun Ban." Washington Post. June 26, 2008. Retried from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/...

    Morin, Rich. The demographics and politics of gunowning households. FactTank. 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...aphics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

    National Center for Health Statistics .US Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans. 2005. Retried from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf

    Satcher, David. "CDC's first 50 years: lessons learned and relearned." American journal of public health.1996. Pages: 1705-1708. Print.

    Siegel, M. Lotenberg, L. Marketing Public Health: Strategies to Promote Social Change. Jones and Bartlett Publisers. Onatario, Canada. 2008. Prin

    (grade was 90%) Daniel – I’m sorry for the delay in grading this; I wanted to carefully consider my response. I appreciate that you have taken the time to question how the data is framed and dig a bit deeper into it. However, in your zeal to dispute the authors, I think you are missing the point somewhat, in terms of the connection to public health and the relevance to this course. The authors are challenging us to think about public health in a different way. Violence is a public health issue in that it negatively impacts the health of so many people. Guns are related to violence, the same as drugs and other risk factors. The same as drugs do not cause crime or violence, I would agree that guns to not. However, they are related and it is important to look at all the potential connections. I do not agree with focusing solely on “supply side” solutions to these issues, but I also don’t think we can ignore them.

    You expressed concerns about the work load for this course the other day, so I will give you the feedback that the time and effort you seem to have put into this paper was disproportionate to the requirements of the assignment and relevance to the course topics. I think your point could have been made with less data and more reflection. Also, I don’t know whether you did this intentionally or not, but including a draft with mark-ups and potentially offensive comments is not a good idea.


    I then discussed her response with my professor after class. I have always been in good standings with my teachers including this one. In fact, I am typically the stereotypical “teachers pet”. I tend to begin most of my classes engaging my professors with light hearted and good-natured discussions. I asked her what offensive language she was referring to but she couldn’t quote any. I do not know what she was referring to. Nonetheless, my professor made these statements during our discussion:

    - You’re being over critical of the book

    - No one is comprehending the reading like you are

    - I don’t care what the statistics are

    - I’m sorry you had to spend so much time writing this paper

    She made no attempt to answer my questions regarding the lies and false references her textbook had within the first few pages. I can only assume that statistical data and honesty stands behind what she feels are good for everyone. It is also worth noting that my professor is a middle aged Portland woman that is what some may call a “modern day liberal democrat”.

    I have since been getting worse grades from my professor for turning in what I think is the same quality of work. I have an assumption that my other classmates that wrote in accordance with what my professor wanted to hear, regardless of how stupid it was or poorly written, had gotten a better grade than me. I’m not sure what I ought to do in this situation because I don’t find myself in this type of scenario often.

    Should I inform anyone up the chain of command within PSU regarding the false information in this text book and my professors response to my paper or should I just let it go?

    In case anyone was wondering the structure of the assignment here it is:

    Choice Reflections

    Points: 10 each; there will be 6 due dates with the top 5 grades counting; total of 50 points

    Due Dates: #1 - Sunday, Apr 19th#4 - Sunday, May 10th

    #2 - Sunday, Apr 26th#5 - Sunday, May 17th

    #3 - Sunday, May 3rd #6 - Sunday, May 24th

    All reflections are due by 11:30pm, submitted in the D2L Dropbox.

    As the name implies, there are a couple of choices for these reflections. You can use prompts that are provided, or select another reading or activity from the course for your reflection. The primary goal of this assignment is that you demonstrate your engagement with the course concepts by applying them to a personal situation or interest.

    Option 1: During the term, several prompts will be provided following a particular reading or in-class activity. You can use the prompt for your reflection for that week, or any subsequent week. For example, the prompt provided during week 1 (Prompt A), could be turned in for Reflection 5. Always indicate at the beginning of your paper which prompts you are using.

    Option 2: Pick a chapter or article from the assigned reading, or a class activity that you find particularly interesting. It can be interesting for various reasons, such as you like the ideas, you disagree with the ideas, or you find the ideas especially applicable to your own experience in some way.

    At the beginning of your paper, indicate “option 2” and reference the specific reading or activity you are using. Then, respond to one or more of the following prompts:

    What did you find particularly interesting about the reading or activity, and why?

    In what way does it apply to your own life, interests, work you have done, or work you are interested in doing?

    Did this reading/activity change the way you think about something?

    Do you think the author got it wrong? What perspective did they miss?

    Does this reading contradict something else we have read or done in this class?

    Parameters: These reflections should be 800 to 1000 words, and include appropriate citations and references lists as needed. Because they are personal reflections and applications, you can (and should!) use “I” statements and express your opinion. However, they are not just for “spouting off.” For example, if you are bothered by alcohol companies targeting youth with their advertising, cite research by a credible organization, such as the Center for Alcohol Marketing and Youth, then talk about why this bothers you. Don’t use statements like, “We all know alcohol companies target youth in their advertising.” If you are unclear about these parameters, please ask!

    You can select which reference guidelines you use (such as MLA or APA), but you should be consistent and thorough. Any assignments that use material from another source (whether copied or summarized) without the proper citations will receive a zero, per PSU policy.

    Grading Criteria – These are the things I will be looking for when grading.

    Did you follow the directions for the assignment?

    Did you proofread and edit your paper? Grammar? Spelling? Did you use the right word, not just whatever word your spell-check suggested? (My pet peeve is using “defiantly” for “definitely.” Please be clear whether you are being definite or defiant!)

    Did you properly cite any quotes or ideas that you used from others? Did you include a reference list?

    Did you incorporate concepts or ideas from the reading, class discussions or activities? While I don’t want you to just “regurgitate” these things, I should be able to tell that you have done the reading and been in class.

    What new perspective or idea will I learn from what you have written?
  2. ZA_Survivalist

    ZA_Survivalist Oregon AK's all day.

    Likes Received:
    Yep, take that bubblegum to the highest authority and past that, court.

    This isnt the first time Ive heard of a discrimination case against freedom and constitution minded folks in college.
    I dont have much in the way of spare $$ but Id help any way I could.. These liberal higher education folks need to be taken down a peg or two.

    Run that bubblegum through the wringer.
    Raidingtime likes this.
  3. ROC

    ROC Estacada Member

    Likes Received:
    I give you an A+.

    The take home for me after reading your paper is that lying is one of the stratagies to promote social change, something that was demonstrated with 941. We should expect more from a text book. It reminds me of Obama's work of the Joyce foundation, https://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/obama-and-joyce-foundation-pay-to-influence-the-supreme-ct/.

    I think if you push her on issues you will get more education out of the class but your grade will likely suffer, petty but that seems to be her way. She has to read what you write, maybe you could do some good there.
    Sputnikfell and Raidingtime like this.
  4. rick benjamin

    rick benjamin USA, Or, Damascus Secure the drama Silver Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    A few whiles ago (1970), Social Studies class, could never get a paper higher than a "C".
    An experiment was in order. I wrote a paper highly critical of National Command Authority and it's conduct regarding the Vietnam conflict. Didn't reference any factoids, just lambasted liberally with blood, guts, and feathers (no brains). Got an A++! I had the key, did I have the avocados to insert and turn in the lock? After a couple more C- papers. Then It was A++ for the rest of the term!

    Mrs Martie Sutherland, wife of a former US Ambassador to Diego Garcia Island (I don't really remember).
    She reminded us of her sacrifices and worldly wisdom often.

    I paid attention in English, German, Russian, Math, Auto shop, Phys Ed. The important stuff.
    Especially German and Russian. Teachers were natives, and wouldn't tolerate any bubblegum.
    Frau Evers, and Goshpoza Botvenek.

    Raidingtime, pay attention:
    Teachings of critical thinking socialists must be respectfully, fawningly regurgitated for passing grades.
    Good Luck
  5. Raidingtime

    Raidingtime SE Portland Oregon Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Wow didn't realize I'd get this reaction from people but I guess I am preaching to the "well armed" choir here.

    It's too bad it does come down to reiterating the professors thoughts to get a good grade in the majority of classes. I partially wrote this paper to see the response that I would get. I knew what I wrote was just short of a rant with supporting evidence but that was per the guidelines of the assignment (a reflection of our opinion of the textbook).

    At this point I have to choose between an A grade with me being totally aware of the bull crap or a C-B grade with honesty and intelligence. Im currently in good standings with my grades and could afford receiving a meh grade for doing the right thing. I just have to decide how to go about it the best way. Something like this can go either way because who's to say the dean of the school would dismiss me as a delusional mentally handicapped young adult.

    In all seriousness, I bet my professor was extremely surprised to see the nice fellow that wheels his bicycle into class everyday and discusses gardening with her before class starts is one of those "stupid redneck blood thirsty assault weapon" guys.
    spectra and ZA_Survivalist like this.
  6. BSG 75

    BSG 75 Oregon Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    It isn't really "her textbook". She didn't write it, she is just using it in your class.

    While your analysis pointed out the bias and non sequiturs ("... the homicide rate among teenagers is more than twice as high, mostly due to the widespread availability of firearms..") of the book's authors, you are telling your professor things that she really doesn't want to hear. You have to accept that nothing that you say, no matter how logical and fact-supported your arguments are, is going to make her change her mind about guns. You will be beating your head against a brick wall.

    Having a debate about gun rights and gun control with gun control supporters who can't do anything to you is great fun, because the facts, logic, first-hand knowledge of firearms, and the Constitution are on our side, and it is easy to win and make them look foolish. But it isn't wise to have such discussions with gun control supporters (and your professor is no doubt a gun control supporter) if they can do things to you, like lower your grade, or fire you. You aren't going to change their minds and you will end up only hurting yourself.

    Pick your battles wisely. Choose topics for your papers that aren't in areas that are likely to piss her off (like guns). Remember that your goal in the class is to get as high a grade as possible, not to try to point out all of the flaws of gun control.

    By the way, here's a freebee for you. If you are ever forced to talk about the "public health" aspect of "gun violence", ask your opponent if they know what the #1 leading cause of deaths classified as "gun violence" is according to the CDC. It isn't homicides. It isn't accidents. It's suicides. Nationally, 60% of deaths from "gun violence" are suicides. In Oregon, it's over 80%. Any legislation that doesn't address the #1 leading cause of deaths from "gun violence" is not going to significantly reduce "gun violence" deaths, and is going to fail as public health policy.

    For example, ask them how the recently signed law (SB 941) that requires background checks for private firearm sales in Oregon is going to reduce the #1 leading cause (>80%) of deaths from "gun violence" in Oregon. Background checks are not psychological evaluations. They don't detect suicidal people. You could be perfectly fine today and pass a background check and buy a gun, and then get depressed next month or next year or 10 years from now and shoot yourself. How can any background check keep you from shooting yourself? It can't.

    And how is SB 941 going to keep people who already own guns from committing suicide? It won't. The same reasoning can be applied to bans of so-called "high capacity" magazines ( you don't need 30 or 20 or 15 or even 10 rounds to shoot yourself) or so-called "assault weapons" (you don't need an AR or AK to shoot yourself, so banning those firearms isn't going to reduce the #1 leading cause of deaths from "gun violence").

    SB 941 will not have any significant effect on deaths from "gun violence" in Oregon because it does nothing to to address the 84% (in 2013) of "gun violence" deaths in Oregon that are suicides. It will have minimal effect on the other 16% of deaths that aren't suicides, but that's another discussion.

    An effective "public health" approach to reducing deaths from "gun violence" in Oregon and nationally would involve treating the root causes - depression, and treatment for depression and other mental illnesses (most mass shooters are mentally ill young men) - not more restrictions on sane and law-abiding gun owners. But again, it is best to avoid the topic in your class. It's a no-win situation. If you win the argument, you will end up losing in the end by pissing off your professor and most of the people in your class (assuming they are mostly typical young and naive gun control-supporting liberal Democrats).
    Raidingtime and tiggers97 like this.
  7. Sputnikfell

    Sputnikfell Portland, OR New Member

    Likes Received:
    Comrade Raiding,

    by giving you a biased textbook Portland State put you in an unfair position. Instead of using the textbook's data as a baseline to explore public health issues, you had to waste time and energy refuting the shoddy scholarship. This caused you to deviate from completing a standard college paper. You could not focus on a thesis, build a constructive argument, and present the requisite research, analysis and style. Consequently you opened yourself up to the critique that you didn't follow the assignment. Never mind that the professor clearly avoided the issue of the data distortion; she is technically correct that your paper wasn't academic.

    In the future the solution for you is to structure your paper as a constructive argument, and refute the junk science within the framework of you supporting your thesis. Your thesis, in turn, needs to be academic. In this instance, for example, you could have had a thesis about the consequences of politicizing the data of public health. You would start by defining the field of public health (ie largely related to medicine and nutrition). Then provide historical examples of disruptions in public health because of overriding political priorities. There are many examples (the connection between abortion and breast cancer, between un-circumcision and cervical cancer, the inefficiency of stem cell cultivation, to name a few).

    As you are showing case after case about the pernicious effects of politicizing public health, you mention in passing the extensive distortions of the textbook. You provide this as an example of those distortions that don't promote rational and scientific solutions. Then you go back to arguing for objectivity and neutrality in public health.

    What you are doing is beating the academics at their own game. They now have to weigh the evidence scientifically without being able to accuse you of not doing the work.
  8. rdt

    rdt SW Portland Active Member

    Likes Received:
    warning I did not edit this to college standards. :rolleyes:

    the evidence is in: social groups do not make choices based on logic. neither do most individuals. applies to every part of the political spectrum.

    want to have your eyes forcibly opened to this? take a college level course about propaganda and social control. the content is interesting but the real eye opener for me was who enrolled: 90% business majors looking for advertising skills. not recruits to fight against disinformation and manipulation by any means.

    at this point in life, I'm pretty sure the whole "humans choose rationally" thing is a diversionary misinformation tactic to deprive would be reformers & rebels (all of us really) of the ability to see the world clearly. not seeing clearly we cannot accurately judge the problems much less chose appropriate effective course of action to bring about a real change in real conditions.

    so save your breath unless you want to write the paper for your own sake. but that's not really why you're paying PSU tuition, is it? I mean, if youre after the Letters, just get em and do the activism in a more fitting arena. you're just working against yourself otherwise, spending money and time to be less effective on two counts. see I told you we weren't naturally rational beings…

    anyhow there's better ways to change the course of society & community than writing a 1000 word opinion piece. relationships go a lot farther than words.

    if you're really fixed on outing the book, document more thoroughly and connect with the groups that do that type of work. iirc the book " lies my teacher told me" has resources in the back.
  9. jefe

    jefe Portland Active Member

    Likes Received:
    LET IT GO. the higher you climb the PSU bureaucratic ladder, the more kafka-esque the situation becomes.
    Last edited: May 13, 2015
  10. Raidingtime

    Raidingtime SE Portland Oregon Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    All good points

    sputnikfell- I attached the structure of the assignment towards the end of my initial post. This was not meant to be a paper that adheres to a structure similar to typical college level scholarly papers. The structure of the assignment was to in fact write down my opinion, using I statements, and support it with references. I feel that I adhered to the structure of the assignment very fell. I'm currently a senior with about a year left to complete my Health Science and Community Health bachelor degrees along with the pre requisites to begin a physical therapy graduate program. I've taken many science classes that would structure a paper according to the description you have said such as chemistry, biology, and anatomy and physiology. I would typically make a paper like you have described but that was not the assignment

    BSG75- yes she did not write the textbook but she did choose the textbook for her class. Textbooks are essentially the personal Bibles of each individual class and work as the skeleton that shapes the course work and learning, which is why I stated that it was her textbook. I felt that I made little attempt to persuade the reader to think in the way we do about gun ownership. I was trying to focus simply on tearing apart dishonest references that were within this textbook. I suppose the fact that every reference I found about firearms was incorrect had something to do with the reader thinking that I'm trying to lead them to believe in firearm ownership in a positive light. I know that I will not be able to change my professors mind but I wanted to inform her about the LIES in the textbook that she had chosen for her high level university health class (400 level). She of course took it as me trying to convert her to our side which is frustrating to me because I feel like it distracts from the major problem here. This major problem is that there are lies within a high level, supposedly promoting critical thinking, university health class textbook. I would have not made this paper had the anti gun passages used honest references and statements.

    The summary is: yes I'm probably barking up the wrong tree but I felt it had to be addressed.
  11. solv3nt

    solv3nt Portland Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Here's my $0.02, I have a BS in Electrical Engineering, and an MBA from, both from the University of Portland. During my 6 years, I found that professors aren't as "unbiased" as they should be. They assign a paper or a speech with a given prompt, sometimes this prompt can be a pro or con argument, but the professor always has an angle.

    There's numerous studies showing that liberal views increase with education, this is especially true with professors that, for the most part, hold doctoral degrees in some stupid liberal art. Please note the "liberal" term right before "art". Professors aren't the highest paid in the world, typically, they are paid around $80k. Some may say that's high, but for the amount time and money spent on receiving a doctorate degree, it's very low. A professor is usually teaching because they can't get a better job in the private sector, or they want to push their liberal agenda.

    I found that it was easiest not to rock the boat, as you're not going to convince them to change their view. In most cases, your grade will suffer if you try to go against their views. My personal preference was to figure out what they're looking for, and BS to high heaven.

    I know it seems like a sellout, but what are you going to achieve? The professor will more than likely ding your grades, and you are not going to influence someone that has achieved "enlightenment" with their 10 years of post high school education.
    F2CMaDMaXX likes this.
  12. Roger65

    Roger65 Portland Active Member

    Likes Received:
    "Less data and more reflection"

    Your teacher is actually criticizing you for being factual rather than emotional. I have a BA in Sociology from PSU, and can't at the moment recall ever being criticized for backing up a thesis with too much data.

    Does your teacher have tenure? If so, drop it. Is she an Associate Professor or Grad Student? If so, the above statement should be brought to the attention of someone higher up in the department.

    A teacher should never penalize a student for backing up assertions with facts, rather than emotions.
  13. jefe

    jefe Portland Active Member

    Likes Received:
    associate professors have tenure. 1-4 have multi-year contracts (tenure). 5 & 6 have either yearly or term-by-term contracts.

    1. professor
    2. associate professor
    3. assistant professor
    4. instructor
    5. adjunct professor
    6. GA/TA

    even if the person is an adjunct or GA/TA, complaining will get you nowhere.

    years ago i was in a course taught by an adjunct. long story short, he violated student privacy in 400+ instances, he emailed the grades for every student in the class to every student in the class, changed the syllabus mid-term (structurally, and the course requirements), negated early term assignments (after being graded), insulted students who challenged him, and in 1 case told a student that he would receive a higher grade if he stopped complaining to the administration.

    what happened? well, myself and a few other students complained up the bureaucratic ladder until we met with the vice provost for academic personnel. in the end, nothing happened. the adjunct received a slap on the wrists, and the following year he was an instructor in the philosophy department (tenure).

    during the debacle, i spoke to a few lawyers since the adjunct was in violation of FERPA. 2 of the 3 lawyers i spoke with told me to expect retaliation from the university. well, a few weeks later my department decided to not renew my position as a GA for the following year.

    if you complain to the bureaucracy, you won't experience a "mr. smith goes to washington" outcome. like ALL other institutions in our society, universities are corrupt.
  14. DeanfromOregon

    DeanfromOregon Wilsonville Amateur Ascended Master Platinum Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Comments aside didn't you get an A? You won't change the opinion of a well indoctrinated teacher overnight, but every little bit helped.

    I had poly sci professors who gave me F's and D's for not toeing their party line so I actually commend her maturity in delivering a decent grade.
  15. rick benjamin

    rick benjamin USA, Or, Damascus Secure the drama Silver Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    Are you idealistic?
    Is your worldview fixed?
    Do you have a large circle of control?
    You will be crushed.
    I have a degree in Advanced Underwater Basketweaving at Heartbreak Ridge U.
  16. lucifermonkey

    lucifermonkey Portland, OR Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    It has been the same for me regardless of college or professor . . .

    ALWAYS agree and regurgitate the viewpoint of the instructor if you want a good grade.
    They love that bubblegum. They feel that you are "learning" and they are "teaching" you something.

    Save the arguement and critical thinking for yourself and situations that really matter.

    The university system and course of instruction are set up to follow a formula and pattern.
    Go with the flow and you will do well. ;)
    solv3nt likes this.
  17. Cheby

    Cheby Portland, OR Active Member

    Likes Received:
  18. Raidingtime

    Raidingtime SE Portland Oregon Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    All good points


    Do you think that our viewpoints will be continued to be taken seriously if higher education, especially state funded, continue to push lies and deceit into the masses. Yes I know this is going on but where do we take a stand?

    It's disheartening for me to see the majority of the posts on here simply say "do what the teacher wants" instead of "do what's right". How many of you quote the constitution and our forefathers to solidify your statements and beliefs? Do you think the people that wrote the constitution would state "do what they tell you for your own self gain and don't worry about what's right"? How many of you say you stand for gun rights and even human rights but won't actually stand up for them?

    Yes I know this is just a dumb college essay but it's interesting to me the effect and response it has illicited from the "righteous" gun community.
  19. solv3nt

    solv3nt Portland Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Pick your fights, what are you going to accomplish fighting your ultra liberal vegan instructor? Absolutely nothing. The professor won't change their view. The professor could really care less what you think. The professor is enlightened, you are not. The professor will more than likely ding your grade.

    Other than a lower grade, what have you accomplished?
  20. Martini_Up

    Martini_Up NW USA Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    "Alarm Alarm Alarm!!!! We have a sheep that is thinking!!!!"

    From her comments and your discussion with her, it really does sound like she wants you 'dumbed down' and to just go with the flow of losing rights by a million paper cuts.

    And I stand where ever I can. Mind you I'm not going door to door like a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon to speak to neighbors about how precious the US Constitution is, specifically the 2nd amendment is but when the subject comes up or I hear someone speak of how dangerous guns are, I'm correcting their wrong information and reminding them that guns never kill people - people do.

    Oh, and I am routinely called, "overly critical"... whatever the F that is supposed to mean.
    308 and OLDNEWBIE like this.