So lit and philosophy professors just grade you on how much your papers agree with them, right?

>So lit and philosophy professors just grade you on how much your papers agree with them, right?

No, good writing is good writing. Profs care more about whether or not your argument is shitty than about what your argument concerns.

>Do their entire careers really revolve around giving good grades to people who regurgitate their bs the best?

No.

>Who DOES that?

Dummies.

>get shit grade on a paper
>blame the teacher instead of yourself
>come to Veeky Forums to whine about it

I had the same experience as Philosophy is pretty resistant to ideological bullshit

Look around you. Which of your fellow students seem the least suited to life in the world outside of academia?

Those are future professors.

All bachelors classes that are under Arts are subject to a curve. No matter how good or bad the whole class is at something, only x amount get A's, B's and C's. It's a "fixed" grading system. So yes, your teacher could just give you a lower grade in the name of keeping the artificial balance.

>Proffessors who want to lose their jobs.
Tenure can be a good insulation against that. It's not philosophy, but there's an archaeology professor in my department who's very biased his theoretical outlook. If you disagree with him in class, he will straight up insult you and call you an idiot. If you don't talk about things he likes enough in a paper, he will lower your grade. These things are pretty well known in the department, but no one can do anything about it.

Granted, this is probably extremely rare, but those kinds of professors do exist.

never had a professor like that

lets face it, there are probably no future professors

>disagree with him in class
>record it
>he insults you
>turn in the recording
>tenured old faggot loses his job

always complain, never ever let someone you pay money to get away with mistreating you

That just sounds like your professor is a douche.

It's another

>I spend more time reading shitposts on /pol/ than actually reading so when I write shitty papers spouting /pol/ memes with no strong arguments I get mad at my prof for giving me a bad grade even though I put no effort into learning how to write well or argue

episode.

Do you have any idea how much grade inflation goes on in academia because you gen z shitheads can't write for dick all? It's so fucking easy to at least get a B on most papers just because every single one of you little shitheads is so incompetent with the english language and with arguing generally and yet you still have the fucking gall to complain that your professors are screwing you out of grades.
If most papers in the humanities were graded by the standards that were in place 20 years ago only 1% of you kids would ever get more than C's.

I understand that it's not really your fault and that you've been failed by the public education system. However, because you've all been so coddled by your instructors you little fucking brats have absolutely no idea how poorly you're actually doing.

In Philosophy, when you give a good argument that successfully refutes a theory they put forward, they get very excited and tend to try to call on you in class more. Though is more so with things like metaphysics, history of philosophy, epistemology, etc, and less so with stuff like political philosophy and ethics.

But I had a hard core lefty prof who complimented me on the final paper I handed to him, which was literally me supporting views put forward by French Catholic Monarchists and a literal Nazi (Carl Schmitt) that completely contradicted his.

No. There is a reason why we have formal logic as the basis of philosophical education. If your argument is a good one ( few deductive flaws) then you are going to get a good mark, for the most part.

>All bachelors classes that are under Arts are subject to a curve.

As a TA I can assure you that this is false.

Sounds like a lot of you went to third rate schools, if you attended one at all

not an argument

Proving his point there, buddy.

Not really, especially the good ones dont. But you are just baiting so please delete the posf.

Basically this.

I've been teaching in a university for 5 years now (linguistics and pedagogy). I can't compare to 20 years ago, and I wouldn't say everything is terrible and all are terrible, but the majority are certainly pretty weak. When I was doing my bachelor (2002-2006), I do not recall being

And the biggest reason I think is that students just put so little effort into things. I have all course materials practically laid out on a silver platter for them, so the books they have to buy are minimal. This is an online platform, and I can see how many downloads there are -- of one class with 25, not a single document has more than 8 downloads, despite telling them every week what the next readings are.

And I do this because I've discovered half or so won't buy any books ever and will otherwise sit there half-assed eyeing someone else's book while in class, or take photos on their phones of a couple pages and only half-assed skimming it while in class. With homework preparation, which I try to keep reasonable, I've learned to expect that a majority will just simply not do it. This means having to prepare your classes much differently. I'd much rather have discussions about material they've already (supposed to have) read than lecture at them for 90 minutes straight. Guess which happens more often?

I don't know what the reasons are -- I suppose the 'millenial' generation (which I could be by some definitions, since I'm 34) are just conditions to have no attention span or long-term goal planning.

>When I was doing my bachelor (2002-2006), I do not recall being
*do not recall being this lazy.

yeah well that's probably why you're a professor and your classmates from that era are probably making $29k a year at a call center

really gets that noggin joggin'

What was your paper about? Carl Schmitt is a very big name. IIRC his conception of political antagonism became the basis of Mouffe's.

>basis of Mouffe's
*basis for

You're right, a good chunk of us are supremely spoiled and helplessly addicted to filling up our brains with totally useless popcorn information.

t. coddled millenial

There are a lot of reasons for it. Ultimately we're arrogant and lazy, but primary schools and even many universities are far too lenient and enable this behavior. But I think technology is the worst of it. I've been hooked up to a computer for a decade. Social media, pornography, videogames, all of it completely wrecks your brain. Effortless gratification. Why should I do anything more than the bare minimum, when I can simulate getting everything else that I want for nothing, and be blissfully unaware while I cheat myself?

>Perhaps he was an exception though.

He certainly has to be, but I think it wholly depends on what discipline you are studying for.

Most humanities today are saturated with philosophers of power, or just plain Marxists.

lit professors yeah

phil professors less

but even then it's just a difference between an A- or a B+

>it's another
>kids these days!
Your meme predates educational institutions.

I've never had a professor who didn't grade on original though. There've been some who pushed their own viewpoint super hard, and when people turned in papers agreeing with them they were failed for not using material and though from outside of lectures. Pretty satisfying, really.

Nonetheless, he is correct in the observation.