Here’s an article in the Guardian that has the unmistakable whiff of the dinosaur about it. ‘Will podcasting finally kill the lecture?‘ was written by a Dr David Hearnshaw, who teaches at the University of Westminister. The article is entirely free of insight or information, but it shows the kind of denial Hank mentioned earlier today.
‘Finally kill the lecture?’ This sets up a kind of faux drama (in its own feeble, but condescending way). We can see the straw man coming a mile away and the professor mercilessily knocking it down for us, whether we want it or not. Professor, a word in your ear: no-one, anywhere, that I have ever heard of has ever suggested that podcasting could/would/should replace/kill university lectures. It’s a false argument because they’re two entirely separate things.
He proceeds (needlessly) to elaborate. He informs us that
blackboard scribbles, OHP slides and PowerPoint presentations are often used to improve the efficiency of just words.
Er, yes, presentations obviously benefit from visuals, but there are, a million ways around that (email for example) in the podcasting context. And this guy is a professor of computing studies?
The rest of the argument continues in this pointless way:
Why not play the podcast to everyone in the students’ union bar, and then everyone could learn and drink at the same time?
I think the benefits and limitations of podcasting as an instructional/learning medium are obvious to most of the people on this forum. But not to the professor. He’s judging the medium without the slightest knowledge of it. Perhaps this line says it all:
I cannot imagine that my students would want an audio file of me talking at them.
No comment.
Ken Carroll
In fact, in stating the obvious, technology helps and supplements existing methods of learning. In some cases, it may replace small parts, but the fundamental advantage is that is makes a part of it easier or more effective. In this professors’ case, seeming to speak into his half-empty glass, I think he should look more at the positive possibilities of podcasts instead of the negative.
For example, for anyone who has ever watched a DVD, you know there are “chapters” that you can directly access to get to a certain part of the DVD. What if, an audio (or video) podcast also had this breakdown so that the professor’s lesson (much longer than a ChinsePod lesson of course) could be broken down by area. In this manner, a student could replay the instructor’s lesson in whatever segment they perhaps needed a firmer grasp on.
Speaking of “video pods,” I think this is the way of the future. Educating via audio is great, but with the increase in bandwidth and decrease in video size, I think it will become viable to have a video lesson, perhaps even from ChinesePod. I have seen all Video Hot Pot lessons (good stuff!!) and I think more of those would be fantastic. Learning comes visually, and via audio, but seeing and hearing really help drive it home. Imagine playing the conversation 3 times in a video format and guaging retention - it would probably be pretty good. (Although you can probably leave out the diaharrea lesson here!)
Anyway, food for thought I guess?
Umm, the prof is into CDs…enough said.
I don’t think the argument/discussion is about effectiveness, it’s about maintaining elitism. Let’s say we agree, a podcast of a Stanford lecture plus attendance imparts say a good 90% transfer of knowledge from the professor to a Stanford student who also attends the lecture, does homework, talks to the teaching assistant, goes to frat parties, buys a school ring.
All parties willingly charge/pay $50,000/year for this experience. A pretty piece of paper is issued, a secret handshake conveyed.
Meanwhile 100,000 other listeners worldwide also listen to this podcast, say 50,000 pay US$5 for the privilege. Another 50,000 don’t pay. Let’s then wildly-guess that 1,000 of those listeners learn 30% of that material. And conversely, say 100 learn it well, pick up 90% or even 100%. Who knows, they used the Wikepedia to supplement their studies, they are really bright.
-Did Stanford just lose 100 x US$50,000 = half-a million dollars?
-Are 100,000 armchair listeners with a little knowledge better than no listeners with this knowledge?
-Does that Stanford knowledge get diluted with distribution, does it lose value?
-Does it make a Stanford professor work harder when flooded by email queries?
-For what reason would Stanford share this knowledge? 50,000 x $5 = $250,000 = revenue from Cola sales at the football games. Is it worth the trouble?
Traditional academia seeks to horde knowledge and make money from traditional limitations to the distribution of knowlege, ie. having to print things out on paper, editors, publishing companies, IE property rights, physical location.
Chinesepod so far, has a business model that allows them to share knowledge. It doesn’t matter what technology they use now or in the future, as that will change.
The fundamental is that they have found an incentive to create ‘knowledge’ and share it. And the more they share, the more incentivised everything becomes. They have a fundamentally different incentive than academia.
It’s an ‘unspoken’ secret all the profs are wispering about.
Welcome to Stanfords I’ve got an opinion on something I’m trying to make a name with Festival!
I think someone’s trying to get in the newspaper by by saying something controversial. Or he’s worried that he’s getting old and doesn’t want the world to change.
I don’t think he has anything to worry about. There will always be room for people to lecture to a room full of people who don’t really want to be there but do want a piece of paper that says they were there.
Eduational podcasting is something quite different. It’s for people who want to learn, and don’t care if they have a piece of paper or not (like Wikipedia). If I want a piece of paper, I’ll shell out and to a recognised qualification. On the other hand, if I want to learn ‘on my terms’ at my own pace, then I’ll go and find a podcast. Or if I’m trying for a piece of paper, but it’s not fulfilling enough, I’ll supplement with something extra, fun and interesting, rather than sticking with the somewhat stale lecture (that having been said, I’m heading towards giving the somewhat stale lecture…)
As a linguistics professor at an ivy-league university in the States, I would like to contribute my unbiased opinion. It is quite obvious that lecture podcasting is just a “passing fad” that people will initially see as “new and innovative” but will quickly abandon in favor of traditional classroom instruction, despite the more “cost-effective” approach. The reasons why podacsting will fail are as follows:
1. Students need real face-to-face contact with a real professor and their peers in order to give and receive meaningful feedback. A podcast is a totally one-sided medium that will eventually frustrate and thwart meaningful progress.
2. One cannot recieve a truly recognized academic credential from a website. While the whole world recognizes a Harvard degree, so-called learning credentials gained from “boiler shop internet podcasts” are simply laughable.
3. In a podcast environment, the student is left blindly to their own devices to determine how to proceed. A lecture environment is so much more rich in different learning vectors, each mutually re-inforcing.
4. Testing and measuring progress is problematic in a podcast learning system. Real-life classrooms provide real life testing which motivates the student to achieve a certain standard. In a podcast situation, the student is not motivated to succeed in this way. In fact, there is a strong motivation to “learn at one’s own pace”, ie: skip entire podcasts, tune out and watch TV etc…a recipe for failure if I have ever seen one.
5. The compentency of the people developing podcast lessons is also an issue. These are largely “failed or wannabe” teachers who could not make it in the real academic world and have resorted to promoting the wonders of podcasting as a sort of “sour grapes” reaction to their own academic failures.
Thanks for the opportunity for commenting. I sincerely wish you success in this venture. Please, in the future, don’t start labelling us real academics as “dinosaurs” (konglong in Chinese ?) simply for expressing our opinions. A year from now, your podcast will be history, you will be on the TV weather channel and there will be many of your students out of pocket after paying for a website that has disappeared into oblivion.
Good night and good luck !
I’m sure the MIT Open Courseware hasn’t hurt MIT (oct.mit.edu)
I agree that lectures will continue to have a role in the future, much as live theater does today in a world of multiplex cinemas, DVD’s and DVR’ed entertainment. What is perplexing is why it has taken so long for live lectures to lose a significant chunk of market share to this competition? Perhaps because of just that - typically education is not governed by the same market forces that affect the entertainment industry.
Comparisons with the Music Industry
The digerati’s view of the music industry is that they are dinosaurs propped up by existing revenue models and dedicated to slowing down the inevitable migration towards (a) unbundled entertainment (e.g. selling individual music tracks, rather than bundling them with other unwanted songs and charging a higher price) and (b) on-demand, commercial-free delivery (rather than through the distribution channels they control and make money from). If the expectation is that market forces will push them into new revenue models (e.g. iTunes) why should we hold training media to different standards? If the expectation is that artists will not be able to charge for individual digital works of art, but instead earn money from ancillary services such as concerts, why not expect the same for lecturers?
Use Creative Commons
One final point, I have to take issue with Ken’s easy acceptance of the use of copyright in the classroom in his ‘Dinosaurs?’ post. I have issues with the current copyright regime in general, but if any type of media should be put into a general commons for a social good it is education. It is ludicrous a public university hinders the spread of education because it wants to protect its own copyright. Creative commons licence the stuff and evolve.
Doc,
Care to wager your tenure on that final act of clairvoyance (”A year from now…)? A necessary word on your attachment to the university:
Aufillena, uiro contentam uiuere solo,
nuptarum laus ex laudibus eximiis:
sed cuius quamuis potius succumbere par est
quam matrem fratres ex patruo…
Not sour-grapes in the case of Ken and Co. Wine.
My post above should have the link ocw.mit.edu, not oct.
Bringing good educational resources to those who otherwise couldn’t afford it. Kind of what Hank suggests.
Matthew:
I relay these words of wisdom from the Pope who made them at an educational papal seminar, which has relevance to podcasting:
Culus tibi purior salillo est,nec toto decies cacas in anno.
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo, Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi,
qui me ex versiculis meis putastis, quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.
Mentula hugis lingo verpa colei Zhu Qi cunnus landica podcastum Ken culus futuo caco peditum mingo. Nam, displosa sonat quantum vesica, pepedi diffissa nate ficus.
Ken and Jenny :Quando mecum pariter potant, pariter scortari solent,Hanc quidem, quam nactus, praedam pariter cum illis partiam.
Sed domi maneas paresque nobis novem continuas fututiones.
Cheers !
I think it’s interesting to hear the professor’s viewpoint, but how can it possibly be “unbiased”? Here are my responses to his post:
1. Obviously, no one is saying that podcasts are all you need. Chinesepod has always tried to connect teachers with students, and students with eachother. Besides, we have the blog where we can post all of our questions.
2. Once again you state the obvious. However, with a language-learning podcast a diploma is unnecessary, and actually rather pointless since you never stop learning the language.
3. Things are not as undirected as you might think.
4. Testing and measuring progress is quite easy when it comes to learning a language. Information is either shared or lost. Fluency can be measured, and is the goal towards which we all press. What you see as a “recipe for failure” I see as a “blueprint for success”. We all learn at a different pace.
5. What podcasts are you listening to? “Cletus’ Buy-aw-logee 101″? I can’t speak for other websites, but those at this site ARE teachers. Besides, the quality of the teachers can be seen in the competency of the students.
Okay, now to finish this post off. Clearly, you are disconnected from the real world. Technology has introduced the podcast, and it’s not going away. Your comment reminds me of those who laughed at the idea of telephones and computers. Usually those individuals had reason to try and downplay these advances, their jobs were at stake. Perhaps you share their fear. Secondly, you wish Chinesepod success, and then you say they will be gone in a year. You like to talk out of both sides of your mouth I see. I doubt with the revenue Chinesepod is pulling in that they plan on going bankrupt. Instead, the service has continually improved and brought us even more for our money. Then you insult them by calling yourself a “real” academic. You judge before you even hear the evidence. Truly, what some professors have in head knowledge, they lack in true wisdom. Lastly, most of what you claimed are the negative aspects of podcasts are actually positives. Podcasts are free. If I decide it’s not for me, hey, I haven’t wasted $50,000. Podcasts can be listened to over and over again. Podcasts can be archived. Students are always buying recorders to take to class, I think most schools even encourage their use. Tell me what the difference is between that and a podcast (besides the terrible sound quality of recorders)? Technology is progress, fighting against it will leave you in the stone age, or worse-extinct.
So if chinespod is still alive and kicking in 2007 or 2008 we have proven Prof Necessiter wrong?
Wow what in interesting dialog and banter. Clearly we have a significant difference of opinion regarding the validity of learning aids such as “pod casts” or other newer technologies. I am amazed at the arrogance of the professor; clearly they think that they are quite the dandy intellectually! Ironically, they are criticizing the China Pod team as being a failure when he (or she) clearly has no basis for those comments. I sense some fear and loathing on this person’s part, and clearly a chip on the shoulder that must be related somehow to the adage that those that can’t, teach at an Ivy League School… (Why else would you pass up making millions in the private sector with all of that important knowledge stuffed in your head?)
In defense of the China Pod business model; I am a well educated expat living in Asia and I find the content enjoyable and also quite useful. As an adult learner, I need flexibility when it comes to my schedule and find this a useful ADDITION to my private Chinese lessons. The professor may find that most successful people rarely have time for traditional educational outlets and so we pay large sums of money to non-traditional educational institutions or businesses to help us learn and grow.
For everyone that was put off by the professors’ comments I would remind you of the fact that through history the adoption of new technologies has always faced resistance from the established “authorities” and history is full of examples. I find it very interesting that the professor quotes Latin in one of the blogs; how telling to use a dead language!
Everyone knows that diplomas are useful and having an accredited degree from a fine educational institution is an important (but not required) stepping stone to a well paying/fulfilling career, but to take the stance that this path is the only way to the elite ranks of knowledge is what is truly laughable. Professor, get out in the real world and see some things and talk with the everyday citizens from different cultures and backgrounds; you will be a better teacher and human for the experience. I think that opening minds and flexibility are the fundamental reasons that this technology makes a difference and will last: it opens the minds of people from around the world to new possibilities and allows busy people an opportunity to learn. I am certain that there are many listeners that catch the daily show and are planning the China trip they never dreamed they would ever take because this venue has given them courage to take the chance and make a go of it; for others like me it is simply useful.
Bottom line is and always will be money; after listening to the free iTunes subscription for a few weeks, my family and I are signing up for a year’s premium subscription and I will likely stop by the office on my next monthly visit to Shanghai just to say thank you. Keep up the good work ChinaPod; I hope your business model continues to do well and thank you for such a useful application of technology.
I’m glad to see this discussion take off and there is still a great deal of mileage in it. I would make one point, however, that we need to keep in mind. Anyone could anonymously claim to be a professor. People are always looking for ways to pre-empt these debates before they even begin. Claiming this kind of pre-eminence is a good way to do it. But in this case, its a linguistics professor, too. Ouch! But, as if that weren’t enough, he’s at an ivy league school! This type of thign would seem to be the obviouys thing to do for a sock-puppet/impostor.
And why would someone of this stature have to hide behind anonymity? I have no intention of creating an ad hominem exchange here, but if the professor cares to identify him/herself I’d be happy to carry on the discussion in a cordial, rational manner. I’m not looking to win any debates here. I just want to define the differences. But I can’t do that with a phantom. So, the next move is yours, professor.
Professor troll perhaps
Hi James,
“I’m sure the MIT Open Courseware hasn’t hurt MIT (oct.mit.edu)”
I haven’t looked at that site in years so maybe things have changed, but previously any of the real good stuff they didn’t post, b/c the book publishers/profs didn’t want copyrighted stuff posted.
It was like trying to read lecture notes with 85% of the content missing.
hmmm…maybe there’s more now, link from the Chinese III class
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Fore...../index.htm
Back to Lectures
After listening to today’s ‘podture’ and hearing Ken’s joke, unfortunately I’ll probably use it, I was thinking — John and Jenny’s podcasts lately, and I think the advanced shows too are kinda getting like lectures I didn’t want to wake up for.
I think I’m a realist in that I don’t think I’m going to learn all 5-10 net-new words in the podture, and so going thru all of them — well. Just tell me a good joke using the words. The almost-simultaneous translation John has given has made me understand more, but maybe cut that down by 30% and increase jokes 30%?
One of the best lecturers I had would surely have put all the technologies into play. He rode in on a bicycle, scribbled madly on the blackboard, filling up 8 panels, had a demo in every lecture and yah, his hair was long and frizzled like all good physic profs.
I spent 7 years studying for two degrees in Canada including a law degree from UBC… certainly not ivy league, but not such a bad school either. At what point did I have what the “professor” mentioned earlier:
“1. Students need real face-to-face contact with a real professor and their peers in order to give and receive meaningful feedback. A podcast is a totally one-sided medium that will eventually frustrate and thwart meaningful progress.”
Face to face often means 50 rows up in an amphitheatre style room where you never actually shake the prof’s hand and have your essays and exams marked by T.A’s. One-sided? - that is the lecture style in a nutshell. The professor obviously hasn’t grasped the potential of Web 2.0 tools.
Give and receive meaningful feedback? I was spoon-fed by almost all of my professors and even those with the guts to attempt a Socratic model couldn’t actually pull if off most of the time. And yes, I regurgitated everything back onto the exam papers and was rewarded fairly well for it.
My university experience was quite good. I had some great professors, but it had lapses and there are limits on traditional education. There are no provisions for those who learn at different speeds or in different ways (visual, aural, etc.) Students must adapt their study habits to the forum presented.
One area where university lectures and podcasts differ is that podcasts are practical!!! Finally a place where I don’t have to learn about theory - podcasting is the shop class of educational institutions.
ChinesePod and its fellow educational podcasts don’t have a perfect solution, but come on - isn’t it obvious this thing’s just getting started? This is Beta form, baby. Wait until they figure out the real deal.
Oh yeah, and for the hit on Ken, Jenny etc. being “failed teachers.” Watch the movie Cocktail - there’s a nice quote about university professors hiding in academia because they can’t hack it in the real world.
Academics need to know a lot about their subject and about teaching, and have practical experience. They think logically and know how to present and back up a point of view without getting carried away, certainly without needing to make a personal attack. They live and work in a world quite unlike ours here, more traditional and with different priorities, but they are certainly not our enemies, they are our friends.
Among every occupation there are a few loonies per million. That counts for us, too. It doesn’t mean that they’re all like that.
Now we are falling into a childish trap. Someone somewhere has something to gain from manipulating our behaviour. They want us to attack academics and present a dim view of them, among ourselves and to the world.
If we play along, we are being tricked into carrying the gun for a selfish coward with a sick mind. Our stupidity will be unhelpful to everyone, while the unidentified person who caused us to react can run away untainted. Shall we be manipulated and duped into speaking out against academics on behalf of this toothless cowardly manipulator? I don’t think so.
What I find interesting is that nobody has suggested that what we are doing should replace a university education, yet we have an article by someone who seems to assume that that is inevitable.
Although it’s obviously a misunderstanding or and oversight, I’d take that as a mark of success, a measure of how far some people can imagine this kind of learning might try to go.
The writer has lost the plot and might wish to eat his words later, but to me his article sounds very flattering to ChinesePod, in an indirect kinda way.
Working in the University system myself I see an interesting point in the “Professors” post that in my opinion reflects a severe shortcoming of the current University system:
Motivation is purely extrinsic in nature.
The degree is the ultimate goal - all studying is made for eventually achieving that desired grade (and pass to the next academic level). Real-world application of knowledge is secondary. Students need to be spoon-fed to be sufficiently prepared for their final exams. And they demand exactly that. If you have a class with students 50 there are maybe 2 willing to go beyond exam preparation. And that goes hand in hand with a strictly linear thinking (”skip a podcast”??).
That there might be benefits when learning a language other than achieving a grade lies far beyond the imagination of the “professor”.
Aunty,
I don’t think we’re being manipulated in any sense. We all have the right to express our ideas here as long as they remain within the bounds of common decency. No-one is forcing anyone to say anything we don’t want to.
Nor is anyone attacking academia in general. That would be ludicrous. Rather, this discussion started as an example of the blinkered vision that we tend to see amongst some academics towards the use of new technologies. They’re (not surprisingly) scared of it, often irrationally so. The Guardian article was an example of such a person: he didn’t understand the new medium, so he mocked it when he could have been co-opting it. Having seen the huge potential for this medium, I can’t help feeling he is really missing the point.
Ken Carroll
Just think if Professor N had said “A year from now, your podcast will be history” a year ago, about ChinesePod.
Happy Birthday to ChinesePod - seems to be still around and growing quite well!
How about adjusting the podcast schema slightly and providing live streaming video instruction? The teacher could potential teach a greater number of students, and students could be anywhere! The student could also demonstrate a concept back to the teacher (say if it’s a math class) by using a digital whiteboard to draw out a formula! Let’s see a student in a real-world class do that in his lecture hall! With technology, it’s quite opposite of what he thinks - podcasts may be one-way, but that’s quite good for this instance of learning (another language). With technology, you can reach more people, provide more valuable feedback as a student and gain a better understanding by being able to replay any part of the lecture you want!
Podcasts, and that is around itis just ONE PART of the learning-langauge effort. I learnt Chinese in a well known University and it was indeed just ONE PART of my education.
Same goes for Flash Cards.
My University, as many others, several years ago, already had the entire vocabulary, sentences, examples and Audio for us students to download. It just wasnt called “podcast” back than.
It proved than, as it proves to be now very useful, filling it’s own little niche.
Downloadable audio and text are a great help for listeing and reading comprehension. The repetition one can get from an audio file is simply fantastic. I used to listen 40 times to the same lesson of the day, by ripping the VCD into an MP3. Lucky students today that have such a nice sleek package as chinesepod.com.
So what IS going to change? The school THEMSELVES will have NO CHOICE but to provide their own audio files and e-text. It would also be very very easy for them to do so. Some Universities and schools have a fantastic experience and knoweldge of teaching the Chinese langauge, they can in a short period of time change their system by supporting the more technological side of it.
I want to address a few comments made by the linguistics professor because I was a language major, have my Bachelor’s degree, dropped out of my Master’s program halfway through and have been deliberately looking for an alternative way to get trained in languages without going back to a university because I was very angry about what I saw going on there in both instances.
My college buddy and I chose to major in a foreign language because we naively believed doing so would prepare us to actually use the language in a career, but as we progressed through the program, we found professors openly telling students that we would never use the language after we graduated, that if we wanted to use it to become a language professional we should have gone into a translation program, and were given an attitude from them that made it clear that they thought it was impossible for any student to gain proficiency through hard work, that it was perceived as a special talent that was natural, magical, unattainable and beyond mere mortals. So we graduated and were faced with uncomprehending family members who wondered why they wasted their cash sending us to school for this. My friend switched to another field altogether and has told me to mention on these blogs (I recently asked her for her input now since she was so disgusted with what happened with our major and there are now forums to speak about the problem in) that she felt she was naive and really regretted selecting language as a major and that the professors discouraged us from persuing the language as a career. Keep in mind that this language is one of the “critical needs” languages in our country.
When I went on to get my Master’s degree in an unrelated field at a local university much later, I found my growing interest in East Asia clashing with the Eurocentric curriculum, but the clincher to quit was listening to the other students connive to get through the classes with the least amount of work possible, to basically do no work and just get their piece of paper to show employers. They weren’t interested in learning or in any of the topics offered. So I decided that it was better to quit, work hard, and actually have the knowledge than to pretend to be a student, learn nothing and proudly have my Master’s degree to display. Because my BA is in a foreign language and I have access to some of the best teaching theory in the state through my literacy volunteer work, designing my independent study plan was no hard thing, and in less than four years I can read simple real-world Chinese books with a dictionary and can understand about 50% of the dialogue in Chinese TV shows. The HSK serves as quite a good measure of skill in place of a degree, even if it only measures written/listening skills (why would people think a written test would have any bearing on oral proficiency is beyond me) and it’s really hard. I only see my reading/speaking tutor about once every few months, and that’s only been since I’ve been preparing to take the test last year. My first two years were completely on my own with textbooks and an occasional tutor to help with my writing skills. Now, I do like to listen to class lectures in person and really enjoyed an anthropology lecture given at a local museum last year, but I think the universities do have to worry because, unless they start making what they’re doing relevant, more people are going to feel like my college buddy and I and think the universities are as much a part of the problem as they are a solution to the need for foreign language skills. Maybe a little outside competition will force them to reform. That can only be a good thing.
Haa! O..O..wonderful. My apologies for taking so long to post, guys; I could have provided some (apparently) still needed insight to the status of this individual, as well as put a few people at ease. Ken, you were appropriately circumspect in granting Doc’s comments the kind of validity he clearly reserves for himself. Aunty Sue, your instincts are quite sharp, and your moderation admirable.
Mr. Necessiter moved me to post in Latin some (I think you will agree with me) “mild” words obliquely illustrating the potentially incestuous relationship of some professors to the university (which tenure nurtures). I preface my translation with the nugatory scolastic point that the poem, as we have it, is incomplete and has been variously rendered (this point attributes to my choice of quotes a slightly greater degree of subtlety). For your delectation—my passage, and his retort:
“Aufillena, to live content with one man alone is praise and, indeed, the highest praise–among wives: But it is far better to spread yourself around, than to be a mother giving birth to cousins (brothers) from your uncle.”
His riposte, from the works of the same poet:
“Your ass is cleaner than a salt-cellar, you do not shit ten times in an entire year.”
Actually, i love this line (even use it on my Myspace sometimes), but he grants me far too much favor. I assure you that is not true. You may all get a sense of the tone, however. Reference to conditions has been eschewed; bludgeoning with purile humor is attempted (shame on you, mr. Necessiter—Catullus deserves better. Well, not really). So, on we go…
“I fuck you in the ass and in the mouth,
pillow-biting Aurelius and wanton Furius,
who thought because of my little verses
i was a bit soft and insufficiently modest (chaste).”
Strangely, i never heard this from my professors. Could be the bible-belt effect…no…
After that he digresses into pidgin for some prose composition exercises curiously fixated on another kind of orality (Mentula, verpa are about as graphic as Latin comes), and, unsurprisingly, Ken, he turns to you (and who could resist his advances).
Following which…(roughly) he suggests that you (Ken and Jenny) may whore either for or with him. Subtle, indeed, sir.
Put this to rest. If you think the Chinabounder caused a stir, wait till there is a multi-continental search in defense of Jenny.
何谓知言-日-诐辞-知其所蔽-淫辞-知其所陷-邪辞-知其所离
人焉廋哉-人焉廋哉
I never expected such a hostile reaction to my comments. I most certainly touched on a raw nerve with some people, and for that I should offer some kind of apology maybe. But human nature is predictable, people fear and resist change and so the follow-up posts by the poddies seem to reflect this.
If I may be so bold as to offer an analogy, perhaps this will clarify the true meaning of real life language learning versus podcasting. I view podcasting as an “alternative learning method” which is analogous to the situation of “alternative lifestyle relationships” where sexual orientation was traditionally viewed as a “perversion of the normal” similar to how podcasting has perverted language instruction from the norm, sugar-coating it as a “new, innovative learning technology”. By the way, homosexuals never tried to “sugar-coat” their lifestyle (unless staying in the closet qualifies as such).
However, perhaps podcasting will follow the same route as homosexuality in society, heaven forbid. Social norms evolve where the “alternative lifestyle” is initially feared and attacked, but over time becomes “reluctantly accepted”, eventually settling in a niche within some remote corner of society.
I think the chinesepod pseudo-academic system will follow the same pattern, something like how chiropractors evolved from
“non-acceptable pseudo-science” to “accepted institutionalised medical practice” without any empirical evidence to support such a discipline.
In closing, I think the Chinese say it best “Failure is the motherf of success”. And these words of wisdom should become embedded within the chinesepod logo. Because, I really do have an inkling of faith that you will succeed.
Professor Necessiter, Ph.D
啊哟!
How do you say: “Please don’t feed the trolls”?
How do you say: “Please don’t feed the trolls”?
“Qing bie wei mogui”
“people fear and resist change”-Necessiter
My thoughts exactly. The change is towards harnessing technology to advance teaching. That being said, who is the one who is afraid here?
Just to be pedantic The university is spelt ‘Westminster’ and not ‘Westminister’. I actually studied there and and spelt it that way for ages before being corrected. oops!
You mean it doesn’t rhyme with “Yes Minister”? Poo.