<p>OdysseyTigger – I am well aware of the contents of the thread, and I know everything you were saying was right in the purest sense. It’s clear busdriver does too.</p>
<p>I understand busdriver kept responding, saying “this is possible and that is possible” and that might have been frustrating, but my comment was that ultimately BD’s responses, while misguided, didn’t seem to be responding to anything but the relative brashness with which posts were being addressed. And I know the brashness stemmed from frustration – I’ve seen it on CC enough. What I believe might have worked better in a time like this (OdysseyTigger) is to recognize that a short, sweet, polite statement (or two or three) about why you were correct probably would have ended all this earlier – not a huge bunch of long, drawn out posts analyzing every way busdriver didn’t have a case; I’m saying to forget the sledgehammer because you’re smashing at not only a poster, but also a whole thread. This wasn’t a case of a debate on either end, but a case of posters getting mutually frustrated and drawing out a discussion that had nowhere to go.</p>
<p>In no way do I believe OdysseyTigger’s points weren’t valid, just that I think the long and drawn out posting wasn’t at all an effective way to end the discussion. I apologize if this sounds like I’m trying to preach how one should post on CC, but I’ve seen too many touched nerves threads that could have ended and possibly gotten back on track quicker if someone took a step to be a little polite – preferably the one who is on the attacking end.</p>
<p>Often people argue not because they have points to convey, but because they are frustrated. I again cringe that I am preaching this sort of thing to what I’m sure are intelligent posters, but I think this fact may have been overlooked. Hopefully these types of threads can be avoided on Harvard’s forum, which I’d wish to be a civil, productive and intellectual environment :)</p>
<p>There was no brashness for BD to respond to the first five times he opined in various ways that Harvard’s lack of rigor was the possible reason for its low ranking. As far as this “point” goes, it hadn’t been addressed by anyone in any manner. </p>
<p>The thread was long dead before I got out my “sledghammer”</p>
<p>There were no huge bunch of long drawn out posts, only one - which JHS followed up with a short and sweet post :“budriver, sorry, but what happened here was that you announced as fact something that sounded wrong and didn’t quite make sense, and it turned out that it WAS wrong and significantly misleading, to boot. What would end it would be you acknowledging that and apologizing for it…” with which BD agreed: “JHS, you’re absolutely right!”, and that appeared to tie a bow on the thread - until you untied it with your posts.</p>
<p>Which was a peculiar thing to do given your post above.</p>
<p>OT,
I feel that you still have not achieved satisfaction on this topic. I was trying to end this futile argument, even declaring you the winner and saying I’d never read any Harvard threads again (I lied, I was just trying to complete this to your satisfaction). I thought Mathboy’s spot on analysis would have taken care of the issue, but apparently not. If you would care to have a civil conversation about anything that is still bothering you, I would prefer that you send me a private message, that I would be happy to answer. I would greatly prefer to leave the one perceptive person who intuitively understood this situation, and the other thousand people who might waste their time reading this thread out of it. Good night.</p>
<p>OT, right I think a post like JHS’s was most in order. As you say, I think the thread was dead very early. The thing JHS’s post did not do was give what I’d call an assessment of the situation – why did this argument go on when it’s relatively clear everyone knew what was up. I agreed that your points were all correct, and that doesn’t go against the spirit of JHS’s last post; however, I do like to make a fair assessment of what <em>actually</em> was going on in a thread, because there is usually more going on than arguments followed by refutations on a purely intellectual level. So quite on the contrary, this is a new thing I’m mentioning, hardly the same old argument as to who has the correct perspective.</p>
<p>For the last few decades, I doubt that Ph.D.s have had the luxury of choosing where to teach. The top Ph.D.s may prefer to work at a research university, but they seldom get to choose where they will be hired. I know some Princeton, Harvard, Yale Ph.D.s who have been teaching at tier 4 schools or community colleges, some who are teaching in high schools–and it was not necessarily the choice they would have made when they received their Ph.D. Others left academia altogether, whether because they could not land a job, were worried about their long term prospects, or were lured by higher salaries.
My S’s profs have run the gamut from greatly entertaining profs to one who is known to mumble to the blackboard. As well, it seems that many math departments hire new Ph.D.s for three years then let them go. Some of these new Ph.D.s are learning how to teach on the job, some have more experience or aptitude.</p>
<p>Marite: Right, by saying that some PhDs may “choose” to pursue tenure somewhere other than Harvard, I almost mean that it’s clear that it’s near impossible to attain tenure at such a school, so recent graduates of math departments may go elsewhere to seek their fortunes out, so that they may settle down more conceivably. </p>
<p>Your son’s experiences coincide much with my own in terms of how exciting professors have been. </p>
<p>Thanks for the insight though; I very much have told myself that I should keep all this in perspective as I go forward in my own education.</p>
<p>perhaps it is my own obtuseness, but I missed where it was clear “everyone” got it prior to JHS’s post. Certainly the post that preceded it did not seem that way to me - else there would have been no need for JHS’s post.</p>
<p>Thus while I believe I understand the “spirit” of what you are saying, the specifics you’ve presented don’t seem to comport with the record. But like I said, maybe that’s due to my own obtuseness.</p>
<p>In deference to BD, if you choose to enlighten me, do it with a PM.</p>