“You should have failed this class. I’m going to make accommodations so that no student can pass next semester the same way you did.”
This is what my Ancient History II professor told me when my group and I got our final group project essay handed out.
What a terrible, hack of a teacher.
If you've ever said something like that to a student, quit your job.
Those people are the reason academia is such a miserable experience for so many.
Yep. The main reason I didn't further pursue History academia was that it was too much of a monoculture with a bit of nepotism sparkled all over it. Not to discard everyone there of course; there were some awesome courses and faculty. But there's no way I was going to dedicate my life to such environment with so little in return for it.
Nah, the teacher was just wrong about the facts. If they had been right about the facts, there's nothing wrong with saying that imo. The reality was that it was the partner who should have gotten that lecture rather than the author.
So I'd say that you shouldn't say that if you're relying on your own feelings and impressions to judge facts not in evidence, because your instincts may be wrong. They may even be racist or sexist (i.e. something that the person you're maligning has to deal with constantly), instead of in this case when it was just a weakness for ass-kissers.
Too many times somebody else got a good grade from my work. I don't begrudge them the grade because I don't care when other people get nice things for free (I love it when me or my friends get nice things for free), but they certainly had no knowledge in what had been taught in the class they just got a B in.
Those people are the reason academia is such a miserable experience for so many.
School isn't a therapy session or entertainment. If it's a miserable experience and you come out smart, it's 1000x better than if its a wonderful experience and you come out dumb.
That's a big if. I've learned far more from settings and courses I enjoyed than from ones I hated. I expect the causation flowed in both directions, and there's no way I'm unique in that regard.
So I'd say that you shouldn't say that if you're relying on your own feelings and impressions to judge facts not in evidence, because your instincts may be wrong.
That's exactly my point.
That teacher didn't have any facts, they just decided someone was a slacker based on vibes and used that bias to single them out.
And presumably would go on to add systems to allow them to persecute others they deem to be slackers.
School isn't a therapy session or entertainment. If it's a miserable experience and you come out smart, it's 1000x better than if its a wonderful experience and you come out dumb.
As someone who gets told he's smart somewhat regularly by his peers, and had a school mandated therapist because they thought he was a suicide risk, I believe that's a statement that needs a citation.
In any case they're not mutually exclusive, you can have an education system that works without grinding people down into lifelong anxiety disorders.
The structure of this post is a bit of a miss for me. Sorry about that. I wanted to write a short post about writing non-fiction but it turned out to be a bit longer than expected and I need to get to work now. I hope you enjoyed it.
It almost reads like the author climbed the tree to shake its branches and content himself with whatever dropped. Which in this case is fine by me.
To be honest what happened was that I tried to write a short introduction with both stories from university, they got way too long, then wrote the writing advice, and then tried to mix them both into a coherent post, then noticed the analogy of the trunk was a good anchor and remixed the article even more around that, and this is what we got. Still I enjoyed writing it.
There's always hope for a Part II. Maybe on rhetoric; which is what I interpreted "The second most important thing" to be about. But the concepts introduced there are entirely new to me so I may be off.
If university is truly miserable then multiple years of it are going to give you lifelong issues with learning and set you up for failure later in life.
I'm not saying it has to be sunshine and rainbows all the time, but if you actually genuinely hate it then that's a worse outcome than being a blank slate. A blank slate can pick up a book at 25 and go follow their interest down the rabbit hole, maybe even go to uni. If you had a bad first experience then good luck unlearning all of it and getting back to the point where you're excited about art history or whatever. I also don't believe you can find something miserable the entire time and come out smarter for it.
Problem with giving advice on writing is that quite often you end up going against your own advice in the very text you give that advice. But the main point stnds, you should indeed know what you want to say. Tell the audience what you are going to say, then say it, and tell them you said it.
Few observations:
1) it says for noj-fiction, but I think the trunk analogy is even more prescient in fiction. The Invisible Ink by Brian McDonald basically just hammers on this over and over again: know what you want to say and say it.
2) the author does not say it directly, but it is obvious that he learned to write the right way: by reading. You must read to be able to write. Just going througha few writing manuals won’t do, you must go the woods to find trees kemosabe. Fell in love with an author. Read all types of texts. Good writing is good writing.
As I understand it, the author was sharing the story to convince the audience he was a good writer and, thus, we should value his opinions on how to write non-fiction.
This was the intention. Originally it was more clear but I moved the other half of the story to the conclusion where it's even more evident that the stories were a way to build rapport and establish some kind of credibility.
I like these abrupt switches that tie-in later. Kind of like a b-roll but in text.
In history I noticed that articles tended to be introduced with some narrative that illustrated the central idea, then consolidated it through arguments that were in turn exemplified by historical facts and narrative, in order to end up explicitly stating the conclusion at the end. (This is a huge simplification but you get the idea). So for my essays I followed the same structure that the required reading had. That way I made sure that professors would like the style and pace.
The author was able to pass courses although the prof’s hated him thank to his skills as a writer and his style, which later allowed him to proceed to data engineering. The trunk here is explaining how he writes.
No you are not missing anything. This is a more recent bait-and-switch method of writing articles. I'm not sure where it comes from but if I had to be extra pessimist, I'd say it is a trope among failed writers. Sometimes they use narrative devices that work best in novels, but they end up being applied to normal every-day articles and the result is something that seems out of place.
Arguably if HN is to use LLMs to curate and administer submissions and comments (which it has been doing already), one would hope they can short-circuit this for all of us and scan the article/blog post, providing a summary directly underneath the submission/comment reply box. Reason being is, a lot of the time many paragraphs are spent belaboring one or two points that would best work in a tl;dr way and jump over these narrative passages, framings and backstories that serve very little to the points themselves.
"Knowledge has to be packed and unpacked. And in order to do that we increase and decrease the complexity in semantic waves. One key tool for packing is Nominalization, that helps the reader pack the knowledge they’ve received into a concept to be stored in memory. But if you only speak in tightly packed abstract concepts students get lost. And thus you drop down in abstraction and teach through examples, stories, images, that help students digest the contents."
Really? While reading I couldn't help but think about how I wish this article on writing well were... written well. That block quote loses me in the first sentence, I had to re-read it a few times.
"Good teaching requires alternating between two views, going up and down levels of detail. Sometimes you zoom out and give students one word for a big idea, calling a whole chain of events a "collapse." This 'Nomiinalization' lets them hold the idea in mind instead of the whole story. But summary words alone can lose students, the abstract loses meaning as details are forgotten. So you zoom back in with examples, stories, pictures, concrete cases. Those reinforce the idea of the summary word."
I like the trunk analogy, the branches can only grow so much before the tip the entire tree over.
I usually use the example of a blue sky. Write that the sky is blue. That's it. Simple yet the temptations to paint the sky with clouds, trees, and emotions is hard to resist. Always come back to the writing, and endure that you clearly wrote that the sky is just blue.
Yes please add an obvious method to go back to your homepage - I also attempted to click the circles to do that because there was no link or anything :) I was interested in checking out more of your writing and I had to change the URL to do that.
Your site isn't the only with this "feature" that I've seen lately, not sure what's up with this pattern.
Comments
What a terrible, hack of a teacher. If you've ever said something like that to a student, quit your job. Those people are the reason academia is such a miserable experience for so many.
Yep. The main reason I didn't further pursue History academia was that it was too much of a monoculture with a bit of nepotism sparkled all over it. Not to discard everyone there of course; there were some awesome courses and faculty. But there's no way I was going to dedicate my life to such environment with so little in return for it.
This is why when I taught in college I NEVER gave out group assignments.
I'm not trying to test whether the best student knows the material; I'm trying to test whether all the students know the material.
As the person who regularly carried such groups when I was in high school and college, I was especially sensitive to this.
Nah, the teacher was just wrong about the facts. If they had been right about the facts, there's nothing wrong with saying that imo. The reality was that it was the partner who should have gotten that lecture rather than the author.
So I'd say that you shouldn't say that if you're relying on your own feelings and impressions to judge facts not in evidence, because your instincts may be wrong. They may even be racist or sexist (i.e. something that the person you're maligning has to deal with constantly), instead of in this case when it was just a weakness for ass-kissers.
Too many times somebody else got a good grade from my work. I don't begrudge them the grade because I don't care when other people get nice things for free (I love it when me or my friends get nice things for free), but they certainly had no knowledge in what had been taught in the class they just got a B in.
School isn't a therapy session or entertainment. If it's a miserable experience and you come out smart, it's 1000x better than if its a wonderful experience and you come out dumb.
That's a big if. I've learned far more from settings and courses I enjoyed than from ones I hated. I expect the causation flowed in both directions, and there's no way I'm unique in that regard.
That's exactly my point. That teacher didn't have any facts, they just decided someone was a slacker based on vibes and used that bias to single them out. And presumably would go on to add systems to allow them to persecute others they deem to be slackers.
As someone who gets told he's smart somewhat regularly by his peers, and had a school mandated therapist because they thought he was a suicide risk, I believe that's a statement that needs a citation.
In any case they're not mutually exclusive, you can have an education system that works without grinding people down into lifelong anxiety disorders.
According to the story (which seemed to lack a "trunk"), the proposed system was individual essays.
It almost reads like the author climbed the tree to shake its branches and content himself with whatever dropped. Which in this case is fine by me.
To be honest what happened was that I tried to write a short introduction with both stories from university, they got way too long, then wrote the writing advice, and then tried to mix them both into a coherent post, then noticed the analogy of the trunk was a good anchor and remixed the article even more around that, and this is what we got. Still I enjoyed writing it.
There's always hope for a Part II. Maybe on rhetoric; which is what I interpreted "The second most important thing" to be about. But the concepts introduced there are entirely new to me so I may be off.
If university is truly miserable then multiple years of it are going to give you lifelong issues with learning and set you up for failure later in life.
I'm not saying it has to be sunshine and rainbows all the time, but if you actually genuinely hate it then that's a worse outcome than being a blank slate. A blank slate can pick up a book at 25 and go follow their interest down the rabbit hole, maybe even go to uni. If you had a bad first experience then good luck unlearning all of it and getting back to the point where you're excited about art history or whatever. I also don't believe you can find something miserable the entire time and come out smarter for it.
Problem with giving advice on writing is that quite often you end up going against your own advice in the very text you give that advice. But the main point stnds, you should indeed know what you want to say. Tell the audience what you are going to say, then say it, and tell them you said it.
Few observations: 1) it says for noj-fiction, but I think the trunk analogy is even more prescient in fiction. The Invisible Ink by Brian McDonald basically just hammers on this over and over again: know what you want to say and say it. 2) the author does not say it directly, but it is obvious that he learned to write the right way: by reading. You must read to be able to write. Just going througha few writing manuals won’t do, you must go the woods to find trees kemosabe. Fell in love with an author. Read all types of texts. Good writing is good writing.
Am I missing something or did the anecdote at the beginning have nothing to do with the rest?
As I understand it, the author was sharing the story to convince the audience he was a good writer and, thus, we should value his opinions on how to write non-fiction.
This was the intention. Originally it was more clear but I moved the other half of the story to the conclusion where it's even more evident that the stories were a way to build rapport and establish some kind of credibility.
I like these abrupt switches that tie-in later. Kind of like a b-roll but in text.
The author explains his form in the essay:
The author was able to pass courses although the prof’s hated him thank to his skills as a writer and his style, which later allowed him to proceed to data engineering. The trunk here is explaining how he writes.
No you are not missing anything. This is a more recent bait-and-switch method of writing articles. I'm not sure where it comes from but if I had to be extra pessimist, I'd say it is a trope among failed writers. Sometimes they use narrative devices that work best in novels, but they end up being applied to normal every-day articles and the result is something that seems out of place.
Arguably if HN is to use LLMs to curate and administer submissions and comments (which it has been doing already), one would hope they can short-circuit this for all of us and scan the article/blog post, providing a summary directly underneath the submission/comment reply box. Reason being is, a lot of the time many paragraphs are spent belaboring one or two points that would best work in a tl;dr way and jump over these narrative passages, framings and backstories that serve very little to the points themselves.
This is New Yorker style. Paint an elaborate scene and get to the point later on.
No. The New Yorker never gets to the point.
— Long time subscriber.
How should have the author written the article then for it to work better?
Well, isn't it related to writing ?
this is top tier writing. thanks for sharing
Really? While reading I couldn't help but think about how I wish this article on writing well were... written well. That block quote loses me in the first sentence, I had to re-read it a few times.
"Good teaching requires alternating between two views, going up and down levels of detail. Sometimes you zoom out and give students one word for a big idea, calling a whole chain of events a "collapse." This 'Nomiinalization' lets them hold the idea in mind instead of the whole story. But summary words alone can lose students, the abstract loses meaning as details are forgotten. So you zoom back in with examples, stories, pictures, concrete cases. Those reinforce the idea of the summary word."
Pyramid principle
This format probably resonates with somebody. But I learned how to write outlines in school and that has worked for me.
This is great advice. I suck at writing, usually getting started is the hardest part. Appreciate the blazed trail.
The assignment was a shared essay? Written together? And then the prof was, oh no a free loader?
I start with section headers, then subheadings, then fill in the details.
I like the trunk analogy, the branches can only grow so much before the tip the entire tree over.
I usually use the example of a blue sky. Write that the sky is blue. That's it. Simple yet the temptations to paint the sky with clouds, trees, and emotions is hard to resist. Always come back to the writing, and endure that you clearly wrote that the sky is just blue.
This is good blogging right here and sound advice for all writers on the web to follow.
But I'm a little disappointed that one of those ink blot looking circles (preferably the big one on the left) did not lead back to the home page.
OHHH THAT'S SUCH A GOOD IDEA. I'm going to add some interactivity to the circles
Yes please add an obvious method to go back to your homepage - I also attempted to click the circles to do that because there was no link or anything :) I was interested in checking out more of your writing and I had to change the URL to do that.
Your site isn't the only with this "feature" that I've seen lately, not sure what's up with this pattern.
I changed the '..' at the top with a '<-' to make it more noticeable. I also gave the dots some functionality :) thanks for the suggestion
it’s dead Jim