Comments on: Know-nothing ‘experts’

By: wahoofive

wahoofive — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:46:16 +0000

Kristof is of course a charter member of the right-wing noise machine, whose purpose is to discredit experts so they can enact their agenda even if experts say it won’t work. Global warming? Attack the experts. Need to stimulate the economy in a recession? Attack the experts. No WMD in Iraq? Attack the experts. Cutting taxes increases the deficit? Attack the experts.

Kristof is the least credible person on this topic I can imagine.

By: SuperSub

SuperSub — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:16:02 +0000

Darren-
And we can only hope that the rest of the world falls under the sway of his influence as much this nation has.

By: Darren

Darren — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:49:55 +0000

I read the final sentence and thought: this is how President Obama got elected.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:27:50 +0000

Seminar and convention speakers, the professional kind, usually have the congenial part down pretty well.
Substance…. Well, since they have to satisfy a couple of dozen different groups every year to make a living, the substance is either thin or not particularly applicable.

By: Dennis Fermoyle

Dennis Fermoyle — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:24:10 +0000

The most important difference between this one and many of the staff development presentations I’ve sat through during the years is that this one was “warmly delivered and full of jokes and interesting neologisms.” Some of the ones I’ve witnessed “had no point” and were “completely devoid of substance,” but I’m not sure whether or not that was by design.

By: a.b.y.phd

a.b.y.phd — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:15:13 +0000

The answer, of course, is to provide both; present high-quality information in an engaging manner. Best of both worlds.

By: stacy

stacy — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:55:01 +0000

To bad those educator didn’t use those “critical thinking skills” they’ve been teaching their students.

By: SuperSub

SuperSub — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:58:07 +0000

Well, this just demonstrates the misplaced trust in enthusiastic and charismatic educators.
If two teachers are observed, one, a no-nonsense teacher who constructs a solid lesson and expects students to respect them, and the other, an entertainer who puts a lot of effort into crafting interactive lessons, which will the observer give a better recommendation to?
If you’ve answered one or the other, that’s the problem. The question is whether the students actually gained anything of value in the lesson. This is what so many administrators fail to ask.

By: Amritas

Amritas — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:09:50 +0000

I learned this lesson a decade ago from Scott Adams:

http://web.mit.edu/jcb/humor/scott-adams-mgmt-consultant

By: Betty

Betty — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:26:57 +0000

It has been my experience that a confident, enthusiastic presenter can have an audience in the palm of his hand. At other times, an interactive lesson can fall flat. The personality of the teacher makes a big difference in how engaged the students actually are in the lesson. This applies to adults as well.