"… alt-grading skeptics in my experience are not acting like scholars, even if they have Ph.D’s. … Don’t throw research at people." That's a bit depressing, but you're right.
I don't mind people not acting like scholars 24:7. Humans are emotional creatures and to follow data 100% of the time strikes me as slightly robotic.
The mistake isn't in acting out of emotions in the first place, it's in presuming that emotions are just noise and we need a stronger signal -- more research and data -- to cut through. Both are important and you have to know which tactic to take when dealing with a live human being.
Obviously, this is just one person's experience here, but I have experienced more decisions out of "emotion and inertia" (as Robert put it) in academia than in other work and life spheres. We have a long row to hoe for alternative grading to take a significant foothold.
In one way of thinking, *all* decisions are made out of emotions and a certain degree of inertia (in the sense that we don't typically choose to do things that are off our present trajectory). The thing that can be annoying about academia is that we often *say* that we're all about scholarship and data but in fact, we are just like anybody else in that we make most of our decisions from the gut. There's nothing wrong with doing so, but sometimes I think we academics are not fully honest about how we think.
"… alt-grading skeptics in my experience are not acting like scholars, even if they have Ph.D’s. … Don’t throw research at people." That's a bit depressing, but you're right.
I don't mind people not acting like scholars 24:7. Humans are emotional creatures and to follow data 100% of the time strikes me as slightly robotic.
The mistake isn't in acting out of emotions in the first place, it's in presuming that emotions are just noise and we need a stronger signal -- more research and data -- to cut through. Both are important and you have to know which tactic to take when dealing with a live human being.
It might even be *because* they have Ph.D's.
Obviously, this is just one person's experience here, but I have experienced more decisions out of "emotion and inertia" (as Robert put it) in academia than in other work and life spheres. We have a long row to hoe for alternative grading to take a significant foothold.
In one way of thinking, *all* decisions are made out of emotions and a certain degree of inertia (in the sense that we don't typically choose to do things that are off our present trajectory). The thing that can be annoying about academia is that we often *say* that we're all about scholarship and data but in fact, we are just like anybody else in that we make most of our decisions from the gut. There's nothing wrong with doing so, but sometimes I think we academics are not fully honest about how we think.